Trade Canon 24-70 2.8 with 24-105 4.0 IS?

[LWimages]

I'd like to know anyone's opinion for those who have traded their Canon 24-70mm 2.8L to 24-105mm 4.0L IS or vice versa.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you like it? Do you regret it? What do you shoot?

I'm thinking of getting a 24-105mm 4.0 IS, but the CFO (read: wife) would not allow me to have both that and the 24-70. So the thought is to trade.

Not to be rude, but I'd really like to hear more of the opinions of those who have traded the lenses.

[darktiger]

What do you take pictures of more? Landscape, museums, architecture, people, static objects then I say 24-105 hands down. IS is great. If you take pictures of sports then the 24-70 is good because of the f/2.8. A lot of times I still find 2.8 not fast enough, I then switch to my primes.

[Riff Raff]

I primarily shoot low-light action in theatres. The 24-70mm rarely leaves f/2.8, so a 24-105mm would be near useless for the majority of what I shoot. I'm sure it'd be nice in other situations though, just not for what I'm normally doing.

[snmichaels]

I too am curious about these lenses. I've only just got my first L lens but I was looking at these two lenses.

[ST77]

I have used my 24-105 in some very low light situations and simply bump up the ISO when needed

[Citex]

Only complaint with my 24-70 is the lens hood falls off easily on mine. It is one of my sharpest lens though.

[LWimages]

I usually shoot sports outdoor and I would use my 70-200 2.8.

Pretty much what I use my 24-70 the most is people and walk-around lens. I seldom shoot landscape and inside museums and don't do architectures at all.

Thanks all.

[ChuckW]

The 24-105 is a more flexible walking around lens, if you are going to take just the one lens. I have found also that it make a very good portrait lens. The max aperture of f4 is the main drawback to this lens, but that is pretty easily compensated for by the IS and/or boosting the ISO.

[Riff Raff]

Originally Posted by ST77

I have used my 24-105 in some very low light situations and simply bump up the ISO when needed

I'm already at ISO 1600 and f/2.8 generally.

Originally Posted by Citex

Only complaint with my 24-70 is the lens hood falls off easily on mine.

Weird, it's one of my most secure.

[LoungeLizard]

I have both of these lenses. I would NEVER get rid of my 24-70 f/2.8 L. I have thought about selling the 24-105 f/4 L IS but it really is a nice all-around lens for daylight/outdoor use.

For now, I'm keeping them both as they serve very different purposes.

[r6isnum1]

Originally Posted by Citex

Only complaint with my 24-70 is the lens hood falls off easily on mine. It is one of my sharpest lens though.

I've never had a problem with mine.

I've shot once with the 24-105 and that it was a great lens. But having owned the 24-70 I would prefer it over the other any day of the week.

[toverman]

Too bad this is an either/or choice, because both lenses are awesome (I don't own either but have borrowed both) and do different things. Although it would be one tank of a lens, would be nice if there was a 24-105 f/2.8 IS. Or let's go really nuts and go with a 16-105 f/2.8 IS with built-in lens hood.

For a walkaround, I love the 24-105 range. I have an old 28-105, which was my lens of choice with my film camera. Like it's been said, though, if you are shooting moving targets in low light, you'll need at least f/2.8 (and it's not always enough).

My friend who has the 24-70 didn't like it at first. He's mainly a sports shooter and 70 just wasn't the reach he was used to (even with a 1.6x crop). But he uses it for close-in feature shots and has come to love it. For portraits, while the 105 end would seem to work better, wide open at f/4 the backgrounds aren't quite as creamy as with the f/2.8.

Confused yet?

[JohnT]

I sold my 24-70 in order to get a 24-105 for a little more reach, and I have no regrets. The IS compensates for the maximum aperture of F4 in low light as long as there isn't a lot of subject movement. While both lenses pretty much cover the same range, there is a use for both. It just depends on what you really need.

[luis_relampago]

I have the 24-70 f2.8 L and it is an excellent glass I shoot conferences and mostly social events at low light situations and my 24-70 just does a great job, tac sharp images even wide open. The 2.8 makes a big difference and I don't mind the extra weight.