24-70 f/2.8L vs. 24-105 f/4L

[UrbanImages]

I need some opinions. I currently own a 24-105 f/4L that I switch between a 5D II and a 60D. I do a lot of night photography with low lights and it doesn't seem up to par. Anyone feel that selling it and replacing it with the 24-70 is a good move? And I'm not looking at the Mark II either. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

[neuroanatomist]

Look at your EXIF to see if one stop will make enough difference.  Personally, I use the 35mm f/1.4L as a nighttime walkaround lens on my 5DII.

[dirtcastle]

As I see it, the 24-70mm f/2.8 L is a good option for indoor low light situations. I'm considering it myself. I find the 24-105mm practically useless indoors without a flash.

For outdoor at night, I would also prefer a prime in the f/1.2 to f/1.8 range. But it is true that good ISO performance can get you a few extra stops.

I'm also considering the 35mm f/1.4 L, but more for the IQ, bokeh, and low distortion (compared to my 16-35mm f/2.8 L II), than for its low light performance.

One thing to consider... let's say that you need an f/2.8 depth of field... well, then your ability to shoot in low light is primarily going to be a function of ISO and IS. That's something to think about. Just because you have a wide aperture, doesn't mean that the resulting depth of field will suit your needs.

[JesseG]

I'd agree that a fast prime would be a better choice considering you already have a great lens with more versatility than the 24-70L.

[JesseG]

I'd also look at the Sigma 28-75.
There's some variability between copies, but if you get a good one, you're lucky and still have $800 in your pocket.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2GNWJ4M60OFY0/ref=cm_srch_res_rtr_alt_1

[MikeHunt]

I need some opinions. I currently own a 24-105 f/4L that I switch between a 5D II and a 60D. I do a lot of night photography with low lights and it doesn't seem up to par. Anyone feel that selling it and replacing it with the 24-70 is a good move? And I'm not looking at the Mark II either. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

I have a 24-70mm Mk I on a 7D and I still use it at night, instead of reaching for my 50 f/1.4. See video below that reviews performance of EF 24-70mm f/2.8L at midnight:

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L hands-on review	Small | Large

[UrbanImages]

I should've also added that I do a lot of fire photography where there isn't always adequate available light. I do have the 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2.8 macro that I use for regular shooting which I do just as much of. I have found that many times the 24-105 doesn't cut it at an f stop of 4. I have considered using a prime on one camera and a zoom on the other, but the limits on how close one can get to take effective photographs varies.

[dirtcastle]

You just answered your question, I think.

If you have primes and they don't get the job done, then you would probably be better suited with an f/2.8 zoom and high ISO performance. You might consider your post-processing technique as well, to reduce artefacts in dark areas when you boost fill/exposure/brightness.

[Rob Wiebe]

Good comparison here:  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

[briansquibb]

I need some opinions. I currently own a 24-105 f/4L that I switch between a 5D II and a 60D. I do a lot of night photography with low lights and it doesn't seem up to par. Anyone feel that selling it and replacing it with the 24-70 is a good move? And I'm not looking at the Mark II either. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

Can you define more clearly what is wrong?

I regularly shoot at night with the 24-105 - providing there is an area of contrast then AF works fine.

ISO and aperture only impact shutter speed so the other suggestions of other lens will only impact shutter speeds.