# 6D kit lens 24-105 F4L or 24-70Mark 1



## Marine03 (Sep 30, 2012)

Let me say I know the Mark 2 is better in every way then the Mark1 but I have to scrape together money for the 6D body let alone a 2K lens. So I'd debating weather I buy the 6D kit or just body and a 24-70mk 1

If it helps people answer... I don't' pixel peep or anything crazy, I'm in the group that if 90% of the population who are not photogs think it looks good then that's all I need.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 30, 2012)

6D kit. As good as the 24-70 II is, the primes still have an aperture/speed advantage. The 24-105 is a good value play and you can always supplement it with primes later.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 30, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> Let me say I know the Mark 2 is better in every way then the Mark1 but I have to scrape together money for the 6D body let alone a 2K lens. So I'd debating weather I buy the 6D kit or just body and a 24-70mk 1
> 
> If it helps people answer... I don't' pixel peep or anything crazy, I'm in the group that if 90% of the population who are not photogs think it looks good then that's all I need.


Get the kit. Its a bargain. The Mark I is overpriced, and used 24-70mm L MK I lenses are nortorious for problems. Roger Cicala of lens rentals has found some apparent reasons for problems with 24-70mmL lenses with high usage.
I have had several used 24-70mm Mk I lenses that were not very impressive, they just did not seem to be as good as they should be.
Personally, paying a very high price for a used one might lead to grief. If its been inspected / repaired by Canon, its likely OK. Lens Rentals does do a resolution test on their used lenses before they sell them, so thats a fairly safe bet.


----------



## pierceography (Sep 30, 2012)

24-70mm. Love mine, and fits a lot better in a lineup - 24-70mm, 70-200mm.

24-105mm is a nice lens, but if you ever get a 70-200mm, you'll probably trade the 105 for a 70.


----------



## christianronnel (Sep 30, 2012)

I have used both lenses and kept the 24-70. At f4, the 24-70 is noticeably sharper without pixel peeping, particularly at longer focal lengths. You also don't need IS at these focal range unless you're using it for video. The f2.8 is better for faster shutter speed and the viewfinder is much brighter. The 24-105 also suffers from zoom creep which can get very annoying during use. As for the 24-70II, the review from photozone states that at 70mm, mk1 is sharper. So it depends on your shooting style. Perhaps the mk2 is better for landscapes but the mk1 is better for portraiture.

Don't forget that there's also a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 with image stabilization.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 30, 2012)

christianronnel said:


> I have used both lenses and kept the 24-70. At f4, the 24-70 is noticeably sharper without pixel peeping, particularly at longer focal lengths. You also don't need IS at these focal range unless you're using it for video. The f2.8 is better for faster shutter speed and the viewfinder is much brighter. The 24-105 also suffers from zoom creep which can get very annoying during use. As for the 24-70II, the review from photozone states that at 70mm, mk1 is sharper. So it depends on your shooting style. Perhaps the mk2 is better for landscapes but the mk1 is better for portraiture.
> 
> Don't forget that there's also a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 with image stabilization.



In general, I feel the 24-105 is a better walk around lens for most purposes. The only place I feel the IS on a 24-70 would be useful is in very low light conditions where even with the 5d3 I sometimes find myself struggling to keep my shutter speed up. At f/2.8 that could help, but if I could keep the shutter speed the same while increasing the aperture that often would be better for a lot of my shots. At some of those shutter speeds, the IS really could help for hand shaking. I'm actually pretty impressed by the 24-105's IS, I've managed to get some 1/6 shutter shots that were pretty sharp at 70+mm. Not amazingly awesome, but what I consider usable.


----------



## MarioMachado (Sep 30, 2012)

where can you get a 24 - 70 MK I ? 
I do have the kit lens, its good but I love the f2.8 , and when you get the 70 - 200 2.8, you will want the 24 - 70 2.8 too...


----------



## Rokkor 58mm 1.2 (Oct 1, 2012)

I bought my 24-70 2.8 L mk1 last February when the mk2 lens was announced, before the demand and prices shot up on the mk1. I was very lucky, as I think I have a very good copy, and really love it's overall performance.
After using it awhile however, it became clear that it's a very heavy lens, and not the best for walking around with it in hand or around the neck all day. I decided that I wanted a high IQ midrange zoom for general use, but not one that's so heavy, so I picked up a 24-105 4 L IS. It was a great choice. It's very good with out being so heavy. In fact, I think the two lenes compliment each other very well. The 24-105 works as a walkaround lens outside where the light is usually fine, and the 24-70 shines for indoor/low-light and great bokeh.
My advise is to go with the 24-105 kit lens, as you will get a sweet deal with the 6D body, and its an excellent general purpose walkaround lens. If you find a good deal on a 24-70 mk1 or mk2, you can add it to your collection later.


----------



## preppyak (Oct 1, 2012)

And cost is a consideration as well as availability. The 24-105 is gonna come for $800 brand new with your kit, with a full 1-year warranty. The 24-70 is gonna come used with no warranty, and with a history of having some problems. If you get a well used copy, you are paying $1100-1200, if you want one that is as pristine as your 24-105 will be, you're looking at $1300+. 

Personally, I'd rather get the 24-105 and use that extra cash to get a prime for those low-light situations, as you could easily get the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, etc for that extra money


----------



## zim (Oct 1, 2012)

I’d be looking to get the 24-105 a kit lens at the reduced price is always a good deal and the 24-105 has such a good walkabout range but here’s the thing I’m not sure about and the reason I’m looking forward to the 6D being tested, I believe that the sort of people that will be considering the 6D are F4 lens buyers not F2.8. My understanding of the AF on this camera is that the centre point only works at it’s best at F2.8 + (if that’s wrong please please correct me!) so given that the kit lens is F4 I really hope AF testing is done with F4 lenses.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Oct 1, 2012)

Since money is a consideration, the 24-105 in kit form wins hands down. Especially considering the high ISO capabilities of the 6D.

If you later discover that you really need that extra stop, you can sell the 24-105 for at least as much as you paid for it, and maybe even a modest profit.

Another option to consider: the new Tamron 24-70 with image stabilization. Reports are that it's between the original and new Canon versions of the lens in terms of image quality, plus it's got stabilization. However, there're also reports that they had some production line process problems with the first batch, so you might want to hesitate before pulling the trigger.

The scales are pretty well balanced between all these lenses; you're not going to go worng, regardless. You're most likely going to wish you had more speed regardless, even if you go with an f/2.8 lens...and that's something you can only solve with the addition of a fast prime.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 1, 2012)

I say get the 24-70 refurbed from Canon for 1100. I love mine, no issues whatsoever, in fact this weekend it made me money.


----------

