?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4 IS

Anyone using these? I'm considering moving from the 24-70 to the 24-105, but I'm wondering if anyone who's using the 105 misses the f/2.8. Do you feel the IS compensates for this?

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
sbgrl
Apr. 7th, 2006 11:04 am (UTC)
I have the 24-105 and love it. And don't mind not having the 2.8 because I have other lenses for that if that's what I want to do. For me, the focal length range is more important.
blaneyphoto
Apr. 7th, 2006 11:13 am (UTC)
Yeah, I'm more or less sold on the 24-105, and I think I'd prefer that range vs the 24-70 on the 5D. I'm actually trying to minimize my lens selection, so I think the 24-105 f/4 IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS will cover about 99% of my shooting needs. I figure then the 50 1.4, 20 2.8, and 105 macro will be for occasional use.

The barrel of the 24-105 extends as you head towards 105, right? Would you say its a good size for an everyday/walk around lens? The 24-70 is a monster and I've really stopped using it. I'd like to find something else!
sbgrl
Apr. 7th, 2006 11:25 am (UTC)
Yes, the barrel extends. I think it's fine for walking around. I had to get used to it at first since the non-L equivalent range is far smaller, but once I got over the size it was fine.
bitpuddle
Apr. 7th, 2006 03:17 pm (UTC)
I was going to get the 24-105, but I was disappointed by its optical performance. Noticeably more distortion than the 24-70. The IS would definitely compensate for the smaller max aperture. IS helps in a lot of situations.

They are both good lenses and the 24-105 is a little more compact, so I'm really just being picky. I just think that the absolute image quality of the 24-70 is better.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )