24-70 or 24-105

[Haydn1971]

Recently bought myself a 6D, stepped out a few days later and picked up a 16-35mm, I held off the 24-xx lens as I'm unsure what I really want or need. So I've a 16-35, a 50 (f1.4), a 135L and a 70-300 non L

I like the idea of IS and reach on the 24-105, but can't help but feel I'd get buyers remorse if I got that over the 24-70, so struggling and coming to the conclusion that I'd like to have both... But which first, would the step from 24-105 to a 24-70 be so small I'd get buyers remorse, would a reverse of this make me feel I'd got more in the IS & 71-105 extra reach ?

Help !!!!

 

[victorwol]

Well, the 24-70 if you mean the new IS which is also f4 is a much newer and I understand also sharper than the 24-105... So I would go for the 24-70... I got the 24-70 f2.8 II and going to sell my 24-105 since I don't use it anymore. Bought it thinking will do much video with it and the reality is I don't. I rather personally have a 2.8 non than a f4 IS

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I see no advantage for the 24-70 f/4 IS over the 24-105mmL IS. Sharpness is identical, weight is lower, but cost is higher. I guess having a near macro setting would be one advantage, but not enough to offset the higher price. Any additional distortion in the 24-105mm L is quickly and easily removed in all competent software.

 

[Haydn1971]

To clarify, I'm talking about the. 24-70mm f2.8 not the f4 IS, which as said above, although I'm interested in this lens, I'm struggling to see the advantage over the 24-105

 

[RLPhoto]

You have everything covered in my book. Wide, normal and tele. If you want all three in a lens, only the 24-105L truly does that well for less $$$.

 

[Random Orbits]

I'd hold off and see what develops in the next year while you get used to FF. When traveling, I carry the 16-35, 50 and 70-200, so what you have now would work well.

If you do decide that you'd rather have a mid-range zoom now, I'd favor a used 24-105. It won't lose much value while you keep it and will act as a deposit for whichever replacement you would want in the future.

 

[AudioGlenn]

+1 vote for the 24-70 2.8 II

I sold my 24-105 this year (at about $163 loss for about 10 months worth of use). I liked it but it didn't wow me. It was a very versatile lens and I especially liked it for daytime shooting but I'm much happier with the 24-70 2.8 II IQ. It's much sharper and I find I use it at 2.8 90% of the time. If I only care one lens, it's usually this one. For casual use, when I had the 24-105, I found myself carrying a prime lens or two just in case I needed the low light capabilities.

 

[infared]

Well, the 24-70 if you mean the new IS which is also f4 is a much newer and I understand also sharper than the 24-105... So I would go for the 24-70... I got the 24-70 f2.8 II and going to sell my 24-105 since I don't use it anymore. Bought it thinking will do much video with it and the reality is I don't. I rather personally have a 2.8 non than a f4 IS

I agree...I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L II as well..but did it a little differently...I sold my 24-105mm way back in the spring in anticipation of the highly touted 24-70mm f/2.8L II...which was delayed......and delayed....and then available at a price that I gagged at! LOL.
I struggled with whether to buy the 24-70mm f/2.8L II...because of the mixed reviews and the cost...I had my primes...but sometimes you just want to shoot confidently with an all-around zoom.
The 24-105mm is a very good lens...especially at it current price.......but I wanted more so finally I relented and purchased the 24-70mm f/2.8L II (right BEFORE the $250 holiday discount...LOL)...
I am very pleased with this lens...it is nice to be able to shoot at f/2.8 and get shallower DOF. The lens is VERY sharp..and the build quality is tighter than the 24-105. I do occasionally miss the extra reach of the 105mm...but I am happy with my decision...This is a great lens....

 

[JPAZ]

I've been pretty happy with the 24-105 as a walkabout. It was a close substitute for the 15-85 I had with my crop before going FF. Primes as a rule are going to be better, but I can walk all day with a 17-40 and 24-105 and be happy. I've thought about going 24-70 since I have a 70-200 (and am thinking about changing to 70-300), but there is a downside to changing lenses in the field, especially if it is a dusty environment. I guess you could get both ( ) and carry what you think you'd need on a given day.......

As a serious thought, you could look at the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC. Some feel it is optically pretty good at less $$ than the Canon, though I've never handled it.

 

[infared]

As a serious thought, you could look at the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC. Some feel it is optically pretty good at less $$ than the Canon, though I've never handled it.

After reading this article I for one, could never even consider the Tamron. No way.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

 

[Haydn1971]

Folks, not looking for a 70-xxx, I shoot wide and portrait mainly - the 135L suits my "L" telephoto needs just fine ;-)

 

[infared]

Folks, not looking for a 70-xxx, I shoot wide and portrait mainly - the 135L suits my "L" telephoto needs just fine ;-)

Oh...My bad...Jpas brought the Tamron 70-200mm into the conversation? I misread it ...I thought, because of the tight topic here, that he was mentioning the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC. The Tamron 70-200 is irrelevant in this conversation...sorry I compounded the error.
The link that I sighted was regarding the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC, which is certainly in the realm of this discussion.

 

[Haydn1971]

I tend to share the view of TDP on this one, why buy into a system like Canon who are in the business of "glass", then go buy a 3rd party lens - I can understand with basic DSLR's or specific lenses that canon don't do, like the 200-500 f2.8, but a 3rd party 24-70 or 70-200 just strikes me as odd when the Canon options are so good.

 

[JPAZ]

"Oh...My bad...Jpas brought the Tamron 70-200mm into the conversation? I misread it ...I thought, because of the tight topic here, that he was mentioning the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC. The Tamron 70-200 is irrelevant in this conversation...sorry I compounded the error.
The link that I sighted was regarding the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC, which is certainly in the realm of this discussion."


No, MY BAD. :-\ :-\ Sorry 'bout the momentary brain death, but I did mean Tamron 24-70. I mistyped 70-70 then corrected the wrong digits! We all have senior moments........

So, Maybe look at the Tamron 24-70? Sorry, and yes, I did read the comments from lensrentals.

JP

 

[dswatson83]

I have the 24-105 f/4 IS, the new 24-70 f/4 IS (just got it today), and the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. I'll be testing all of these lenses over the next few days and will put out a review with the results. Stay tuned...
Review will be on the website http://www.learningcameras.com as well as on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/learningcameras

 

[Lord_Zeppelin]

I have the Tamron 24-70/2.8 and a 6D, and I love the combo, save for one thing - My lens is currently on it's way back to Tamron for a firmware upgrade, as there seems to be a bug between the 6D and the lens that allows the lens to draw power even if the 6D is switched completely off.

I was getting battery drain at the rate of 4% per hour with the Tamron attached. If I put my Canon 50mm/1.4 on, it doesn't drain at all. (before anyone says it, the wifi/gps are all off)

When the lens isn't draining the battery, it's a pretty wicked combo - focus is smooth, fast, and fantastic in low-light. The IQ is great across the range, better than the Canon 24-105L if you ask me.

 

[2trout]

I have both, although the 25-105 is a relatively new addition to my arsenal.
I love the 24-70, but find that the 25-105 seems to be a better walk around lens!

 

[dswatson83]

There is a review of the new 24-70 f/4 IS with a comparison with the older 24-105mm. That should help you out a little.
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/99-canon-24-70-f4-is-review