I've had the 24-105 for about a year and a half now. It came as the kit lens for my 5D Mk III. My copy is a very good one, tack sharp and quite fast, as far as I seem to notice. 3 months ago I bought the 24-70 II. It is an outstanding lens, as far as AF response and sharpness are concerned. I think it's better than the 24-105. That being said, is it possible that the 24-105 can still be useful? If I keep it, and don't sell it, to what uses, if any, can the 24-105 be put? Is there anything that I can do with the 24-105 that I can't do with the 24-70 II?!
The 24-105 and/or the 24-70 II ...
- Thread starter DaveMiko
- Start date
I did the same and had the same dilemma, but ended up selling the 24-105. The 24-70 has significantly better IQ and I do not miss the IS. I thought I would miss the 70-105mm zoom range, but I haven´t.
Considering what you can expect to get for the 24-105, it may well be worth keeping. As a versatile walk-around lens, with good zoom range, good IQ and IS, it is very good. But if you are thinking of buying something else, it can help you with the financing.
Considering what you can expect to get for the 24-105, it may well be worth keeping. As a versatile walk-around lens, with good zoom range, good IQ and IS, it is very good. But if you are thinking of buying something else, it can help you with the financing.
Upvote
0
I had both of these lenses also for use on my 6D. I ended up selling my 24-105 as it was not getting used much. My 24-105 was also a good copy, but I just didn't need two zooms in the same focal range. I was able to use the money to buy a 100 L Macro lens.
The possible advantages of keeping both would be if you shoot much video (I don't), the IS of the 24-105 will be useful. Also the 24-105's greater focal range make it a more useful single lens solution for general purposes. For example, I recently attended a outdoor festival with my family. If I still owned the 24-105, I would have used it. But it was gone, so I took my 24-70 2.8 II and 135L, so I had more to carry. The advantage with this two lens combo is better IQ and subject isolation capability.
The possible advantages of keeping both would be if you shoot much video (I don't), the IS of the 24-105 will be useful. Also the 24-105's greater focal range make it a more useful single lens solution for general purposes. For example, I recently attended a outdoor festival with my family. If I still owned the 24-105, I would have used it. But it was gone, so I took my 24-70 2.8 II and 135L, so I had more to carry. The advantage with this two lens combo is better IQ and subject isolation capability.
Upvote
0
Also have both after getting in on the $1699 deal at B&H for the 24-70. At this point I don't see myself selling my 24-105 for such a low price. I much rather keep it than "give" it away. I expect to use it as more or a travel/vacation lens. If things change where the resale value is $800 or higher (which will never happen), I'd probably sell it.
Upvote
0
I am just boarding the same boat. I just bought the 24-70 II and own a copy of the 24-105 that I think is good. If the 24-105 used price was back around $800, I would probably sell my copy if I am happy with the 24-70 II after a few months. However, with the used price being about 65% of that (~$500-$550), I am considering holding onto the 24-105. I can think of a couple potential uses (as long as the 24-70 II checks out and is as impressive as described/reviewed) for the 24-105, including as a single event lens (may want the reach), and travel/times when I may not want a $2,300 lens with me.
That said, my preference would be to sell it, if the used price comes back up. I have a problem seeing it go lower than $500-$550, so I figure I hold onto it, try to use it and wait for the price to come back up.
Of course, if I have to sell it to fund another lens...that could change the dynamic here. ;D
EDIT---what RC said....
That said, my preference would be to sell it, if the used price comes back up. I have a problem seeing it go lower than $500-$550, so I figure I hold onto it, try to use it and wait for the price to come back up.
Of course, if I have to sell it to fund another lens...that could change the dynamic here. ;D
EDIT---what RC said....
Upvote
0
docsmith said:
I got lucky and sold my 24-105 just before the big discounts started on new lenses this fall. I was able to sell for $700 via CR. I thought that was too cheap at the time, but feel pretty good about it now.
If I still had it, I wouldn't sell for $500-550, I would hang onto it.
Upvote
0
I got my 24-105 as part of a 5DIII kit, not long after I bought the 24-70mk2. My initial plan was to sell the 24-105 to post-finance the 24-70 but while I was preparing the ebay auction i realised i had a good copy and couldn't go through with it...
Now I use the 24-105 as a travel lens for those holdiay destinations where I would be overly nervous having both the 5d and the 24-70, my stuff is insured but I'm a risk averse kind of guy...
I don't know if that really xounts as a reason to keep the 24-105 , but it's the one I'm using at the moment..
H.
Now I use the 24-105 as a travel lens for those holdiay destinations where I would be overly nervous having both the 5d and the 24-70, my stuff is insured but I'm a risk averse kind of guy...
I don't know if that really xounts as a reason to keep the 24-105 , but it's the one I'm using at the moment..
H.
Upvote
0
Well, I think you guys are right. If I could sell the 24-105 for a reasonable sum, then, maybe, I might be tempted to do so, but, for now, since this is not the case, since my copy is a very good one and since I don't feel like parting with it, I'll just keep it.
Upvote
0
I wonder if they will discontinue the 24-105L. It seems they are replacing it with the 24-70/4 IS in the kits, which I expected. Does that mean they will phase out the 24-105L? If so, that would affect the value of the copies out there on the used market, though probably not greatly as the market got flooded. Also, it's possible they will replace it with a mkII version, upgrade the optics & IS, which would keep the used value of the current model flat.
Over all, it's a great walk-around lens, as others have said. I still use mine for weddings, though I've taken to using my 24-70L also, which I'd like to upgrade to the mkII but have rediscovered my version as being quite good on the 5DmkIII, after having used it exclusively on a 1DmkIII for many years it's become a 'born again' lens on the better camera. I missed the $1,695 sale on the mkII and maybe I'll catch it when it comes around again, but for now I'm happy with the original version on my 5D3 and the 24-105L on my 6D. It gives me one camera with great flexibility for focus, and another that is light weight and versatile with the longer reach and IS. I agree with the others, for $500, you might as well keep that lens.
Over all, it's a great walk-around lens, as others have said. I still use mine for weddings, though I've taken to using my 24-70L also, which I'd like to upgrade to the mkII but have rediscovered my version as being quite good on the 5DmkIII, after having used it exclusively on a 1DmkIII for many years it's become a 'born again' lens on the better camera. I missed the $1,695 sale on the mkII and maybe I'll catch it when it comes around again, but for now I'm happy with the original version on my 5D3 and the 24-105L on my 6D. It gives me one camera with great flexibility for focus, and another that is light weight and versatile with the longer reach and IS. I agree with the others, for $500, you might as well keep that lens.
Upvote
0
I like the 24-70 II better for the below reasons. However, if you have a second body, and you don't need the money, it is nice to have the extra reach. Both are very nice walk around lenses. On the other hand, if you don't have a second body, and you can zoom with your feet, the 24-70 II will soon make you forget the 24-105. So tough to have to choose between two great lenses.
sek
sek
DaveMiko said:
Upvote
0
The 24-105s trump card over the 24-70II is of course IS. Its usefulness depends upon your technique, but if you're hand holding shots where you want to hold small fine detail, I find IS incredibly useful.
I've actually tested this for my own benefit, and I've found that without IS I can get camera shake at random with shutter speeds up to about 1/320 with 50mm focal length. I'm not that shaky, but I do drink a lot of coffee, and tend to arrive late and be in a rush. However for myself the 24-70 II, despite it's superlative optical performance, could result in softer images than the 24-105 when off the tripod. So I stick to a 'general purpose' lens with IS.
I've actually tested this for my own benefit, and I've found that without IS I can get camera shake at random with shutter speeds up to about 1/320 with 50mm focal length. I'm not that shaky, but I do drink a lot of coffee, and tend to arrive late and be in a rush. However for myself the 24-70 II, despite it's superlative optical performance, could result in softer images than the 24-105 when off the tripod. So I stick to a 'general purpose' lens with IS.
Upvote
0
Another vote for the 24-105.
I am often at the 105 length. I am also often in low light situations shooting candid groups.
I used to think that f4 was a real drawback but I found that even at f4 the DOF was insufficient for good images of multiple subjects.
F 2.8 would help with focus and image isolation but as that is not the goal of my work I can pass on it.
Available darkness needs high ISO and a still camera.
I do a lot hand held but I also use it on a tripod where I get extremely sharp results.
I am happy about the price drops as it allows me to get a great price on a backup of this critical tool.
I am often at the 105 length. I am also often in low light situations shooting candid groups.
I used to think that f4 was a real drawback but I found that even at f4 the DOF was insufficient for good images of multiple subjects.
F 2.8 would help with focus and image isolation but as that is not the goal of my work I can pass on it.
Available darkness needs high ISO and a still camera.
I do a lot hand held but I also use it on a tripod where I get extremely sharp results.
I am happy about the price drops as it allows me to get a great price on a backup of this critical tool.
Upvote
0
DaveMiko said:Sporgon said:
+1
+1
I have no doubt that the 24-70 II is better optically in every respect, and it is faster, of course. But I often find myself in situations where IS is more useful than fast apertures. I always carry with me fast primes, and use them often in low light. But when I want more DOF and motion is not a problem, I use the zoom. For me, f/2.8 is not fast enough to replace the IS, and when I need faster apertures, I will use primes anyway. On the other hand, the extra 70-105 range is not a big deal, IMO.
Upvote
0
DaveMiko said:
If you are not wanting to be slowed down and bother with/can't use a tripod then it could deliver better results than the 24-70 II when light is low and subjects are static and don't work with f/2.8 DOF (the 24-70 f/4 IS could do that too, even more effectively, although that's a $$$ combo compared to 24-105+24-70II). Maybe like hikinh through dark woods and not wanting to slow stuff down too much with tripod shot after tripod shot, trying to quickly get a ton of shots before light fades, etc.
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:
In your case you might want to look at the 24-70 f/4 IS. It has the sharpness of the 24-70 II, with better IS than the 24-105. But, it is overpriced at the moment for sure as its now a 5diii kit lens. Probably will be in the $1000 range in 3-6 months.
Upvote
0
