Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II vs Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS

[josephz1994]

Having trouble deciding whether to purchase the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II or the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS to go along with my 5D Mark 3. They are quite a big price difference, and i have seen third party lenses eg Tamron etc. but i always liked the Canon L lenses.
I currently do birthday, christening and engagement photography gigs and might be doing weddings in the future. I have a Canon 650D rocking with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 600EX flash, and wanted to upgrade to FF, but at the same time keeping the my 650D as a backup.
I also take photos on the dancefloor of people dancing and group photos with the flash, however i'm worried that getting the 24-70mm without IS would create the photos to be blurry.
I was also thinking of purchasing the 24-105mm and adding prime lenses for example the Canon 50mm 1.8, thoughts?
If you guys need anymore information let me know
Thanks

 

[Maximilian]

Hi Joseph!

I own the 24-105L, it's my to go lens and I wouldn't sell it for a 24-70whatever for two reasons:
1. at FF I (personally) want and need the extra 35 mm at the long end and
2. I want to keep the IS

I would only buy a 24-70L f2.8 II if I need the zoom and f2.8.

But here is the problem for you:
looking at your subjects you'll seem to need the f2.8 for two reasons:
Low light and shallow DOF for the event photography.
As you need to be fast in reaction to get the right pic at the right monent as well (e.g. engagement) you do not have the time to change lenses. You'll need to work with two bodies or you'll need the fast zoom.
A lot here really like the Tammy 24-70. That would save you money and give you the IS.

About IS:
When you shoot moving subjects (kids, dancing, catch the bridal bouquet etc.) and you don't want motion blur IS won't help you. Here only the exposure time is relevant. And therefore you need fast apertures and good high ISO performance. f4.0 will make it more difficult here IMHO.

Tough decissions though...

 

[Random Orbits]

Agree with Maximilian. The f/2.8 is more useful indoors for moving subjects than IS. I never found the IS of the 17-55 that useful. It only started making a difference when the shutter speed dropped to 1/15s or slower, and that is just too slow for people shots. And if you're using flash on the subject and want good ambient lighting for the background, the option of f/2.8 will increase shutter speed and give you cleaner results.

If you can afford it, you really can't go wrong with the 24-70 f/2.8 II. The 24-105 on FF is more than a match than the 17-55 f/2.8 IS on crop in equivalence terms, but who would buy into a more expensive system merely to get similar results?

And yes, you should try the 50 f/1.8 no matter which midrange zoom you choose to get. Fast primes give you more DOF and control than zooms can provide, and the 50 f/1.8 is an inexpensive way to experiment. Unfortunately the faster the lens, the more critical it may be to have bodies that have AFMA, which means that you're 5DIII will be used a lot more than the 650D.

 

[josephz1994]

Agree with Maximilian.

Whats your thoughts on the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC?



And, great Responses! Appreciate the help guys

 

[arthurbikemad]

I have a 5d3 and the kit 24-105, I got the 24-70 2.8 mk2 as wanted better IQ, I've never used the kit glass since, never misses IS and love the fact it drops down to f2.8.

Also if sunstars are your thing the 2.8 is the nuts!

 

[Random Orbits]

Agree with Maximilian.

Whats your thoughts on the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC?



And, great Responses! Appreciate the help guys

From what I've read, the Tamron slots between the original Canon and the new version. I had the 17-55 when on crop, then switched to a 50 prime rather than get the original 24-70, and then got the 24-70 II. People (including Dustin who does reviews featured on this site) use the Tamron for weddings, and it works for them. The 24-70 II focuses faster, and it works well with bodies designed for moving subjects. I've used the 24-70 f/2.8 II for indoor basketball and indoor volleyball with the 5DIII, and the AF performance is great with the combo. Basketball was more challenging because the players are running toward you (shooting from the baseline or sideline), but the combo delivered.

It also depends on what other lenses you have or will have. If you plan on getting or have the 16-35 f/4 IS and a 70-xxx with IS, then having IS in the midrange is not as critical. However, it all comes down to how you plan to use it. Try using your 17-55 with the IS off and see if you miss it enough to matter.

 

[josephz1994]

Try using your 17-55 with the IS off and see if you miss it enough to matter.

Did that before haha, i usually take photos on my 650D with more than 1/100+ and usually sits on f2.8
I turned the IS off, and hardly found any blurry, then i lowered it down to 1/20, and Woah a massive difference!
But as I said before, i hardly use it below 1/100. Think i might go for the Canon.
I've read a few people say that they have returned the Tamron numerous times until they found the perfect one, I hate to do that.

 

[Luds34]

If you can afford it, you really can't go wrong with the 24-70 f/2.8 II. The 24-105 on FF is more than a match than the 17-55 f/2.8 IS on crop in equivalence terms, but who would buy into a more expensive system merely to get similar results?

I agree with the others and this sums it up nicely. I also echo the thoughts of having a fast prime for evenings/dance floor scenarios. I also think IS/VC should not figure into your decision as it will not be useful for event photography. I don't think you would want to be shooting much slower then 1/125th on a dance floor. Also you mentioned flash. Keep in mind that flash will help freeze the action. You could definitely be doing some dragging of the shutter to help keep some ambient light to see context, background while the flash should expose and freeze your subjects.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on the the 24-70s (Canon or Tamron) as I have no first hand experience with either. I can only echo what others have said, and the Tamron (3rd party) does seem to be well liked and hold it's own again Canon's L.

 

[arthurbikemad]

Cheap-ish to hire, maybe hire one for an event and see how you go, or any local clubs where someone may lend you a try for a few shots..

I love my 24-70Mk2, amazing glass..super IQ.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I also take photos on the dancefloor of people dancing and group photos with the flash, however i'm worried that getting the 24-70mm without IS would create the photos to be blurry.

IS does nothing to help with moving subjects, a faster shutter speed or a flash to freeze the action is needed.

You should not need IS for a group photo on a FF Camera either.

Remember, a crop camera has the effect of a 1.6X longer focal length, so at 50mm, a faster shutter speed is needed.

With a FF body, you can use a faster shutter speed and bump up ISO and still get less noise.

Many photographers want IS on their 24-70 lenses, but there are few cases where its a advantage on a FF body.

 

[hawaiisunsetphoto]

For what you're looking to get into, I'd go with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II. I've had the Tamron, and while it's a nice lens, the zoom ring operates in the opposite direction, and when you need to react quickly, that can be an issue. The 24-70mm II is faster (and has better IQ than the 24-105) which will be appreciated in low light situations.

Agree with Maximilian.

Whats your thoughts on the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC?



And, great Responses! Appreciate the help guys

 

[wsmith96]

I recommend splurging on the 24-70 II for what you intend to shoot. Having that extra stop of light indoors can be nice - especially when flash isn't permitted.

 

[Chris Burch]

The 24-70 f/2.8 II is an exceptional lens from a quality standpoint, blows the 24-105 away. I wasn't happy about the extra expense until I bought and started using the new 24-70 and now wouldn't trade it for anything. The extra stop will allow you to do some very nice subject separation and is invaluable in very low-light situations. I can certainly appreciate the appeal of the extra focal length and IS on the 24-105, but I own both lenses and I never even touch the 24-105 unless I just need a backup, even though I spend most of my time event shooting at f/5.6. The Tamron version of the 24-70 is probably better quality than the 24-105, but can't touch the Canon 24-70 II.

 

[RobertG.]

Agree with Maximilian.

Whats your thoughts on the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC?

And, great Responses! Appreciate the help guys

I got the Tamron first and shot with it for more than 1.5 years. A few weeks ago I bought the Canon EF 24-70 L II. All in all the IQ of the Tamron is OK. On both ends, wide and tele, the IQ of the Tamron is mediocre at best. The IS might be useful but I had little use for it. The IQ of the EF 24-70 L II is definitely better and so I bought it to replace the Tamron. IMO the current street price of the Tamron reflects what this lens is worth.

I also have the EF-S 17-55. The IQ of the Tamron is similar IMO. But on both ends, wide and tele, the IQ of the Tamron is slightly worse or maybe I became more concerned about IQ over the years... I hardly ever use the EF-S nowadays.

 

[scottkinfw]

I have both, both are great lenses. The 34-70 gives me superior images, and the is isn't missed. IS would be nice, but this is an awesome lens.

Good luck.

Sek

 

[Drum]

My opinion would be that If you are making money from your photography you should make the investment in the best lens you can afford as your customers will pay it back. For what you state as your photography business / goals you should only really consider the F2.8 lenses and from a quality standpoint (pictures as well as build quality)the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is the lens you should be aiming for. The Tamron build quality seems to be the most criticized thing about that particular lens.
Also you should consider the 50 f1.4 instead of the f1.8ii (Better build quality)I don't know much about the new stm 1.8. However if you have used a 50mm on the 650d maybe you should consider the 85mm f1.8 instead of the 50.

 

[pwp]

Having trouble deciding whether to purchase the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II or the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS to go along with my 5D Mark 3.

I have a great copy of the 24-105 f/4is plus the 24-70 f/2.8II; and like you, shoot with the 5D3. I loved the 24-105 but when I got the 24-70 f/2.8II about 18 months ago the 24-105 has been sitting largely unused. This thread is a reminder to sell it. The 24-70 f/2.8II is so good I've sold my 35 & 50mm primes, keeping just the 24 f/1.4II which is also getting so little use it's hard to justify its existence. The 24-70 f/2.8II just blows the doors off just about anything else that exists. To me it's well worth the high asking price.

-pw

 

[TeT]

In my opinion you need to decide first between f2.8 v f4 IS. Base this upon your shooting style. ie. Low light action = 2.8

Once you answer that question the rest is easy; if its 4 IS then possibly the 24 70 4 IS creeps in for the better IQ (opinion) and the macro v. the extra 35mm on the long end...

 

[deleteme]

I also take photos on the dancefloor of people dancing and group photos with the flash, however i'm worried that getting the 24-70mm without IS would create the photos to be blurry.

If you are using flash the issue of IS is irrelevant. The flash freezes motion.
As for choosing between the two, I have owned the 24-105 since I bought a 5DmkII several years ago. When the 24-70mkII came out and I heard reports of its general excellence I rented one from LensRentals.
The lens was brilliant. However my 24-105 was not that far off. More importantly, when using flash in the studio I saw almost no difference in center sharpness.
The 24-70 was the better lens, however my clients were never going to see the difference. I also REALLY like the extra length of the lens that I own and is paid for!
For available light shooting at weddings they are about the same except you can get slightly shallower DOF with the 2.8 lens. Again, the length trumps (for me) the speed of the shorter lens.
With the money you save you could buy the new 50 1.8 and something else but I scarcely know why as a wedding will not give you time to fumble with lens changes if you want to stay on top of the action.

 

[triggermike]

The 24-105 gets knocked around, but personally I think it's a great lens. I have never been disappointed with it and I have been pretty disappointed when it wasn't with me and I wish I had that extra reach. Any chromatic issues can easily be corrected in LR.
It is virtually a steal when you buy it in a kit with the 5D3. You have your crop camera and the 17-55 f2.8 which is also a fabulous lens. You would be best to get the 5D3/24-105 combo and keep the crop + 17-55!