24-105 vs 24-70

[Bennymiata]

White Box versions are those lenses that were originally packed into kits like the 5D3 with 24-105 lens, where the purchaser doesn't want the lens and only the camera.
As they were supplied with a kit, the cost of the lens is a bit less than if bought separately, so if the kit is broken up, you can pick up the lens in a white box, instead of the black box for some saving in cost.
Exactly the same lens etc., just a but cheaper.

There is some talk that the newer 24-70 F4 lens will also start going into kits soon, so there will also be white box versions of this available too.

[William W]

Hi,
I am shooting on a 7d, and currently using my tamron 18-270 . . . plan on using it for my main lens whilst I travel I like to do a variety of photography- landscape, portraits, do a lot of whitewater kayaking photography, plus just every day random photos. I do know neither are that wide so are not fantastic for landscape.

I use the EF24 to 105/4 IS. It is my favourite 'travel and holiday lens - BUT I use it on EOS 5D's.

Most of the ‘negatives’ of each of the two lenses you mention are reckoned in Laboratory Tests are mostly are not applicable in real world shooting: moreover on an APS-C camera any of the ‘negatives’ which are at the edges of the field of view you’ll never see anyway.

If I only had a 7D - I would buy the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM as my main working zoom lens: I have used this lens and it is an EXCELLENT Lens. Consider that you get Image Stabilization, a stop faster and also 7mm wider that either of the two lenses that you are considering. For a "one lens - travel lens on a 7D" I cannot see any reason that I would consider either of the two lenses you mention if I could buy the 17 to 55/2.8 IS - also as you said if you want extra reach you will get it with the 18 to 270 that you already own.

If your budget can be extended then, sell the 18 to 270 and buy the EF70 to 200F/4 IS as a companion for the 17 to 55/2,8 IS

Most importantly, I think that you should be aware and consider carefully the reality of the limitations of having a main working zoom on an APS-C Camera which is extends only to 24mm at the wide end.

WW

[aalex]

i own 24-105mm, 24-70mm v1 and v2. Use it with 5dm3. 24-70mm v2 is very significantly better than the other 2. As for my preference, 24-70 v2 is first, and 24-105mm would be my second choice.

[William W]

i own 24-105mm, 24-70mm v1 and v2. Use it with 5dm3. 24-70mm v2 is very significantly better than the other 2. As for my preference, 24-70 v2 is first, and 24-105mm would be my second choice.

I don't think that the "24-70mm v1 and v2" are lenses that the OP is asking about.

I understand that the OP is asking about the EF 24 to 105 F/4L IS USM and the EF 24 to 70 F/4 IS USM

WW

[unistudent1962]

Most importantly, I think that you should be aware and consider carefully the reality of the limitations of having a main working zoom on an APS-C Camera which is extends only to 24mm at the wide end.

There seems to be a perception that the only way to "improve" your images is to move up to L Lenses and Full Frame bodies. One of the problems with this is that L lenses are not made in focal lengths that are suitable for APS-C bodies. As a result we are seeing more and more posts being made by people who are buying L lenses that aren't won't fulfil their requirements on the APS-C body they are using NOW because they MAY "upgrade to full Frame in the future".

For me, the upgrade path isn't necessarily going to be to FF, so I've bought lenses that fulfil my needs NOW. As you can see from my signature, there's a mixture of EF and EF-S. I've bought L lenses that cover the telephoto range, and EF-S lenses that cover the wide to mid-tele range. This is because there simply ISN'T an L lens that fulfilled my needs as a "walkaround" lens.

As William has said, the 24- range of lenses aren't wide enough on an APS-C body. The (Canon) choice is then down to the 17-55 or the 15-85. As almost all of my photography is undertaken outdoors, a fixed aperture wasn't a huge priority, and 55 wasn't long enough for me, so I went for the 15-85. It's not an L, but the build and image quality is very good, and I doubt that under normal conditions the majority of viewers would be able to tell the difference between images taken with it and an L lens. IF I ever go FF I'll need a FF UWA and a 24- lens. Until then I've got 10-400 covered by lenses that fulfil my needs NOW.

[William W]

Mark has articulated quite clearly some of the specific questions that I think you should consider (thank you Mark).

I’ll add that using a zoom lens with the widest FL being 24mm, there is the consideration of the number of additional lens changes which might be necessary. For example I’ve read often of people buying the EF-S 10 to 22 F/3.5 ~ 4.5 and EF 24 to 105 F/4L as the ‘ideal’ two zoom lens kit for APS-C and then a few months later the realization of how inconvenient the FL = 22~24mm for a lens change-over, actually is in real life shooting for most general photographic situations.

If we are to get into lab talk - another consideration is, that whilst the smaller APS-C sensor will only see part of the image circle of any EF Lens – and therefore (as one example) it will NOT see any of the lens aberrations which are at the edges: on the other hand, the EF-S are range of lenses are optically maximized for the Smaller Image Circle and the smaller sensor, whereas the EF Lens are not.

On the matter of wanting L Series Lenses: I’ll add that L Series lenses are very high quality and produce very good images, but that does NOT mean, that NON L Series Lenses cannot. There are certain criteria that L Series Lenses must meet, to acquire the “L” red band – and one criterion is that lens must mount to all camera bodies of the Series. In this regard, the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM can NEVER be an L Series Lens, no matter how good an image maker it is, because it CANNOT mount to all EOS bodies.

WW

[Wretched]

If you can afford it, the 24-70 f2.8L is my most-used lens on my 7D. It's super sharp and will do anything. I use it for published car photography by day and shoot concerts with it at night. Love it.

[Arg]

My tip is not to 'plan on upgrading to FF at some stage'. This approach makes you buy the wrong lenses for your current photography. That is IMHO too high a price to pay; trying too hard to save too little money.

e.g. buy a 17-55 f2.8 IS and you won't regret it, and being Canon it will sell well when (dare I say 'if') you go full frame.

[mustard131]

Thanks heaps for all the posts, they have definitely got me thinking more about what I want to do with my photography. Unfortunately this has meant it didn't give me a straight out answer though, although I think I was dreaming with that thought. haha. It does mean that when my final decision is made it will be one with a lot of thought and research gone in to it.

My other question is weather proofing. How important is it? I do a lot of shooting based around my sport of whitewater kayaking, and am often near waterfalls, and out in the rain, so my camera and lenses do get a bit of moisture. Obviously I try to eliminate this as best as possible, but sometimes it's unavoidable. The 7d comes with good weather proofing, but it is only as good as the lens attached. This was another reason I was thinking of L series lenses. Does this change anyones recommendations?

Thanks in advance!!

[William W]

My other question is weather proofing. How important is it? I do a lot of shooting based around my sport of whitewater kayaking, and am often near waterfalls, and out in the rain, so my camera and lenses do get a bit of moisture. Obviously I try to eliminate this as best as possible, but sometimes it's unavoidable. The 7d comes with good weather proofing, but it is only as good as the lens attached. This was another reason I was thinking of L series lenses. Does this change anyones recommendations?

Not mine, no.

WW

[dcurry]

I know I'm a bit late on this thread but I have a 7D, the Tamron 18-270 (which I quite like) and I just ordered the 24-70 f4 so I'll let you know how it performs.

Dave

[mustard131]

Yeah thanks Dave, that would be great!

[acko]

I bought the 24-105 when I bought the 40D and is has been a great walk around lens for me.
Having bought the 6D I find it is brilliant on that too.
Because I take a number of motor sport photos, I find the slightly higher magnification is usefull.

[dcurry]

Yeah thanks Dave, that would be great!

24-70 arrived a couple of days ago and a big difference to the Tamron. Sharper and colours seem better. I'm loving it. The 18-270 will now live on the 650D as a second.

Dave.

[Speedway]

One of the problems with this is that L lenses are not made in focal lengths that are suitable for APS-C bodies. As a result we are seeing more and more posts being made by people who are buying L lenses that aren't won't fulfil their requirements on the APS-C body they are using NOW because they MAY "upgrade to full Frame in the future".

???????????? I use Both L and other lenses that are designed for full frame sensors That does not mean they are not suitable for crop sensor cameras. I and many others use the 70-200 L on crop sensor bodies and find no problems with the focal length. My 2 main lenses on the 7D are the 70-200 L and a Sigma 17-50 F2.8 Which is similar to what William recomended. I don't have a problem with the gap between 50 & 70 as a few paces fixes this and with a 2X extender on the 70-200 I cover a lot of ground.
Cheers Keith

[basketballfreak6]

hey mate, i had the 24-105, was a very nice lens, but my beef with it while on crop was that it's just not wide enough, so if you can deal with that (or have an UWA to compliment the 24-105) then i think it's a good choice, otherwise 15-85 would be a very good choice as well

between 24-70 f4 and 24-105 the advantage of the 24-70 would be better IQ also ability to macro, but it does annoy me to lose that 35mm of zoom, so i guess you have to work out your priorities, also whether or not you think it's worth paying extra for the 24-70 f4