Canon 24-70 or 24-105 or neither?

[kenw]

Hypothetical question, and based on the replies the hypothetical part may go away….

I would like (note: like) a walk-around wide-short tele zoom to compliment the 70-200/2.8; ie, a single additional lens to carry when a bag o’ primes is a bit overkill.

I already have and am quite happy with the Sigma 20/1.8, Canon 50/1.4 and Canon 100/2.8 (macro)….all pretty sharp, wonderfully fast and paid for…. ain’t giving them up. So in theory I’ve pretty much got the gap (under the 70-200) filled with pretty good primes. I also have but rarely use the Canon 28-135IS and the Mk1 28-80, but these are painfully slooooow (3.5-5.6) and therefore don’t get out often. (a significant % of my subjects are fast moving so experience says IS doesn’t buy me that much)

But I tire of carrying a loaded bag with so many lens in it just to do informal fun stuff. My wife REALLY tires of it….My single lens needs are presently filled with the 50/1.4 whenever possible. My 2 lens setup usually consists of the 20/1.8 + 70-200/2.8. But I see that as a substantial coverage gap. I could add the 50/1.4 and eliminate most of the gap but now I’m up to 3 lenses, 2 in cases hanging from belt loops and the pants are starting to sag…..heck, now it’s easier just to tote the entire backpack…. And then comes “that look”…

So I see the 24-70/2.8 and on the surface it meets my needs: zoom, fast and fits well in the general walking-around line-up: 24-70, 70-200. Very ungeeky. Wife-friendly even.

But the 24-70/2.8 reviews are pretty unflattering to say the least. The much better-reviewed 24-105 would also serve my need/like but is no faster than what I’ve got (24mm and only f4? Seriously?), build quality and all that other L-stuff aside. I just can’t see paying $1000+ for f4, IS or not when I technically have the range covered in much faster primes. And yes, I do use all of my primes often at or towards their fastest Av, and rarely use flash so the need for speed is fair.

Perhaps I’m overstating the f4 issue?

Thoughts? I’ve searched and read most of the threads here and elsewhere on these lenses and I’m still listening…..if you've made it this far....

[KJ Smith]

It's been discussed often. But your case makes me think 24-105 even more than the others.

Why? Because you have the primes to fall back on if needed.

Don't sweat the f4. The 24-105 has IS. Allegedly a 3 stop IS.

You don't say on what camera, but the 24-70 is to short for a FF camera.

On the other hand the 105 is longer on both....

I think I saw a new 24-105 in the B?S for $900.

[crazeazn]

what are you shooting that f/4 isnt sufficient? 24-105 is exactly what you are looking for. 24-70 is a good for other things but u have primes so its moot. another nice option is the tamron 28-75 but its not wide enough.

[JohnT]

I'd had a 24-105 for about three years, and I've never wished it be to be f/2.8. It's a great all-around lens.

[Tom]

DOF is thinner at 105@4 than 70@2.8 all other things equal.

The only reason I ever choose the 24-70 is basketball when I gave to maintain a high SS.

[mmuhlenkamp]

I also like shooting with primes Ken, I have a similar set up to yours (minus the 70-200, that's covered by a 100L and 200L )

I had tried a Tamron 28-75, and while it was a good lens, the range wasn't large enough for a zoom and I preferred just using my 50 f/1.4.

I now have a 24-105L for more casual shooting. I still prefer to shoot with primes, but if I want to pack "light" I have the 5D, 24-105, 50 f/1.4 and flash in a small shoulder bag. My super casual shooter is my LX-5 which is nice because I always have it with me and doesn't weigh me down.

The f/4 on the 24-105 really isn't bad, the fact that it's sharp at f/4 really makes the difference and the IS helps (since I'm mostly shooting still-ish subjects). I like to shoot wide open or close to it with my primes, but the 24-105 is a nice compromise when you're just shooting pics of family or a more leisurely outing where lugging around all the camera gear is more of an annoyance than a benefit.

My 2 cents

[peeker]

I too have the 24-105 f4 and it stays on my 5dMark II 90% of the time. Every day I wonder what the extra stop would give me, but I have primes to fill all of those gaps. The two things I found to help my decision was 24-105 has IS and it comes in very handy for low light/slow shutter speeds and 2. the extra reach from 70-105 is well worth it. From what I have heard, the 24-70 is quite a bit heavier which wouldn't appeal to me.

Can't imagine what you are shooting that is too fast. I use the 24-105 as my wide lens to shoot cheerleaders and football plays. Can't say that f4 has been much of a problem (with a higher iso).

[kenw]

good stuff, folks, exactly what I was looking for. thanx again.

[brewercm]

When I go on vacation now I carry two lenses with me. Tamron 28-75 2.8 when I want good quality and the range is right, and the Tamron 18-270 VC 3.5-6.3.

With these two I cover about everything I need without having to lug all my primes around with me.

[parrotmomma]

I bought the 24-105 about a month ago, and I can't begin to tell you how thrilled I am with this lens! It's so clear, so sharp, and takes the most amazing shots. I wish I had bought it in the first place. This is a photo I took over Thanksgiving in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. ISO 1600, f4, 1/20 second. HAND HELD.

[duronboy]

The 24mm end of my 24-70L reminds me of my Sigma 24-70. ;-( Erratic AF accuracy, and shabby IQ when correct AF happens to be achieved.