DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 24-70 L to 24-105 L -- Opinions Please!
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/06/2006 11:20:17 AM · #1
Hi all,
I've been thinking about selling my 24-70 2.8L and getting the 24-105 L glass, and I was hoping to hear from anyone who has already made the switch. Are you happy with the decision? What are the downsides to this? I primarily shoot portraits (I have other lenses for this as well), model shoots (for stock), stock shooting, and the usual fun / casual playing-with-the-camera-because-I-love-too stuff. :o) I already have a 70-200 L, the 100mm Macro USM, and the 50mm 1.4.
My main reasons for the switch are:
I find myself not shooting wide open as often as I thought I would, so I doubt I'll miss the extra stops.
I DO find I shoot in low light a bit, and the IS should definitely help get more "keeper" shots with slower shutter.
The physical size of the 24-105 is appealing, making it much more of a "walk around" lense than the 24-70 (I use the kit lense a lot on my 350D for times when I can't be bothered with the size of the 24-70).
The extra reach would be nice, as I find myself wishing for a little longer reach but I don't want to drag out the 70-200.
And last but not least, the used prices on Ebay for the 24-70 are excellent (over $1000) and I can get the 24-105 at Adorama for $1,099. In other words, the switch shouldn't cost me much more than $150 (after Ebay / Paypal fees), which is an expenditure I can currently afford.

So, what do you think? I value your opinions, so let's hear it! Thanks in advance.

-Don
08/06/2006 11:33:21 AM · #2
I've not owned the 24-70, but I recently got the 24-105 and am now completely sold on IS to the point I'll be selling my 70-200 L lens and getting a non-L 70-300 for the IS part. If it's a straight-out trade, and it appears it is, I say go for it. IS alone makes the difference, in my opinion.
08/06/2006 11:40:59 AM · #3
Thanks, I'm guessing more will say that. The IS does seem great, and this would be my first IS lense, should I do this. Who else wants to chime in?
08/06/2006 12:02:16 PM · #4
Don I made that switch. Your reasons mirror mine right down the list. Haven't regretted it for a moment, I think you'll be very happy with the 24-105, it's fabulous.
08/06/2006 12:20:00 PM · #5
I've been working on this debate and I'm pretty sure that I'll end up getting the 24-105 for these reasons:

IS will get me better handholdabilitiy, allow me to use slower shutter speeds to capture motion hand-held, and generally be more useful than the stop I'd get if it were just a 2.8 lens.

It has better reach.

Optically it is a very nice lens. The only con might be that it will vignette more at 24mm wide open than you'd see on the 24-70.

I think you should make the switch :)
08/06/2006 12:29:49 PM · #6
Originally posted by bfox2:


IS will get me better handholdabilitiy, allow me to use slower shutter speeds to capture motion hand-held, and generally be more useful than the stop I'd get if it were just a 2.8 lens.



The IS won't help you capturing motion in low light. It will only help with static objects.
08/06/2006 01:49:39 PM · #7
Originally posted by AJAger:

Originally posted by bfox2:


IS will get me better handholdabilitiy, allow me to use slower shutter speeds to capture motion hand-held, and generally be more useful than the stop I'd get if it were just a 2.8 lens.



The IS won't help you capturing motion in low light. It will only help with static objects.


It won't help STOP motion, but it does help capture it. Maybe 'show motion' is a better way to put it. Like a slow shutter speed (1/10s) to show the movement of a dancer while keeping surroundings sharp.
08/06/2006 02:42:07 PM · #8
Thanks everyone. I'm pretty sure I'll be making a call tomorrow. :o) I guess one more thing to add to the list is that I will most likely be upgrading my camera to a 5D in about a year, and the extra reach will REALLY be handy then (with the FF sensor).
Cool! I'll be anxiously awaiting the brown truck in a few days, and I LOVE that feeling...

Now that I think of it, the Erie County Fair is coming up, and I'll be able to break it in in "walkaround" mode (or something like that). Erie County is the largest county fair in the country, so I'll have LOTS of opporunities to put it to use. I can't wait!
08/07/2006 06:07:07 PM · #9
how's the bokeh on the 24-105? i know it's excellent on the 24-70.
08/07/2006 06:16:54 PM · #10
If I had to make the choice between the 24-70 and 24-105 today I would probably go for the 24-105, but since I already have the 24-70 I don't think it worth the hassle of switching. Love the f/2.8 on the 24-70 and shoot available light portraits quite often with it wide open. Now if Canon had a 24-105 f/2.8L IS of the same calibre as the 24-70 available I'd definitely switch.
08/07/2006 06:23:30 PM · #11
All I can add to this discussion is that I personally would take aperture over IS any and every time, even though that is "just one stop".
08/07/2006 06:29:36 PM · #12
me too ... but I'm sure you'll be satisfied with the quality of either.

Originally posted by Larus:

All I can add to this discussion is that I personally would take aperture over IS any and every time, even though that is "just one stop".
08/07/2006 06:48:32 PM · #13
Originally posted by AdrlnJunkie11:

how's the bokeh on the 24-105? i know it's excellent on the 24-70.


' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/512/thumb/348584.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/512/thumb/348584.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
Apparently good enough for blue...

Here's a more "traditional" look at bokeh...
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40718/thumb/355681.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40718/thumb/355681.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I love my 24-105L. Is now on my camera about 98% of the time. Here are the downsides:

1) Isn't wide enough. But your 24-70 is no wider, so that doesn't matter.

2) Does display some barrel or pincushion (I always get them mixed up) at the wide end. It's mild, but it is there. I notice it when shooting geometric things.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40718/thumb/374174.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40718/thumb/374174.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40718/thumb/374172.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/40718/thumb/374172.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
Note the horizontal bar on the fence at the bottom in the second shot. Note the top horizontal bar in the first shot...

Message edited by author 2006-08-07 19:47:42.
08/07/2006 06:51:27 PM · #14
Originally posted by DrAchoo:


1) Isn't wide enough. But your 24-70 is no wider, so that doesn't matter.


Bah! Get a REAL camera you chump :P
08/07/2006 07:05:21 PM · #15
Originally posted by Larus:



Bah! Get a REAL camera you chump :P


Make the donation out to Doctor Achoo. I accept whatever funny money they use in Iceland...
08/07/2006 07:20:32 PM · #16
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Larus:



Bah! Get a REAL camera you chump :P


Make the donation out to Doctor Achoo. I accept whatever funny money they use in Iceland...


Hey wait a minute!! I started this thread, I want the funny money, dangit! :o)

On another note, I placed the order today from Amazon, and it should be arriving on Wednesday. Anobody looking to buy a 24-70 2.8L in excellent condition? :o) I'll sell it to you in one week...
08/08/2006 08:52:54 AM · #17
I was in the market for a 24-70 but when the 24-105 cam out I opted for that. I must say it is an excellent lens. Perfect on my 5D. Certainly one of the best lenses I've owned.

I don't like the fact that the lens extends when zooming (I got used to the 17-40L and 70-200L which don't)

Build quality is excellent and the IS works better than I thought it would. Better (much) than the IS on my 'old' 28-135

Chris
08/08/2006 10:15:20 AM · #18
I recently bought the 24-70 and considered the 24-105.

My thoughts, IS is not that important at wide angles and is only good to use in low light if your subject is not moving. Thus I consider a full stop of aperture far more valuable then the IS. And, the little extra on the telephoto side was not important to me.

The 24-105 is still an excellent lens (a friend has one), but if you are looking for a low light lens like I was, I think the 24-70 is a better option. If you are shooting mostly outdoors or with good lighting and won't need the bigger aperture, the 24-105 is probably the better option for you.

Message edited by author 2006-08-08 10:15:39.
08/08/2006 10:26:38 AM · #19
I agree with this, I just want to add something in case you haven't done a lot of low light photography.

2.8 is an absolute minimum for low light. In fact, in a lot of cases it will still be too slow, and something like a 1.8 or 2.0 (or even 1.4) would be much more suitable.

I sold most of my primes in order to buy the 24-70. It's only been a few weeks and I've already found myself wishing I still had the 35mm f2. I don't regret what I've done, just saying low light can be tough with slow glass ... really tough.

Originally posted by LoudDog:

I recently bought the 24-70 and considered the 24-105.

My thoughts, IS is not that important at wide angles and is only good to use in low light if your subject is not moving. Thus I consider a full stop of aperture far more valuable then the IS. And, the little extra on the telephoto side was not important to me.

The 24-105 is still an excellent lens (a friend has one), but if you are looking for a low light lens like I was, I think the 24-70 is a better option. If you are shooting mostly outdoors or with good lighting and won't need the bigger aperture, the 24-105 is probably the better option for you.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/07/2020 09:44:49 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/07/2020 09:44:49 PM EDT.