Frans Andree 7:21am, 14 October 2008
Hey people...


I'm currently deciding which lens i should buy, I want to have an wide angle but since the price is that steep at the moment for it... I decided to replace my workhorse 17-85 to an L lens

Now should I take the 24-70 L USM f 2.8 or the 24-105 L IS USM f 4.0
both great lenses, but should not having the IS on the 24-70 IS 2.8 oppose a problem?
I am doubting .... so maybe you guys can actually help me make a decision!


Thanks
radioadman 10 years ago
The 16-35mm f/2.8L's price is almost the same as the 24-70mm f/2.8L. The 24-105 f/4 L IS is much lower.

If you really want a nice wide angle lens, try the 10-22mm. Then get the 24-105mm if you are not into low light photography.
fensterbme PRO 10 years ago
This 24-105 vs. 24-70mm has been talked to death, do some searches.


If your looking to replace your workhorse lens it's up to you between those two is very subjective... I shoot weddings and lower light stuff or things where I want a very shallow DoF.

If your shooting APS-C then the only real wide angle is the 10-22mm EFS lens, which is excellent and is almost as good as my 16-35mm (I have owned both at the same time and shot them right next to each other).

But as to which between the 24-70mm and 24-105mm it's you that has to decide. I'm sure people will post responses below swearing by one or the other and telling everyone else that their choice is right. For me it's the 24-70mm.

BTW: f/2.8 isn't great for true low light photography... for that it's all prime lenses.
Groups Beta