24-70 or 24-105

[daniemare]

Hi All

I am sure this topic has been posted in the past, but I cannot find it. Twinning to my post under "Bodies" category regarding switching to full frame, I also need some input on deciding what lens to get, as my current lenses are crop only.

Current Lenses:
Used Most: Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS - Love this lens and use it the most. F2.8 and OS is great but I sometimes feel the reach is not enough (especially trying to get that isolated portrait). I will probably keep this attach to the Rebel as a backup

Somewhat used: Tokina 11-16 F2.8 - Must say, the 24mm end on both these lenses will probably be satisfactory at the wide end. And the F2.8 was rarely used for outside landscapes. Will probably sell.

Primes (at least these will work)
50mm F1.4 - I am looking forward getting more use out of this one on full frame
28mm F1.8

So I am mainly thinking of trying to replace the Sigma like-for-like.
The 24-70 matches in F stop, but loses the IS and is 10mm shorter in reach (which was already a limitation on the Sigma)
The 24-105 has the IS and additional reach which is appealing but loses 1 stop of light. But it is lighter smaller and would be bundled to my purchase.

So from experience using these lenses, should I be overly concerned about the F4. Will I get decent OoF areas on it especially for potrait isolation?
Indoors I guess I can always go for one of the primes if need be.

Opinions welcome thanks

 

[K-amps]

For portrait isolation consider a 135 f2 L. There are few lenses that do what the 135 can for that application at that price range. The amount of OOF Blur goes up with a longer lens for the same framing/F stop value.

Between the 24-70 and 24-105... you can wait 2-3 weeks and see if there's an announcent for the 24-70 mk.ii if not and you are tight on the budget, get the 24-105 f4, and then use some PP to get you some more OOF blur if that's very important to you. You won't have to PP every shot, just the few you deem worth it.

Many people have had "bad copies" of the 24-70mm to make it a recommendation, but it is F2.8, so it depends what you like. There are guys out there that love the 24-70 (good copies?) but it is an older model and should be replaced soon hopefully.

You choose what you are comfortable with.... personally I don't think the 24-105 will give you a lot of OOF blur... it will do some though.

 

[CowGummy]

I'm in a similar position myself and am leaning towards the 24-105, as mentioned above: the 24-70 is due for an update shortly and I'm hoping that as a result of this the current version might be offered at a reduced price. Also, IS can be very handy in a lot of situations.

 

[daniemare]

For portrait isolation consider a 135 f2 L. There are few lenses that do what the 135 can for that application at that price range. The amount of OOF Blur goes up with a longer lens for the same framing/F stop value.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am focussing on zoom lenses as I will be using it in the same manner as the Sigma 17-50 - main travel lens. Now the Sigma definitely did not reduce the background to a total blur (even at F2.8), I am just trying to find out if the F4 with the longer focal length (70mm+) and full frame combination will at least match that???

 

[K-amps]

For portrait isolation consider a 135 f2 L. There are few lenses that do what the 135 can for that application at that price range. The amount of OOF Blur goes up with a longer lens for the same framing/F stop value.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am focussing on zoom lenses as I will be using it in the same manner as the Sigma 17-50 - main travel lens. Now the Sigma definitely did not reduce the background to a total blur (even at F2.8), I am just trying to find out if the F4 with the longer focal length (70mm+) and full frame combination will at least match that???

A lot of factors come into play here... I don't know your crop factor, subject distances etc. So cannot come up with a definitive answer, however if you know the scenarios, you can plug in the variables in a dof calculator here: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html to get an idea of the amount of blur for different lenses/ bodies: (go to the bottom of the page for the calculator: )

you can also download the application from this page: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html

alternatively here's another calculator: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


hope this helps!

 

[wickidwombat]

well I have the 24-105 and typically i find i rarely shoot wide anyway, group shots of people f5.6 to f8
landscapes or buildings architecture f8-f16.

even shooting portraits at f4 it's pretty good at least you dont risk utterly messing up focus, its really an awesoem all round lens, if i want faster in that range i will typically use my 50 f1.4 or 16-35 f2.8 for more specific things however i rarely use my 16-35 at 2.8 its usually stopped down alot but IQ is amazing with this lens

 

[briansquibb]

well I have the 24-105 and typically i find i rarely shoot wide anyway, group shots of people f5.6 to f8
landscapes or buildings architecture f8-f16.

even shooting portraits at f4 it's pretty good at least you dont risk utterly messing up focus, its really an awesoem all round lens, if i want faster in that range i will typically use my 50 f1.4 or 16-35 f2.8 for more specific things however i rarely use my 16-35 at 2.8 its usually stopped down alot but IQ is amazing with this lens

+1 Makes a super all round lens

The extra reach is important on ff

 

[elflord]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am focussing on zoom lenses as I will be using it in the same manner as the Sigma 17-50 - main travel lens. Now the Sigma definitely did not reduce the background to a total blur (even at F2.8), I am just trying to find out if the F4 with the longer focal length (70mm+) and full frame combination will at least match that???

The 24-105 f/4 on full frame is dof/fov-equivalent to 15mm-65mm f/2.5 on APS-C. So it should be quite a bit better on full frame (for shallow dof effect) than the Sigma is on APS-C.

The 24mm-70mm is a faster lens, but is also a little short for portraits. I don't own the 24-105mm but know its reputation and I think it would be a really solid choice as a travel lens. For portraits, it's a personal choice but on full frame if I had to use one of those lenses, I'd take 105mm f/4 over 70mm f/2.8.

 

[Loswr]

The 24-105 f/4 on full frame is dof/fov-equivalent to 15mm-65mm f/2.5 on APS-C. So it should be quite a bit better on full frame (for shallow dof effect) than the Sigma is on APS-C.

The 24mm-70mm is a faster lens, but is also a little short for portraits. I don't own the 24-105mm but know its reputation and I think it would be a really solid choice as a travel lens. For portraits, it's a personal choice but on full frame if I had to use one of those lenses, I'd take 105mm f/4 over 70mm f/2.8.

+1. I often phrase it as the converse, so OP's 17-50/2.8 has a FF equivalent of 27-80mm f/4.5, meaning the 24-105mm f/4 is wider, longer, faster (in terms of DoF for the same framing), and still has IS. That doesn't affect exposure, per se, but FF is has 1.3 stops less ISO noise, which can more than compensate for the stop of shutter speed.

The 24-105mm makes a great travel lens on FF. While the 24-70/2.8 is good for portraits, I'd recommend the 85mm f/1.8 instead - on FF, it's a great focal length for portraits, and the IQrice ratio of that lens is high (IMO it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup - pretty close to the 85mm f/1.2L II and 1/5 the cost).

 

[JR]

Reading this thread made me realize I really need the 24-105 as a general purpose lens. Just too bad it is one of the few lenses with no rebate currently

I guess I'll have to buy it full retail if I want one now, unless I wait and buy it as a kit with the 5D III - think not - will be too long!

 

[crjiro]

24-105L for video
24-70 for stills.

I believe the 24-70 is the top lens used by wedding photographers.
But, rumors keep mentioning an update on that lens. Personally, i would get the 24-105L as a general purpose lens to go with primes.

 

[00Q]

For portrait isolation consider a 135 f2 L. There are few lenses that do what the 135 can for that application at that price range. The amount of OOF Blur goes up with a longer lens for the same framing/F stop value.

Between the 24-70 and 24-105... you can wait 2-3 weeks and see if there's an announcent for the 24-70 mk.ii if not and you are tight on the budget, get the 24-105 f4, and then use some PP to get you some more OOF blur if that's very important to you. You won't have to PP every shot, just the few you deem worth it.

Many people have had "bad copies" of the 24-70mm to make it a recommendation, but it is F2.8, so it depends what you like. There are guys out there that love the 24-70 (good copies?) but it is an older model and should be replaced soon hopefully.

You choose what you are comfortable with.... personally I don't think the 24-105 will give you a lot of OOF blur... it will do some though.

+1

Everything said about 24-70 is true. Wait for 2 weeks and see if MkII is being announced. It will also drop the older MkI versio nin price and should help you decide.

Ive had both lenses in the past. I must say that the 24-105 is a nice zoom range on a cropped body. BUT, I found it very frustrating in low light. This is indoors, not even at night. The f4 is slow. It doesnt offer much bokeh. It is basically a very shapr lens. But at f4 you expect this.

24-70 is the PHOTOGRAPHER'S lens. thats my recommendation. only get the 24-105 if you dont care too much about your photos and just want to walk around and point and shoot. the range 70-105 you can easily cover with your feet. Just move around a little. Dont be lazy. eventualy you will know where ther 24 starts and 70 ends as you around in and out of frames.

 

[briansquibb]

24-70 is the PHOTOGRAPHER'S lens. thats my recommendation. only get the 24-105 if you dont care too much about your photos and just want to walk around and point and shoot. the range 70-105 you can easily cover with your feet. Just move around a little. Dont be lazy. eventualy you will know where ther 24 starts and 70 ends as you around in and out of frames.

mmmm .... thats not a nice thing to say .... especially when 70mm is too wide for portraits on a ff - why do you think the 85mm is so popular when in your opinion all they had to do is take a couple of steps forward? The 24-105 covers the 85mm whereas the 24-70 doesn't

 

[briansquibb]

I believe the 24-70 is the top lens used by wedding photographers.

For weddings I see the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/2.8 being used on ff. Shallow DOF is less important in the majority of wedding pictures where typically f/5.6 is common. 5DII AF is not a problem dues to the more static nature of the subjects.

 

[elflord]

24-70 is the PHOTOGRAPHER'S lens. thats my recommendation. only get the 24-105 if you dont care too much about your photos and just want to walk around and point and shoot. the range 70-105 you can easily cover with your feet. Just move around a little. Dont be lazy. eventualy you will know where ther 24 starts and 70 ends as you around in and out of frames.

Using a wide angle lens and standing close to the subject is not the same as standing further back and using a tele lens.

The only way you to get a true 105mm equivalent at 70mm is by cropping ("digital zoom").

 

[Loswr]

Wait for 2 weeks and see if MkII is being announced. It will also drop the older MkI versio nin price and should help you decide.

Are you sure about that? Did that happen when the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II came out?

24-70 is the PHOTOGRAPHER'S lens. thats my recommendation. only get the 24-105 if you dont care too much about your photos and just want to walk around and point and shoot. the range 70-105 you can easily cover with your feet. Just move around a little. Dont be lazy. eventualy you will know where ther 24 starts and 70 ends as you around in and out of frames.

mmmm .... thats not a nice thing to say ....

+1

Hey 00Q, I guess you don't really care about your photos either. If you did, you'd ditch that crappy 24-70 and dSLR and go medium format digital.

Using a wide angle lens and standing close to the subject is not the same as standing further back and using a tele lens.

I'm sure 00Q knows that...real PHOTOGRAPHERS understand all about perspective, even if they're just walking around with what amounts to a glorified point and shoot.

 

[Flake]

24-70 is the PHOTOGRAPHER'S lens. thats my recommendation. only get the 24-105 if you dont care too much about your photos and just want to walk around and point and shoot. the range 70-105 you can easily cover with your feet. Just move around a little. Dont be lazy. eventualy you will know where ther 24 starts and 70 ends as you around in and out of frames.

Quite possibly the most ridiculous post in a long time! (as noticed by others) Where I live the 24 - 70mm L is the fair weather photographers lens, I know I owned both for quite a period. If you're an amateur photographer to whom it doesn't matter if the shots don't turn out, just so long as eventually you get one useable one then it's fine.

The 24 - 105mm IS L is perhaps more the professionals lens when you absolutely have to nail the shot, and when IS is going to make that possible. Is the IQ of the 24 - 70mm better ? perhaps, but the 24 - 105mm is not that far behind and certainly commercially useable. The 24 - 70mm does suffer from field curvature making the use of higher apertures, and careful focussing a necessity, add in the number of bad copies, and it can be a minefield. The IS system will make shots as slow as 1/6th sec possible, try doing that on a 24 - 70mm!

Once images are either printed or displayed for web use then you won't notice the difference.

BTW the first time I read the OP I initially thought you meant the Sigma 24 - 70mm f/2.8 , other have decided it's the Canon, but it isn't clear from your post.

As for seperating the subject from the background, I'd reccomend a fast prime instead, or the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L. Standard zooms aren't really what I'd use for portraits.