24-105 f4L IS vs. 24-70 f2.8L

I've had this conversation with numerous photographers (full-time pros) while we're on assignment for various publications and the overwhelming favorite lens is the 50mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.2L. If you're shooting RAW with the 1Ds2, you have a lot of data to work with, so if you really need that closer shot, you have a lot of "crop" room. My personal preference is the 50mm 1.2 on the 1Ds2 because that combo feels very well balanced and goes in and out of my bag very easily. Also, the fixed focal length helps me concentrate more on composition and my relation to the subject rather than just relying on a zoom to get it right.

All lenses vignette at their widest apertures. If you doubt this, shoot any of your lenses at a uniform sky at all apertures and get back to me... :-)

The 24-105 vignettes a bit more than some other similar lenses at 24mm. In situations where you must shoot at f/4 and 24mm AND in which the vignetting seems like a bad thing (and sometimes it is a good thing) it is easily and quickly removed in PS.

While the 24-70 gives you one additional stop at f/2.8 (valuable for slightly narrower DOF and one extra stop in low light conditions) the 24-105 IS gives you 2-3 stops without camera motion blur in low light as long as subject motion isn't an issue. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

If you are traveling, ahem, light (1DSMKII?!) the 24-105 is lighter and provides a larger focal length range than the 24-70. The notion that the 24-70 has "better quality" is open to debate.

Dan

While 24-70 is one stop faster, I believe the other benefits of the 24-105 outweigh this, espcially for traveling. The F2.8, for me, would come in most handy for portraits and for that I use fast primes.

No, the 24-105 is not weather resistant (it extends while zooming, but not as nicely as the 24-70.) Having said that, I second the recommendation for a 50/1.4 (or 25/1.4) in addition to the 24-105. "Light" with 1Ds is impossible...

If you don't need Times Square billboard sized enlargements, a 5D without grip and 24-105/4 IS deliver a terrific image quality to weight ratio when travelling.

That combo fits nicely into a ThinkTank Urban Disguise shoulder bag (looks like one of those men's carryalls), so people around you on the street, etc., only know you are packing high end photo gear if you want them to.

definitely the 24-105mm f/4L IS, if you only want to bring one lens. your main concern would be to cover as much focal length as possible, and less of availability of light. besides, the IS will definitely come in useful for you with alot of handheld shots. you might do well with a wide angle lens too.

have a good trip!

I agree with the poster's remarks about having lot's of "crop room" with big raw files and only shooting with a fast 50mm prime, but you need to remember with this combination you are foregoing many of the reasons we carry large, expensive DSLR's and different lenses, or as the OP is asking advice about, one versatile zoom lens.

For example, you may want to vary the depth of field on a particular subject, something which is possible in photoshop but time consuming if you use the "crop room" technique.

Or you may want to compress a scene with a longer focal lenght, something you can't do with "crop room" after the fact. (you need a longer focal length when shooting)

And of course you may want a wider shot than the 50mm will allow and you simply can't physically back up any more......

In my experience, the guys that carry the fast primes usually do get the shot (usually employing the "crop room" tecnique") but the guys who carry versatile zooms usually get the shot with some creative flare (which is afforded by the varying focal lengths which is why we carry large, expensive DSLR's with various lenses...............)

one versatile zoom lens. For example, you may want to vary the depth of field on a particular subject, something which is possible in photoshop but time consuming if you use the "crop room" technique.
You've lost me here...What is "crop room" technique? And are you implying that different focal lengths on a zoom lens influence depth of field?

In my experience, the guys that carry the fast primes usually do get the shot (usually employing the "crop room" tecnique") but the guys who carry versatile zooms usually get the shot with some creative flare (which is afforded by the varying focal lengths which is why we carry large, expensive DSLR's with various lenses...............)
Same here... What do you mean..?

"No, the 24-105 is not weather resistant "

Funny, that's not what Canon says. They do say that you should add a filter for maximum sealing in wet conditions though. Otherwise it does have all the Canon weather seals that are used in their weather sealed "L" series lenses. That doesn;t mean you can shoot it underwater of course, but it is pretty well sealed against dust and rain while it's mounted on the camera (for maximum sealing you need a 1 series camera with a lens mount gasket too).

I breifly reviewed the 24-105 here http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_24-105_review.html

The 24-105 does show distortion and vignetting, especially at 24mm, but DPP takes care of that for you.

I find the 24-105/4L to be a very good lens. I think the extra focal length over the 24-70 can be very useful, especially if it's the only lens you have.

At the risk of being completely redundant; I always carry a 50 f/1.4 with the 24-105. For anything after sunset, the 50mm is indispensable.

In my experience, the guys that carry the fast primes usually do get the shot (usually employing the "crop room" tecnique") but the guys who carry versatile zooms usually get the shot with some creative flare (which is afforded by the varying focal lengths which is why we carry large, expensive DSLR's with various lenses...............)

Actually... in my experience... faster lens allows you to be more creative with framing and depth of field. Zooms to me feel more generic (unless you a strictly shooting landscapes) and typically flatter.

I have been to SE Asia many times and in my experience... there was a lot of walking, dusty situations and if you are going to Hong Kong... great evening neon light shots. If you are restricted to ONE lens... the 24-105 seems like a no brainer... I'd bring a 50mm over the 24-70... the range just isn't versatile enough. BUT if you are asking about a kit to bring... I'd say a WA (16-35/17-40, or 24L or 28mm), 50mm, and tele (70-200 flavor... the f/4 being much lighter or 100mm macro or 135L).

My personal choice being: 24L, 50f/1.4, 70-200f4IS.

Have a great trip.


aaron

If it was me... and I could only bring 1 lens... it WOULD be a 50mm.

"No, the 24-105 is not weather resistant "
Funny, that's not what Canon says
Well, Canon (US site, lens description) describes the 24-105 only as having "dust- and moisture-resistant construction." It lacks the rubber sealing ring on the mount, specially shaped manual focus and zoom rings, et cetera (dust and weatherproofibg, Canon EF Lens Work III, p. 185.) Moreover, the way 24-105 extends, opens up a huge gap for the dust and moisture to enter (that's why my has rather "gritty" manual focus.) 24-70 is much closer to the truly sealed super-teles, but the 24-105 is only so-so weather resistant lens. OTOH fine dust (think San Luis Valley, Colorado - Great Sand Dunes during a moderate sandstorm) enters even the best lenses (300/2.8 in my case) so nothing is really "dust and moisture" proof.

With the IS the f4 should be able to handle the low light with a slower shutter speed hand held.

Just something to think about

Rus

I've had a 24-70 for maybe 4 years, using it first with a 20D, and then on a 5D. When I got the 5D I got the 24-105 as well. On the first vacation after the 5D purchase, I left the 24-70 at home. On the next vacation, it was the 24-105 that stayed behind. It was not a clear cut decision, though, and to this day I've not made up my mind to embrace one and discard/sell the other. Both have their advantages. For me the 24-70 has the edge due to it's speed and near-macro capability. And, at least with my copies, the 24-70 exhibits less light fall-off and is sharper, particularly out at the corners.

I have a 50mm as well, and really appreciate it's value, but would not leave the normal zoom at home just because of a self imposed one lens limit. Take only the 50mm and you will be kicking yourself for all the lost opportunities, particularly on the wide end.

Regarding the increased telephoto range of the 24-105, I've found in practice it's not that much. It is noticeable, but just not make-or-break. The main downside for me with the 24-70 is the lack of IS.

One other thing, the 24-70 seems much warmer than the 24-105, at least with my copies. Not sure which I'd deem neutral, I would think the 24-105 is closer tho.

You might give some thought to the kind of shooting you plan to do. On the 1DsII, the f4 lens will "hunt" for focus significantly more than the f2.8. This is especially noticeable if you do a lot of street/people documentary shooting. For quicker grabs of people shots, the f2.8 has the edge.

Christopher: are you sure about the hunting of the F4? I use a 70-200 F4 IS on a wimpy Digital Rebel and hardly ever have any focusing problems unless it's really dark.

Matthijs, yes, I've proven the "longer hunt" to myself on multiple occassions. I shoot a lot of wedding receptions - which are lower light - and it's especially significant there. Of course, the 2.8 24-70 on any of the Mk II or Mk III bodies is extremely fast, and I may be overly accustomed to that very fast response. I've tried (unsuccessfully) to Google for an article I read about 18 months ago concerning the Series One bodies and 2.8 v. 4 (and higher) lenses and the faster focus achieved with larger aperture capable lenses (even when a smaller aperture is used). I haven't look extensively for that article, but I do know from experience that the 2.8's are faster than 17-40 f4 and 24-105f4 on my Mk II, especially when shooting people (faces and other lower contrast subjects).

re: the 2.8 vs 4 issue...

Of course lenses with wider max apertures will have a tougher time locking focus. But let's assume he is not shooting a low light wedding or a Charger's game. There are a lot of compromises being made and the AF difference b/w f/2.8 and f/4 is probably the least of the concerns he should have... especially if none of these shots are taken on assignment.

For all practical purposes, f/4 especially on a USM L lens would suit you just fine for travel.

Fixed focal length lenses tend to give sharper results. I like using the 28 1.8, great lens, short, less chance of camera shake. I use it a lot. When I shot my series of Irish lighthouse photographs I used the FD 28 with my old A1, and got stunning results. I used the EF 28 last Sunday for some aerial shots of a harbour here in South West Ireland and the results were clear, clean and beautifully sharp. My 24-105 is currently undergoing repair after failing on me after only 2 years. It is also very bulky compared to the 28. John

"Actually... in my experience... faster lens allows you to be more creative with framing and depth of field. Zooms to me feel more generic (unless you a strictly shooting landscapes) and typically flatter."

I agree wholeheartedly....which is why MY one lens would be a FAST zoom! The focal lengths would depend on the shooting I would be expecting to do.

I just took a trip to asia too. and the lens most of the time on my hand for photo hobbie was 24-105mm f/4 IS was wonderful for travel . you can shot landcapes portrait streetlight how ever every thing you can . distortion?vingnetting? you can fix later but not very much yes ! very useful lens for travel please

When I want or need to travel light, I carry my 5D and the 24-105L. Either way, I always carry my 50 f/1.4, and sometimes 100 f/2. Both primes are extremely compact lenses and I can always find room for them somewhere in my luggage, even if they are stuffed inside a shoe. I purchased the 24-105L instead of the 24-70L for the longer telephoto and IS, based on the assumption that I could adequately cover lowlight situations with one or both of the primes.

this is a picture for travel on the lens 24-105mm/4 IS

Thanks everyone for this discussion. I've been trying to decide which one of these I'd like to buy for a nicer walkabout lens than my 28-135mm.

Dear People-- Thank you so much for your thoughtful responses. Re focus speed/hunting, I also briefly looked for something definitive on Google (canon aperture autofocus speed) but only came up with a few observations that Canon's best--1DsM bodies with L USM lenses--will always (?) be the fastest focusing combinations. Makes sense. Since I will not be doing sports or birding on this trip, I won't worry about any split second focusing delays with the 25-105. So that's the way to go this time. Two years ago I spent several weeks in China, lugging a 1DsM, 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 over mountains and desert. I'm now 75 and too old for that sort of thing. Divestiture--that's the key. Unless a nice 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 comes flying thru the window...

Again, thank you for the good ideas. And Jordan Ho--that's a wonderful shot!

Jack Prebis

I'm actually a Nikon shooter, but in my experience in the studio, the 24-105mm f/4L is a really nice lightweight lens. In fact, the 5D 24-105 combo almost made me switch in favor of full frame. But then came the D700. =)

Anyway, go with the 24-105, it's a spectacular lens.

I own the 24-70 and I really like it. Its always the fall-back lens. When I'm not sure what to take I grab the 24-70.

I love the 24-70 2.8 ..... my mom loves the 24-105 f4. I shoot events, headshots, weddings, portraits and groups. She shoots everyday things, scenics, her dog, the clouds etc.

The 24-70 is big, heavy, and not as extensive on the long end... but, it is sharp, fast, extremely nice bokeh, among other things. It really depends on what you plan to do with it. I think the 24-105 / 5D combination is the best medium-weight and size travel kit. I definitely wouldn't take the 24-70 on a trip... For the weight, I could take both my 17-40 and my 70-200

I own the 24-70 f2.8L and feel that for tourist purposes the 24-105L is the better choice, especially with the full frame 5D camera! I agree with Bob Atkins that Canon's DDP raw convertor will correct any lens distortions with 1 click when shotting raw. The 2 pieces of advice I will add is :

1. buy the B&W Pro MRC multicoated UV filter to protect the front lens element. It's not cheap, $91 for the 77mm size at 2filter.com. But as Lecia taught me some 30 years ago at a Kodak seminar in Rochester, your lens is only as good as the glass it is shooting through. I keep a Nikon micro-cloth attached to my camera strap to keep it clean.

2. Keep the lens hood on the lens at all times. It protects the lens, acts like a rain umbrella to keep rain off, and will enhance and keep the contast of the lens at its maximum. A trick Larry West of Nikon taught me many years ago is to take your lens hood to a supermarket and try fitting the tupperware plastic tops to it. Hopefully you'll find one that fits perfectly and that will be your new lens cap. That way your camera/lens is always protected, but ready to shoot in an instant.

Mike Dziak

"It's not cheap, $91 for the 77mm size at 2filter.com"

The B+W 77mm MRC UV Filter is a little cheaper at B&H, just under $80US:

(link)

"Well, Canon (US site, lens description) describes the 24-105 only as having "dust- and moisture-resistant construction." It lacks the rubber sealing ring on the mount"

Well mine certainly has the rubber sealing ring on the lens mount. I'm looking at it right now. I don't know about the internal seals because I haven't taken it apart to look for them, but I assume they are there. Maybe yours is defective if it's missing the seal? I'd call Canon and ask them why it's not there.

I own both lenses and they both give great results on my 5D.
The 24-105L is a great walk around lens because it is so light and has a nice zoom.
It does vignette more than my 24-70L. -which can be good or bad-:)
If I know my traveling is more drive to a location and then shoot landscapes, I grab the 24-70L.
Having used both lenses extensively, my personal favorite is the 24-70L.
My images always feel crisp with that lens.

-greg
GNgalleries

Don't all L lenses have full seals and a gasket? They always qualify the 1D's weather sealing with "when using an L lens". I read everything I could find on these lenses several months back, and I never remember one of them not having a seal.

Well mine certainly has the rubber sealing ring on the lens mount
Ha, that's funny: one (purchased solo) has a gasket but the one that came with the 5D doesn't have it! I didn't even realize that until this conversation (thanx! - off to Canon we go...) In any event, I find the 24-105 much less resistant to the elements than 24-70: the latter extends inside the hood and that's, maybe, why it has less "gritty" focusing action than my 24-105 (gasket or no gasket) and I often shoot in very dusty conditions with both lenses.

Though maybe a little late one last remark regarding focus speed at F4. Today I did some shooting and experienced some hunting in medium light conditions with my 70-200 F4. So Christopher was indeed right.

My backpacking travel kit?

5D, 17-40, 70-200 f4 IS

If I can carry a bit more I also take 50/2.5 macro and 1.4X. Having said that I did travel round Vietnam with only 5D/24-105 covering similiar subjects to what you describe and was surprised how rarely I wished I had something longer/wider/faster. I would still take the 50 macro however because it takes up almost no space

My 24-105 came with my 5D as a kit lens and has the gasket, so it's not a matter of how you buy it.

Of course the 5D doesn't have the corresponding seal on the lens mount, so on a 5D it doesn't do me a lot of good!

it's not a matter of how you buy it.
I hope so. Probably just a coincidence or the Canon tech forgot to put the gasket back on after fixing it the first time. In any event it is already en route to Canon.