# Another standard zoom advice topic



## procentje20 (Aug 28, 2014)

So, ever since I got the 50mm and 85mm prime, I tend not to use my 24-70/2.8 because of its weight. I would love to take it along for the versatility of zooming. But together with the 5d3, its really cumbersome to haul it around.

So I've been looking at all the standard zoom options available today.

I think I have decided on two things. (Not sure yet)
1.) I don't need f2.8
2.) I need IS OS or equivalent in return.

I've been looking at Canons 24-70 IS and 24-105 IS. But there are way more lenses on the market.

I am able to buy a used 24-70 IS for €550,- (about 725 USD) but as I have been reading about bad copies, I'n not so sure if its a good idea. On paper, it would be the best choice. newer IS system, the lightest of them all.

Can anyone add some more confusion to my dilemma so I am sure I'm considering all the options here.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 28, 2014)

I would recommend a Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS that are going for between $600 and $800USD used on eBay, and new white box for around $900. If you can wait, there will probably be some deals on these in upcoming months as well. 

This is an excellent lens, sharp at both ends of the zoom range with 3-stop IS and near macro (0.7) capability.


----------



## tomscott (Aug 28, 2014)

The 24-105 for the price is a no brainer IMO. It is very similar in IQ to the 24-70 F4 24mm is softer but 50-70 is sharper. The Macro function is a gimic as you have to be so close to the subject your most likely to scare it away and you also get the 70-105mm extra reach.. and at about half the price. You can pick them up for £400-550 half the price of the 24-70 F4.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 28, 2014)

tomscott said:


> The 24-105 for the price is a no brainer IMO.



I agree. It's just such a good lens for the price. 

I'm a total freak for Primes, but this is one zoom I have/am keeping.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 28, 2014)

Are you limiting your options to only Canon lenses?


----------



## procentje20 (Aug 28, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Are you limiting your options to only Canon lenses?



Certainly not. But the Sigma 24-105 is about the weight of my current lens. So that didn't make any sense.

I have an offer on my 24-70 which is about what a new canon 24-105 will cost me. So I could trade my four year old lens for a new one. Hurray.

However, still not sure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2014)

tomscott said:


> The Macro function is a gimic as you have to be so close to the subject your most likely to scare it away



I haven't managed to scare away a flower, coin, or textile yet...if they run from you, it's likely they're scared of _you_ and not the lens! 

IMO, the issue with the close working distance is the lens blocking the light, which is already effectively reduced at higher mag.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 28, 2014)

procentje20 said:


> So, ever since I got the 50mm and 85mm prime, I tend not to use my 24-70/2.8 because of its weight. I would love to take it along for the versatility of zooming. But together with the 5d3, its really cumbersome to haul it around.
> 
> So I've been looking at all the standard zoom options available today.
> 
> ...



I have the same problem, the only lighter standard zoom options are Canon 24-70 IS and 24-105 IS. All others that offer good IQ are havier


----------



## rs (Aug 28, 2014)

I'll probably get a knee-jerk reaction for saying this, but if you can somehow stretch to both afford and can carry it, the mk II version of the 24-70/2.8 is smaller, lighter (805g vs 950g), and has noticeably better IQ. If cost and weight is an issue, my next port of call would be a white box Canon 24-105.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > The Macro function is a gimic as you have to be so close to the subject your most likely to scare it away
> ...



I have to do my garden shots with a 400mm :'( Dahlias and Daffodils quake in my presence.


----------



## kkelis (Aug 29, 2014)

Tamron 24-70 vc ?


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 29, 2014)

I agree with others. For the price, the 24-105 is great. What IQ limitations might exist are minimal and are easily "fixed" in post. It is my most used lens.


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 29, 2014)

Do you find yourself switching a lot from your 24-70 zoom to your 85 prime for the additional reach? If so, that would be another vote for the 24-105, in addition to the other recommendations already posted.

I'm on my second 24-105, and really appreciate the extra reach beyond 70mm. (I also have 50- and 100mm primes.)


----------



## procentje20 (Sep 2, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> Do you find yourself switching a lot from your 24-70 zoom to your 85 prime for the additional reach? If so, that would be another vote for the 24-105, in addition to the other recommendations already posted.
> 
> I'm on my second 24-105, and really appreciate the extra reach beyond 70mm. (I also have 50- and 100mm primes.)



The difference in framing from 70 to 85mm is usually the same as taking two steps forward. Normally 70mm is fine for a portrait, and with the MP count on the 5d3 you can always crop the sides off an image. So that is no issue. The basic choice between the 24-70 and 24-105 is price and quality. A stop more stabilization and the latest in lens tech might out way the price difference.


----------



## andrewflo (Sep 4, 2014)

kkelis said:


> Tamron 24-70 vc ?



That was going to be my recommendation but he said he's looking for something lighter weight. The Tamron weighs almost as much as the Canon f/2.8 Mk I


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 5, 2014)

Tough call...

I liked the 24-105L when I had it, and made some of my favorite photos from it. Not particularly sharp but consistent. I tended to use mine @ 105mm alot and its cheap as chips second hand.

The 24-70 F/4L is a lens I loved to rag on because of its ludicrous price. Now that the price has been dropped, If your more interested in Macro and can sacrifice the extra reach, It's worth the money.


----------

