File :-(, x, )
24-105 vs. 24-70 Anonymous
i'm looking to buy my very first quality lens because renting is becoming not quite so cost effective after 20 times

i'm willing to put down about $1,000 since i know (i think) i will be using this for a looong time

i don't think i'll be considering the 17-55 because i don't think it's worthwhile to drop $1,000 on a crop only lens even though it's pretty great (and there's another reason, see below)

so the choice is pretty much between the 24-105 or the 24-70

i'm leaning more towards the 24-105 for these reasons:

1) very versatile range, even on crop, i really don't mind 38mm equivalent
2) love that i can get to 168mm equivalent, i do portraits so anyone who's used a 100mm, be it on crop or film, it's just an awesome perspective to have
3) like IS (1/3s at 24mm, 1/13s at 105mm IN THEORY)
4) very good size and weight, doesn't feel cumbersome even with hood on
5) good at f/4 wide open, excellent at f/5.6
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
Rent all the lenses you want, compare them all for instant results.

I know you've already rented them before, but only YOU can really decide what lens is right.
>> Anonymous
>>284739

meh, both will get the job done. i just can't decide which one i want

the 24-105 being more usable would be better in the end instead of me going ughhhh don't want to pull the 24-70 out of the bag

my 400d with 50mm feels like i'm holding NOTHING AT ALL

NOTHING AT ALL
NOTHING AT ALL
>> Anonymous
wel lthe tamron 28-75 2.8 and 17-50 2.8 r good lenses but there r more problems with them on canon bodys

sigma 24-70 is a hard to destroy heavy lens but a little less sharper then the tamron
go see some samples at flickr

I'm shootin with nikon but if I would need a 135 focal lenght i would go with a prime lens 2.8 not with a walk f4 zoom : /

i would buy the 24-70 its 2.8 i gues? (not so familliar with canon lenses)
>> Anonymous
In b4 19.99 comes in again.
>> Anonymous
>>284742wel lthe tamron 28-75 2.8 and 17-50 2.8 r good lenses but there r more problems with them on canon bodys

they both seem okay, i really wouldn't mind a 17-50 because the price tag is just so right

>> sigma 24-70 is a hard to destroy heavy lens but a little less sharper then the tamron

i don't think any of the Sigma standard zooms are good enough, like the 24-60/70, 28-70. fuck those. don't mind their macros and short primes though

>> I'm shootin with nikon but if I would need a 135 focal lenght i would go with a prime lens 2.8 not with a walk f4 zoom : /

i'm going for versatility, personal investment of $1,000 is huge.

a 135mm 2.0 is $100 cheaper than these zooms^ and far less convenient for me.

and i'm shooting at f/8 or more with studio lights, i don't need the fast aperture at the long end for delicious bokeh, i want the focal length for the perspective

>> i would buy the 24-70 its 2.8 i gues?

yes, but it's so massive :/
>> Anonymous
The 24-105 is a greaaaat lens, it also doubles up as a moth cage!
>> Anonymous
get the 24-70 and don't come back until you have taken some pictars with it.
>> Anonymous
i would not think again if the 24-70 was a bit smaller and lighter :O

$100 extra for the f/2.8 is definitely worth it, can't replace aperture but can mostly work around focal length

i really do want f/2.8 :[ do i put the 17-55 in the candidates? what happens when i go full frame :f never sold anything on ebay
>> Anonymous
if you are considering the 17-55, also consider the 17-40L
>> Anonymous
I've been pondering the same three lenses for a couple month (17-55, 24-70, 24-105). First, lets completely rule out the 17-55 lens.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-10

They are reporting a nearly 16% failure rate with their stock of that lens. As much as everyone would love to shoot f/2.8 with IS, it just isnt worth the risk of failure.


Next, the 24-70 vs the 24-105. I personally loved shooting wide-open with the 24-70 when I was borrowing one. Doing portraiture at 70mm f/2.8 looked really great. However at the same time, I was shooting side by side with another photographer with a lower end IS lens. He would stop down his lens past f/10, which brought his shutter speeds around 1/20-1/15, and used IS to compensate.

So between those two lenses, it mainly comes down to a shooting style preferance.
>> Anonymous
get a tamrom 17-55mm f.2.8- its a quality, affordable lens
>> Anon
17-40 is boring on APS-C, had it, sold it, bought 17-55, kixx ass.
>> Anonymous
I've owned the 24-70 for exactly a year now, and i wouldn't have changed it for the 24-105 i was also considering at the time.

I've since borrowed one, and it doesn't even compare. Sure it's bigger and heavier, but the results are worth it.

Don't even consider the 17-55.

Using it on a 40D.
>> Delicious !3GqYIJ3Obs
The 24-70 is magnificent, and the weight is not that bad, honestly. It might feel a bit imbalanced on a 400D though. I haven't used the others in the field.
>> Anonymous
I'm going to slightly recommend the 105 over the 70. I own the 105, and it's great. I've used the 70, but after the range the 105 provides, it just seemed weaker in comparison. However:

The 2.8 option was nice. Thing is, I still needed a flash for that assignment, and 2.8 would have been too small a DOF most of the time. When I was going from 4 to 2.8 w/o the flash, it was nice and fast, but still didn't have quite the zoom I wanted.

You've already mentioned how you like the extra zoom for portraits. Here's one thing you should really consider. How well do you hold your camera? My hands suck, so having IS on f4 works out better for me than f2.8 w/o IS. But some people have rock solid hands, and the 2.8 gives them exactly what they want.

in most of my shooting, I just couldn't get closer, so the extra reach of th e105 was very important. If you're doing studio work, the 70 will probably suffice.

So in short, I'd say the 105 is the better general lens. However, in many situations the 70 has superior qualities. Think about what you will be doing, and decide on that. Either way, though, they're both great lenses, and you'll probably be very happy with each.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
after much consideration, i'm going to go with the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS

it gives me terrific range, from normal equivalent to telephoto at 216mm equivalent, all of that with IS. plus it's only $400 and the same size as the 17-85 IS so it's perfect for size and weight

i kid, i kid, i still haven't decided. the canon rebates are still going until january so i have time to think. only the 17-55 and 24-70 have rebates, not the 24-105

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2005:10:10 13:39:52Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height524
>> Anonymous
feel i must chip in.

I own the 24-105 (it replaced the 17-85), and it is a sweet little number. light enough to wield, gets right in there on the crop body (and has the opposite benefit, albeit with some heavy barrel distortion at 24, on a FF).

I use on a 40D and it mates perfectly, same size at the 17-85. since getting it i've handled some friends 17-85s and 28-135s - fuck do they grind like cheap shit. once you go L you're in canon's pocket forever, it's certainly some luxury shit. so forget getting anything non L (except primes) after you buy your first - a warning!!!

Also, have read someone say they would never again walk around with a 24-70 unless they were getting paid for it. it's some heavy (quality) shit.

get the 24-105, you can always get a 24-70 later. you only live once.
>> Anonymous
kind of thinking about the 17-50 now -__________-

$470, how can i go wrong!