In-depth comparison between Canon 24-70/2.8L and 24-105/4L IS

[wattsgallery]

Having never owned an IS lens, this is something I'd never thought of until you mentioned it. However, the genre I'm interested in is more corporate event than sport, so perhaps the 25-105 would be fine?

Not sure what sport your into but unless its elephant polo (apparently it exists) you might find 105 too short.

[JzB]

Excellent post and very timely for me too.

One question, do you (or anyone else) consider re-sale values?

Cheers,

JzB

[Xenedis]

One question, do you (or anyone else) consider re-sale values?

I've personally never bought a pre-owned lens before.

My article doesn't delve into price any deeper than stating that the 24-70 is generally hundreds more expensive (new, but not stated as such) in the Australian market.

Prices can vary, and with the pre-owned market, that's an even bigger minefield.

[Darvidanoar]

Not sure what sport your into but unless its elephant polo (apparently it exists) you might find 105 too short.

erm, I think you read that fack to brunt

[JzB]

I've personally never bought a pre-owned lens before.

My article doesn't delve into price any deeper than stating that the 24-70 is generally hundreds more expensive (new, but not stated as such) in the Australian market.

Prices can vary, and with the pre-owned market, that's an even bigger minefield.

Yep and understand. I was more curious of the on sale value of a lens. ie; buy new and then sell used after a period of time. Do some lenses hold their values better than others? My question is more generic than to your review above.

Cheers,

JzB

[wattsgallery]

erm, I think you read that fack to brunt

Whoops sorry - read the "than" as an "and"

[thinkimages]

have had the 24 to 105L for two years,very happy with it!

[flyfisher]

Very thoughtful precis of the two lens. Thank you very much.

[elrobbo]

Very appreciative of the review - thankyou!
: )

[bartt_06]

Great review Xenedis. I am considering getting a lens along these lines pretty soon, so this has been very usefull for me.

Cheers!

[\edit] Great Blog too!

[katiedransfield]

I have been trying to make my way through the minefield of information on these two lenses for a while now, and this review really cemented by choice. Thanks for the detailed analysis. Very helpful.

[electricmic]

Thanks for the write-up. Much appreciated.

[Allan Ryan]

Thanks Xenedis

I purchased the 24-105 based on price and extra reach - sounds simple but it wasn't

at the end of months of worrying about which one to by I realized that the 24-105 was being called thing like
" the most versitle walk around Lens "
" if i could have only one lens this would be it "
and other comments like that were in the reviews

Bottom line is
I don't know if i will ever spend that much on a lens again,
so i went for the 24-105 based on it being considered as one of the best lens to have if you cant afford or carry more lens..... does that make sense?

[sonofcoco]

I've been debating the same issue. Will probably upgrade my kit lens at the end of the year to one of these two...am currently angling towards the 24-70mm f2.8 as I've found myself at festivals etc with the 70-200 f4L wishing I could shoot at faster speeds to get decent shots of what was happening.

I have a 40D though, and realistically probably won't be upgrading to full frame for at least 2 or 3 years...so am also thinking about the 17-55mm f2.8.

The 24-70 would sit nicely with the 10-22mm, 70-200mm, nifty fifty and 100mm Macro though.

[James Axford]

I used to have the 24-70 but sold it for the 24-105 hoping for some higher IQ at the 24mm end.
I believe it is better but i ended up buying a 24mm mkII and there is no comparison. the 24 primes is worlds apart from the zoom.
I hardly ever use the zoom these days as i have the range covered by primes, but it does come in handy for the occasional event now and then. I wont sell it.

[ZedEx]

I went with the 24-70 for my 5D, over the 24-105 for a number of reasons. Majorly, it will be used for weddings and that extra stop of light really plays a part when indoor lighting gets dim. I'm not at all fussed by the bulk of it, I'm a fairly strong lad so it's really of no concern IQ has been absolutely superb, obviously not as good as a prime but pretty damn good and I have no complaints

[wattsgallery]

My experience is opposite to James' re the 24mm end of the zooms - after using both I found the 24-70 far better at the 24 end than the 24-105. Obviously neither would compare to the primes - v jealous James. As to the weight I agonised over it before I bought it but (with the Black Rapid strap) the weight is fine.

[Xenedis]

My experience is opposite to James' re the 24mm end of the zooms - after using both I found the 24-70 far better at the 24 end than the 24-105. Obviously neither would compare to the primes - v jealous James. As to the weight I agonised over it before I bought it but (with the Black Rapid strap) the weight is fine.

While it's generally true that primes are sharper than zooms, the f/2.8 Canon L-series zooms are very sharp, close enough that for most people the difference will not be noticeable or significant.

I have five L primes and two of the three fast Canon L zooms, and with the zooms I've never found myself displeased with sharpness. I like fast primes for light-gathering ability; while they are exceptionally sharp, the sharpness they offer wasn't a big factor in my decision.

[electricmic]

I just bought the 21-105L on the weekend and I am at about 50 shots.

So far it does exactly what I want it to do, keep it on the body as an everyday walk around lens. The extra focal length has been great as I previously used the 18-55 that comes with the kit.

Once I have a look at the images on the computer I will throw a few here for everyone.

[Canon500D]

Very good thread.
Still can't decide tho as I want the 105 focal length and IS, but want the /2.8. they need to combine the 2