Canon General Zoom Lens

[apthai86]

I'm deciding between the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24-105mm IS f/4.

I've been doing a lot of research and know the pros and cons of each. The general consensus is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 is better for indoor and the 24-105mm IS f/4 is better for outdoors.

If I was to use the 24-105mm IS f/4 with an external flash indoors will that be sufficient? or will the 24-70mm f/2.8 still be better?

I would just get the 24-70mm f/2.8 but I really want the extra focal length and IS.

 

[lag1090]

I'm deciding between the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24-105mm IS f/4.

I've been doing a lot of research and know the pros and cons of each. The general consensus is that the 24-70mm f/2.8 is better for indoor and the 24-105mm IS f/4 is better for outdoors.

If I was to use the 24-105mm IS f/4 with an external flash indoors will that be sufficient? or will the 24-70mm f/2.8 still be better?

I would just get the 24-70mm f/2.8 but I really want the extra focal length and IS.

Unless you really need the extra stop of light, I'd go with the 24-105mm. Since it covers all the focal lengths the 24-70mm does, you won't be losing out on much.

I own a 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS that works well for most applications. It's nowhere near the experience either of the lenses you mentioned would offer. I personally don't see much of an improvement with IS, and it can certainly be annoying at times.

Hope that helps you with your dilemma.

 

[Ambrose Chapel]

I went through the same choice as you and went w/ the 24-105. I wanted it as a walkaround lens and the extra length was more important to me. For indoor shooting I use usually use a prime (35mm/1.4L).

 

[FX120]

The 24-70 is what I bought, but you can't really go wrong either way.

With the 24-105 you might be a full stop slower, but you're gaining IS which can in some cases compensate.

 

[obeygiant]

If you're doing portraits you'd better have the 105mm. If you're using flash the low f-stop doesn't matter that much.

 

[PCMacUser]

I have the 24-70mm, and it's fantastic. I also have the 70-200mm F4.0L, so the 24-70mm made sense to complete the range.

On my 40D, the 24mm is not actually all that wide. It's the equivalent of a 38mm because of the 1.6x crop factor. However, once it's on my EOS 1V, it's really wide.

 

[Ryox]

The 24-70 would be my pick + I own it.
Its sharper, controls CA and distortion better at both ends.
The Optical performance is superior and its a stop faster.

On the down side its bigger+heavier, Its more expensive, it has shorter focal length, and lacks IS.

 

[localghost]

what ambrose chapel said - i own both, and for me it's the perfect combination.

but there is a reason the 24-70 is THE standard pj lens (I use it at work).

my advice would be to use a 50 1.8 (or something like that) for one evening at f/4, one evening at f/2.8 and another evening at f/1.8 to see what difference one stop makes to you. depends on your camera body, too.

theoretically the 24-70 should also focus better in low light, but i have to say that my 24-105 is indeed my most reliably focusing lens, even more than the 35 f/1.4. it is a bit soft above 70mm though, so a properly framed iso 3200 picture at 100mm makes less difference to a cropped 70mm picture at 1600 iso than you might expect.

At equal apertures and focal length, the f/4 is the definitely the sharpest lens, while the other two are _about_ the same.

The bokeh of the 24-105 is quite bad, especially with foliage in the background (colors are great though), the 24-70 is decent, but a different universe compared to the 35 f/1.4.

The 24-70 is a lot heavier, a bit to heavy as a general walkaround for me. if canon ever makes a 24-70 2.8 _IS_, i’d think about it, still not sure if I would change.

 

[OreoCookie]

Either of these lenses are only general zoom lenses, if you have a full-frame body. On crop bodies, neither is a general zoom lens, they are tele zoom lenses. If you want a general zoom lens, have a look at the various lenses in the 17-55 mm zoom range or Canon's new 18-200 zoom.

 

[Edge100]

Either of these lenses are only general zoom lenses, if you have a full-frame body. On crop bodies, neither is a general zoom lens, they are tele zoom lenses. If you want a general zoom lens, have a look at the various lenses in the 17-55 mm zoom range or Canon's new 18-200 zoom.

I agree. On a crop body, you might consider something like the 17-40 f/4L, which is the equivalent of 27-64, which is a much better walkaround length than the 38-112 equivalent of the 24-70 or the 38-168 equivalent of the 24-105.

The 17-40 is also cheaper than either of the two lenses you mention, and while it lacks IS, I find IS to be relatively unnecessary on these focal lengths for most things (at least compared to longer lenses, where IS becomes a bigger concern).