bonjing 5:16pm, 16 September 2006
Hi,

I dont have this lens yet but liek most peopel looking to buy this lens from Canon have the dilemma between the 24-70mm and 24-105mm. This post is probably tired already but I want to approach the issue in a different prospective... SO WHAT INFLUENCED YOU TO BUT THIS LENS? THanks for the reply guys!
berserk soap [deleted] 12 years ago
Price. I got mine very cheap used. I had actually planned to buy the 17-40mm f/4 L, but I got the 24-70mm f/2.8 L for very little more.

I'm very happy with it, and I think I use it more indoors because of the f/2.8 than I would an f/4, even with IS.
fensterbme PRO 12 years ago
What made me buy it... f/2.8 , the faster glass is what I wanted. Image Stabilization doesn't help you at all with subject motion blur, I also like the shallower DoF that f/2.8 offers.
itchy yard [deleted] 12 years ago
The additional f-stop is priceless for indoor or low-light, no flash photography. Even with the IS, the f/4 can't handle motion blur (such as people, who like to move).
ragged quicksand [deleted] Posted 12 years ago. Edited by ragged quicksand (member) 12 years ago
I always pic the higher aperture lens. You just can't beat the f/2.8 aperture for lowlight , faster shutter speeds, and bokeh versus a f/4.0.

This is my everyday lens, so I wanted a lens that will work at least adequately in just about every situation. The photographers nightmare is not having the right lens on the body when something unexpected happens.

I have noticed that alot of photojournalist have this on there camera body all the time. I often am paying more attention to what cameras and lenses are being used at new conferences, wars, on the streets etc, more so than the actual news event. And this seems to be a popular lens.
Chip Phillips 12 years ago
I have the 24-70 myself and agree that speed is a major determining factor. I am going to buy a tele and am considering the 70-200 2.8 IS, or the 100-400 w/ IS. I am leaning toward the 70-200.
ulisses barbosa 12 years ago
the f2.8 is the ultimate option for lenses.
the USM provides a high speed focus, a must have for photojournalism.
the field depth and the optical quality are perfect too.
this is part of the 'perfect lens kit', w/ 16-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and 400 f2.8.
but the 24-70 f2.8 fits most needs.
if you´re too close you can (sometimes) give a step back, or if you´re too far you can use some photoshop by the price of some depth.
The 24-70 f2.8 is ALWAYS atacched to my camera. 'she' is my prior optin for a day-by-day photojornalism.
if you buy it, you won´t regreat.
jimmylikescoffee 12 years ago
I also chose the 24-70 over the 24-105, primarily based on speed.

However, several reviews I read also said that the 24-105 suffered from more distortion. That was also a deciding factor for me.
Dan P. B. 12 years ago
Just ordered mine today. I tried out the 24-105 and 24-70. I actually enjoy trying to go to 1/15 - it's a challenge. IS isn't as attractive as 2.8 - I'm hooked on fast lenses.

Both are eligible for double rebates i think right now (10/15/06-1/15/07).

Depends how you shoot - do you need a 2.8? :)
is*land 12 years ago
2.8 (better bokeh, faster)
better macro
IS eats batteries

my first day today with it. i LOVE IT!
rowland-w PRO 12 years ago
Speed: f/2.8 vs f/4.0. I already own the 28-135 IS f/3.5-5.6 and the 70-200 f/4 IS which picks up where the 24-70 leaves off. The 70-200 f/4 is no slower than the 24-105 and also has IS, but takes me past 105mm to 200mm.
wmliu PRO 12 years ago
the awe factor. the 24-70mm f/2.8 is big and heavy. if i have to spend $1,150 on a lens, i want it to be big and heavy. :-) surely f/2.8 is one stop faster than f/4, but f/2.8 is not fast enough for many indoor situations anyway.
Drew Osumi 12 years ago
The F/2.8
robt1975 11 years ago
I have the 24-105mm and its not fast enough for high school basketball so I ordered the 24-70 yesterday. Hopefully I'll be able to stop the action with it!
snappED_up 11 years ago
Hi there.

Just recieved my 24-70 f.2.8 L lens..
Looking to use it for indoor photography at my sisters wedding...

Will keep yah posted on the results....

But my decision was all the reviews and opinions you guys posted......

Thanks.
radioadman 11 years ago
True. I was really in a dilemna on what lens to buy -- the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24-105mm f/4 IS until I discovered i was getting more photos on low light conditions. So, i opted for the 24-70mm f/2.8. Great lens though not long enough. But there's the ...70-200mm f/2.8 IS which is the next lens on my list!
Peter Bang PRO 11 years ago
The f/2.8! and great reviews about the lens.
heady yarn [deleted] Posted 11 years ago. Edited by heady yarn (member) 11 years ago
i already have a telephoto so i didn't need the extra range (useless range anyway) and f4 is SLOW now that i have shot with a 2.8....mmmm
Genna B 11 years ago
Of course F2.8
Tim Tuttle 11 years ago
It's a chick magnet.
GSNewton 11 years ago
Simply, IS doesn't work worth a damn on moving subjects. Plus I shoot a lot in low light conditions/
Carles Orfila 11 years ago
I'm with the same doubt as many people, what to buy, 24-70 or 24-105.

I like the low weight of the 24-105 and the IS for zooming and the longer range. For the 24-70 i like the 2.8 and the non distortion on 24mm.

For 24-70 users: The 1kg of this lens doesn't really matter for an all around lens? to travel, etc...?

thanks.
radioadman 11 years ago
Yes, it's really heavy for an all around lens. But i'd rather carry one lens than carry 3 or more lenses in my bag for different types of photography and change lens every now and then.
f/2.8
curious tray [deleted] 10 years ago
I bought it because it has a fixed aperture of 2.8 from 24mm-70mm.

I bought it because it is sharp. However it seems to be giving me blurry shots in 24mm range.
wisdoms 10 years ago
I've both lenses and I consider them great general use ones. As far as I see, the 24-105mm is more suitable for travels and for outdoor photography (also at night, IS works fine). Instead, I'd suggest the 24-70mm for studio tasks or when top-quality in low light situations is the issue. Nevertheless their quality is doubtless very high. Of course, F2.8 makes the price, but I don't believe that 400gr difference is a real problem ;-)
arevangelista 10 years ago
I just ordered mine and I am looking forward to my new toy. What I look most forward to is the 24-70mm F2.8 L lens opens up a new world of creativity that 28-135mm F3.5 IS non-L lens did not give me. THANKS for everybody's input.....I learned alot from this discussion. I think I made the right choice!
bastified01 10 years ago
simply because of the f2.8 opening that the 24-70 offers. IS won't be able to compensate it. enough said.
actionfoto PRO 10 years ago
f2.8
curious tray [deleted] 10 years ago
I bought it so people would step back. Seeing a lens like that people say "he must know what he's doing, Step back"
Genna B Posted 10 years ago. Edited by Genna B (member) 10 years ago
I was switching from another brand
and had to buy two lenses at the same time.
24-70 and 70-200 made a PERFECT COMBO.
present board [deleted] Posted 10 years ago. Edited by present board (member) 10 years ago
f/2.8 was the ultimate criterion for me, giving that extra light needed to capture moving objects etc.
Besides; I have the 70-200 to cover the 70-105 interval.
A great lens!
Ricky_Sue 10 years ago
2.8 ~~~ most attractive number.
UAE_Professional 10 years ago
Canon 24-70 was my first L canon to buy and really blown away my mind, the last L lens for now is 24-105, i got it because first i found good price in local store and second to stop that debating and confusing between 24-70 and 24-105, really i love 24-70 alot but 24-105 do a great job as well, and my 24-70 had a damaged filter stuck on it for long time [and still didn't know how to take it off] so 24-105 taking a place until i can fix my 24-70 [working great but without filters].
MisterQuill 10 years ago
I paid the full UK whack for the 24-70mm. It was worth every penny.
Llyn Idwal and the Devil's Kitchen

OK, not shot wide open, but still stunning.
Wicked_Bad! 10 years ago
Apperature. I'll take a 2.8 to any 4 anyday.
radioadman 10 years ago
One Little Candle
Taken with my 24-70mm f/2.8L.
mjzitek PRO 10 years ago
I just bought one this week. I already have the 70-200mm and I've wanted to get the 24-70mm to cover the other end for a while. I thought about getting the 24-105mm, but wanted the f/2.8 over f/4.
rico.natalio 10 years ago
for me: the sharper image quality that 24-70 gives and the f/stop.
because i often to take candid wedding pics in indoor with (relatively) low lighting. and combine with canon 85mm,f/1.8 is very suitable n comfortable for my jobs.
if i need more zoom, then better to be equipped with canon 70-200mm,f/2.8 (or f/4-->that's acceptable).
boiling pigs [deleted] 10 years ago
all about f2.8, was unsure about the lack of IS but the lens its quite weighty so it keeps the camera sturdy for slower shutter speeds anyway. BUY IT best decision i have made so far...now 5d mark II or 1ds markIII..hhmmm
the bund 10 years ago
I like the color.

Oh and 2.8 is nice
f/2.8 is nice.

But the deciding factor was much better sharpness even at f/2.8 vs f/4 on the IS lens, and lower distortions. It is essentially like a prime when it comes to output quality.
Ihor@IVP 9 years ago
I had 70-200 f/4.0 L already so i don't need that 70-105 focal length. I prefer 2.8 because of DOF, bokeh, better low-light performance. And I don't like IS. It gives some extra stops for the lens but it affects still objects. I couldn't catch my moving cats in the room with f/4 IS.

This summer i'm going to sell my 70-200 f/4L and get a 70-200 f/2.8L. No stab, of course.
Ihor@IVP 9 years ago
About the weight of 24-70.. I have it on my 40D as a all-time-all-situations-general-purpose lens. It's about 3kg with 550EX attached I think. It's heavy, but you won't notice it while working. Of course you'll feel the difference if you've just switched from IXUS point-and-shoot to dSLR with L lens but you will get used to it it few days and you will definitely love this.
jeff saylor 9 years ago
Color and DOF. I just wish they had a 24-70 f1.4
Sandy Phimester 9 years ago
Supposedly it's better optical quality.

I bought it because I I trust the reviews about quality being better, and f/4.0 is not nearly enough. I'd much rather have f/2.8!

It goes well with my 70-200mm 2.8 IS!
harrycripps 9 years ago
F/2.8 !
acerl310 9 years ago
Think of it like this

on the f/2.8L, you can go on f/4.0
ON the f/4.0L, you CAN'T go down to f/2.8

:DDD
Plus, f/4.0 is not really a "fun" aperture to toy with. Just buy the f/2.8L and save up for a 430EX/580EX to compensate for the lack of IS xD.
Martín Claro 9 years ago
f/2.8, because I also have a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM in my bag.
acerl310 9 years ago
Yeah, what Martin said :D

the 24-70 and 70-200 compliments each of themselves. Although, I suggest you first buy the 24-70 because it is more of a walk-around lens than the telephoto 70-200(yes, I know, they are at the same price range)
foTobias. 9 years ago
you need both the 24-70 and the 70-200, i dont like IS (its ok, but i found that a monopod does WAY better) - it makes fantastic pictures, you dont even have to think, point, shoot and wow.... (almost)
just got mine today, after using a 28-70 for a while, the extra 4 mm at the beginning... NICE!! well it just works so well that i dont think i would want to take pictures without it...
now i'm off to sell all my other lenses (except 50 1,8 and 70-200 2,8 L)
Chuck LaChance PRO 9 years ago
For me the deciding factor was the f 2.8 so I can shoot in low light. Got mine in the mail today and it is beautiful. Very heavy and built solid. Love that.
Groups Beta