24-105 &/or 24-70

[ksuweh]

I have noticed some of you own both the 24-105 & a version of the 24-70. What is the purpose of having both? I am looking at possibly buying a copy of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM but I already have a EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM that I got in my 5DIII kit. If I were to own both the only reason I think that I might use the 24-105 over the 24-70 would be if I only wanted to take one lens & I might need a little extra reach. A low key day on vacation with nothing in particular to shoot comes to mind. Other than that why own both? Is that a good enough reason to justify owning both? Does anyone want to buy a gently used 24-105?? (on that last one I'm kidding....kinda)

Thanks in advance!

 

[Dylan777]

I just don't see the points keeping the 105 - period.

One less lens in the bag, more money in your pocket or take the wife out for dinner ;D

 

[Rob]

I have both, but I shoot Weddings & Portraits for a living and sometimes have a 2nd shooter who would use the 24-105 on my 5D2 & I use the 24-70 on my 5D3, I also have a 28-135 just in case. One thing I have learnt about shooting Weddings is to always have a backup, as I have had 2 lens's fail at the one Wedding before.

 

[robbymack]

Looking at your gear list I'd have to wonder why you'd actually need the 24-70ii unless your doing a lot of event work? even then I'd be happy with two bodies your 16-35 on one and the 70-200 on the other. Just my $0.02

 

[beckstoy]

I happened to purchase the 24-105 as a kit with my 5DM3, and I love it. The nice thing about the 24-7 is the f2.8, which you don't have in the 24-105.

Because I got the 24-105 first, I grew to love it. Now I have several primes and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM (which is amazing). I don't really find myself missing the 24-70 because I've got plenty of good lenses with f2.8 or better.

 

[seamonster]

If you have a 5d3 then your high iso is good enough that the extra stop isn't going to be a big revelation. Besides, you can get some sort of 50mm 1.4 AND the 24-105 for the same price as a 24-70. I don't own a 24-70 but I can say that aside from primes, I cannot bring myself to buy a lens that doesn't have IS, which is another factor.

 

[ksuweh]

Thanks for the replies guys!!

Looking at your gear list I'd have to wonder why you'd actually need the 24-70ii unless your doing a lot of event work? even then I'd be happy with two bodies your 16-35 on one and the 70-200 on the other. Just my $0.02

I don't do a lot of event work. I do some events on the side (two weddings & receptions in the last year) but this is more of a hobby for me than anything. A really expensive hobby!!

I happened to purchase the 24-105 as a kit with my 5DM3, and I love it. The nice thing about the 24-7 is the f2.8, which you don't have in the 24-105.

Because I got the 24-105 first, I grew to love it. Now I have several primes and the 70-200 f2.8 IS II USM (which is amazing). I don't really find myself missing the 24-70 because I've got plenty of good lenses with f2.8 or better.

I honestly do really like this lens. It is also my first FF standard zoom lens. My other standard zoom that I had was a 17-55 that I had for my 7D. Which I miss the 2.8 of that lens, which is why I'm considering purchasing the 24-70. I do a lot of nightscapes, which the 2.8 will definitely be welcome there.

If you have a 5d3 then your high iso is good enough that the extra stop isn't going to be a big revelation. Besides, you can get some sort of 50mm 1.4 AND the 24-105 for the same price as a 24-70. I don't own a 24-70 but I can say that aside from primes, I cannot bring myself to buy a lens that doesn't have IS, which is another factor.

Having IS on the new 24-70 would be nice.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have both, may sell the 24-105L. I suspect that a 'walkaround' shot from the 24-70 II at 70mm cropped would equal or beat the IQ of the 24-105 at 105mm (which is where the lens is weakest).

Actually, the utility I can see for the 24-105 is for portraits in a studio-type setting. While a 70mm image can be cropped, the perspective is not going to be the same as a shot at 105mm. The shot at 105mm will be a much more appropriate perspective for a tight portrait. In a studio setting, there's plenty of light and the background is controlled - so f/4 is fine.

 

[robbymack]

I'd take a hard look at the new tamron 24-70 in that case. It's saves you a grand over the canon and the IQ difference is very small. I personally had a hard time figuring out why id pay all that extra cash for a maybe 5-10% difference in IQ. My tamron is not perfect (nothing is) but it gets the job done better than my canon 24-70i, has IS, and I like the feel of an extra $1000 in my pocket.

 

[bholliman]

I'm debating the same thing. I own a 24-105 and am relatively happy with it, but from reading the reviews and hearing testimonials here, its clear that the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 II and Tamron 24-70 2.9 VC have superior IQ and sharpness. While this is just a hobby, I'd like to have the best equipment possible for what I shoot the most (landscapes, family and portraits).

Since I have a 70-200mm 2.8 II and 85mm 1.8, I have the 70-105 range covered (albeit with a lens change...). The vast majority of my pictures with the 24-105mm are landscapes at the wide end (24-35mm), with a scattering of shots at various other focal lengths. Not that many between 70 and 105.

I think I'll probably pull the trigger and purchase one of the 24-70's at some point, but I need to figure out which one first.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[FTBPhotography]

I just don't see the points keeping the 105 - period.

One less lens in the bag, more money in your pocket or take the wife out for dinner ;D

Always have a backup, but he mentioned he doesnt shoot professionally so that may be a invalid reason for him.

 

[FTBPhotography]

I have both, may sell the 24-105L. I suspect that a 'walkaround' shot from the 24-70 II at 70mm cropped would equal or beat the IQ of the 24-105 at 105mm (which is where the lens is weakest).

Actually, the utility I can see for the 24-105 is for portraits in a studio-type setting. While a 70mm image can be cropped, the perspective is not going to be the same as a shot at 105mm. The shot at 105mm will be a much more appropriate perspective for a tight portrait. In a studio setting, there's plenty of light and the background is controlled - so f/4 is fine.

Interesting, Ive always heard it sucked at 24.

 

[FTBPhotography]

If you have a 5d3 then your high iso is good enough that the extra stop isn't going to be a big revelation. Besides, you can get some sort of 50mm 1.4 AND the 24-105 for the same price as a 24-70. I don't own a 24-70 but I can say that aside from primes, I cannot bring myself to buy a lens that doesn't have IS, which is another factor.

My understanding is they were going for maximum IQ, so they 86'ed the IS. Although, the 70-200 2.8 mkII is super sharp, so IDK.

 

[bseitz234]

Interesting, Ive always heard it sucked at 24.

Has a lot of distortion at 24, but it gets softer at the long end. Different kinds of flaws.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Interesting, Ive always heard it sucked at 24.

Has a lot of distortion at 24, but it gets softer at the long end. Different kinds of flaws.

Yep...and while you can correct for distortion at the cost of some loss of corner sharpness, you can't correct for lost detail.

 

[Dylan777]

I just don't see the points keeping the 105 - period.

One less lens in the bag, more money in your pocket or take the wife out for dinner ;D

Always have a backup, but he mentioned he doesnt shoot professionally so that may be a invalid reason for him.

That's why he should sell his 24-105 if he decided to get mrk II.

Invalid when you have too many lenses with similar focal range and not getting use. mrk II will out perform 105 at any focal range, including crop in PP to get 105 look.

 

[ksuweh]

My mind is made up! Thanks for all the comments & help! I am going to get ride of the 24-105 & buy a 24-70 MArk II. I have a 24-70 Mark II coming as a CPS loan to try it out in May......I might not even make it to May before I buy one! HAHA

 

[robbymack]

I just don't see the points keeping the 105 - period.

One less lens in the bag, more money in your pocket or take the wife out for dinner ;D

Always have a backup, but he mentioned he doesnt shoot professionally so that may be a invalid reason for him.

Invalid when you have too many lenses with similar focal range and not getting use. mrk II will out perform 105 at any focal range, including cropping in PP to get 105 look.

Ah that just solves the zoom problem but gives up the perspective. I see a value for both, if nothing else the 24-105 makes a great one lens travel solution.

 

[robbymack]

My mind is made up! Thanks for all the comments & help! I am going to get ride of the 24-105 & buy a 24-70 MArk II. I have a 24-70 Mark II coming as a CPS loan to try it out in May......I might not even make it to May before I buy one! HAHA

Don't say that too loud, you'll get the pro who thinks CPS is only for them in a tizzy. I'm sure you'll be happy, until of course the next object of desire comes out with a thin red line on the end

 

[Dylan777]

My mind is made up! Thanks for all the comments & help! I am going to get ride of the 24-105 & buy a 24-70 MArk II. I have a 24-70 Mark II coming as a CPS loan to try it out in May......I might not even make it to May before I buy one! HAHA

Let get ready to sell that 35L too, once mrk II arrived ;D