24-105 vs 24-70 vs something else?

no_steeze

no_steeze

Active member
*optional story*first off before story time, i am not a spoiled brat, this is rare for me, don't hate on me for having rich grandparents, this does not usually happen:
so i had one of the biggest grandparent scores of my life a few days ago, i still can't get over it. basically they LOVE the fact that i'm into photography and since they don't look at pictures that often they think mine are really good. when i was shooting fireworks on the 4th i walked my grandpa through what i was doing and explained the whole thing to him and he got really into it and into the fact that i was doing it. so he approached me on sunday and was like "based on your interest we have decided to get you a good lens you want now to replace a birthday and christmas present, because you're into it now we don't want to make you wait" so i'm stoked out of my mind, but i don't know what to get......
they're willing to spend what it takes for this fucker!!!!! granted i can't ask for an 11,000 dollar lens, but i can get something good, which means i can get an L lens because i'm kinda stuck in L fever right now. */optional story*
i'm torn between the 24-105 and the 24-70 or maybe something else in the high quality lineup, but i really want a good walkaround lens. i'm often going places where i can't bring an entire camera bag so i just want 1 do it all lens, and i want this to be it
now, if i had a full frame camera, the 24-105 would already be in my hand, but i'm worried about the side effects of a crop sensor (40D) making the lens 38-168ish in reality, that being not too wide angle and not too long. that's why i'm thinking the 24-70 might be fine with the magnification from the sensor. now i do see myself getting a 5D mk1 in the future, i can sell a few lenses and my body and get it for no extra cost, so i want something compatible with that in the future
i went to b&h today and played with both on a 50D and the range actually seemed pretty nice for me but i couldn't tell in a camera store filled with orthodox jews while playing with a beat to shit lens
so 24-70 is fast and maybe a little sharper but it's heavy as fuck and a big ass lens for walkaround and it's a smaller focal range
24-105 has the extra focal length and IS but is several stops slower
i currently use a 40D with:tammy 17-50 2.8 (i would sell this if i got either of these lenses)sigma 10-2050mm 1.8 with extension tubesghetto 70-200 f/4 non IS from like 1994
i'd probably use this mostly outdoors, i don't shoot many portraits and i have a 50mm as an indoor lens, but idk exactly yet, i just want something that can do it all. so help me out here, as you can see from the long winded thread i really wanna get this right, i don't wanna take advantage of the amazing opportunity and blow it on a lens i don't really want, i can sell it, but still. so yeah any suggestions would be appreciated
 
i would take a low aperature lens any day over a higher one with IS. not only does it give you greater DOF control, but it is so much better in low light/foggy days. i dont know those 2 lenses specifically, but i am guessing the 24-70 is 2.8 or so. what is the 24-105 aperature, and is it fixed aperature (sorry, i only know nikon lenses)
 
dont base your decision on how its "heavy as fuck", saying that is like saying your not into photography, if its a good lense its a good lense dont whine about how heavy or big it is, your hand is not gunna get tired of holding it while shooting a couple shots...

and if your hand is shaky with a heavy lense, then on some slower speed shooting then just buy a tripod. but overall go with the lense thats just overall better. im not trying to be mean but seriously.

***also the 24-105mm range is usually a hard range for companies to figure out. i dont know about canon but companies that make nikon the 24-105 range or the ranges close to that are all the worst of the companies lenses.
 
well maybe i'm asking which is better, i don't know, it's not like i'm staying away from the 24-70 just because it's heavy, but that is a con of a solely walkaround lensi know it is a great lens, both of them are, canon doesn't have trouble with that category, the 2 are some of the most loved zoom lenses for canon mount slr's
 
id say then if it is solely gunna be a walk around go 24-105 so you can take more pictures of what you want with the wider range
 
If someone was going to buy me a lens i would say either 16-35 2.8 , but ill probably end up buying anyways this winter or 300 f4- the later being just for the sake that its so bad ass
 
problem is the 16-35 isn't great range on a crop sensor, it's decent wide angle but it doesn't zoom very far at allthe 300 is sick but i don't have any need for it
 
between the 24-105 and 24-70 go with the 24-70 no question. yeah it's heavier but who cares it's a difference of less than a pound, the 70 is much sharper, faster, and IS is nice but it's no substitute for a genuinely fast lens. and the 70 has a bigger cooler looking hood and isn't that what photography is all about?
if you are entertaining other ideas sell a few lenses and just go balls out for the 70-200 f2.8l IS USM best lens ever. the 16-35 f2.8l is nice too but make sure you get the II model because it has a fraction of the distortion the first model had.
or maybe start thinking about primes, try and find a nice used 24mm f1.4l USM, or a 35mm f1.4l usm
if you really want to stretch your budget trade in a few lenses and max out your g-rents, get a 135 f2l usm, and another prime like a 15mm f2.8 even though it's not an L... there is alot to choose from.
 
god dammit, i was pretty much sold on the 24-105 from reading reviews, now you've made me question myself again
i just found out i'm gonna be going to portillo in a few weeks, i'm bringing one lens, i'm sort of framing my decision around what would be the best lens to bring, not because i'll only use it for this trip but because it's a good scenario to test out the versatility of whichever lens i bring
i was thinking the 24-105 would be better to shoot skiing and action and it'd be nice to have the 24 end to shoot some landscapes but you seem to be sold on the 24-70
i don't think it's genuinely sharper than the 105, it depends on the copy you get, reviews and comparisons seem to say they're about the same, the 70 just gives you brighter light through the viewfinder
the 24-70 seems to be a high end professional portrait lens, i am a bad amateur who shoots mostly outside, hence the range and IS on the 105 makes it seem more practical for me. i have a prime for shooting indoors and closeups but i want something versatile that can shoot outdoors
ughhhh whichever one i get i can sell it and get the other if i hate it, price difference is only like 100 bucks
 
If you are going 70-200 2.8 i would say don't go IS. Firsly because weight is quite a bit more as well as physically bigger and you will save $500. As well the 70-200 2.8 is the sharpest out of the 4 70-200 lenses.
 
i'm really happy with my ghetto 70-200 f/4 non IS, it's light and i have a razor sharp copy of it. i don't plan on upgrading my 70-200, looking to fill a walkaround gap
 
i hear you on the outdoors you want the IS and whatever but when it comes down to it you just want a faster lens, especially for night shooting f4 is just not fast enough to shoot at night even with IS, and as far as sharpness goes i don't know who you heard that from but in all of the comparisons i've read they always favor the image quality of the 24-70. and the price is only like a hundred bones difference.
 
the 70-200 f/4 has been totally fine for me tho and that's not even IS with a much longer focal range which=multiplied camera shake
fack if they made a 24-105 f/2.8 IS i'd jizz my pants
 
i've actually read rumors about the introduction of a 24-70 f2.8 IS as a kit lens with the 5d mk II which would be cool but having the 105 in f2.8 IS would be cooler. go with the 24-70 though great piece of glass
 
IS seems kinda useless with that short a max focal length
a 24-105 2.8 IS would be teh secks
or if canon continued shipping the 135 f/2 L
 
One thing to consider would be getting a couple of prime lenses for the same price as either of those lenses. All of the primes are super sharp. I'd say, for a 1.6 crop camera like a 50D, a 20 or 24mm, 35 f/2 and a 50 1.8 or 50mm 1.4 would make for a killer setup.

Either way, shop around on http://www.keh.com for the stuff you want used. They're THE best place to source gear from, and their rating system is very generous. "Bargain" quality stuff at KEH would pass for good/excellent anywhere else. I've spent a couple grand there over the years, never been let down except for the one time it was my mistake, and they fixed it by shipping the 2nd item (I apparently only ordered one flash online, when i wanted 2) overnight to the place I was traveling to shoot at as I was leaving the day I got the first one...... and they picked up the shipping charges! They're kickass all around.

AND, one more thing. I own a 28-70 2.8 which is the old version of the 24. It's sharp as all hell and a sweet lens, but weighs a TON and is kind of a pain in the ass for a walkaround lens..... it instantly screams "LOOK AT ME I'M A PHOTOGRAPHER WITH EXPENSIVE SHIT" which isn't always the best vibe to be giving off. Did I mention it's heavy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top