EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS vs. EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L

[yatakitumbi]

---

me 2.8 all the way...
@ choui - kung you want both murag useless better get the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L kaysa 24-70 2.8L / 24-105 f4L

diara...

[choui168]

yummy lenses bro! i like the 2.8 of the 24-70. but i was thinking mas useful travel lens ang 24-105 f4 IS (drool IS). i already have the 28-105 f4-5.6 as my first lens after the kit 18-55, and it is very versatile as it covers probably most focal lengths i needed when on a trip. my frustrations arise sa night shots and indoor shots, so naganahan ko sa 24-105 f4 IS. i could be wrong, but what do you guys think? need more opinions.

[jordinho]

got teh 24-105mm pretty happy with it, no focus problems weew

[choui168]

@jordinho mao ni gamit nimo sa pic of your kids? those images were very sharp. this is one of the favorite lens of my friend who's a professional photographer. yummy lens again!
24-70, 24-105, 10-22, 70-200... hayyy maboang ko! kung pwede lang di na mu-kaon lol!

[jordinho]

@choui yep, kato recent posts nako ang 24-105 ako gamit ato bro

[comicGeek]

24-70 + 70-200 if you are a serious enthusiast or use your camera for business.
If you want an all rounder get the 24-105 is or the 18-200 os sigma.
The IS or OS does really make a big difference.

Now lets take some photos already. hehe

[kalanrakas]

me 2.8 all the way...
@ choui - kung you want both murag useless better get the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L kaysa 24-70 2.8L / 24-105 f4L

diara...

mao ni para nako nga best setup, especially, if you have two bodies.

ok man ang 24-105 but i doubt it if the range is enough for a single-camera setup for travel. for travel, get the 18-200 na lang. unfortunately, canon still has to release one.

what i am saying is that the 24-70 and 24-105 are excellent lenses in their own right. either is good for you and the material differences are only, yes, material when you begin to consider the particular use.

personally, i prefer the 24-70. most reviews also confirm to its better performance but only a tad better.

[dukegulliver]

kung ipit mo sa budget, get the 24-105. IS really helps kung mosugod na kurog ang kamot during shoots. plus the additional focal range, ok kaayo na especially kung usa ra imo body

[ditch_azeroth]

simpolay lang na analysis kunohay:

1) no matter how steady a human tripod you are, there will always be camera shake (come to think of it, the world is always moving, so theoretically, even on a tripod, you will have camera shake). a longer focal length exponentially aggravates camera shake.
2) the longer the focal length, the more elements get in the way (atmospheric conditions like water and dust particles in the air, actual composition eyesores like other photographers trying to get the same shot, etc.).
3) a few things i can't think of right now (probably related to lens construction)

all of these sacrifice image quality. the undeniable truth is that the closer you are to your subject, the sharper the shot will be. with this in mind, blindly considering that they are constructed in the same way, the 24-70 and the 24-105 (up to the 70mm zoom) is supposed to have identical sharpness - but then aperture comes into play. usually, smaller apertures produce sharper images so that's another thing to consider; and since the latter is largest at 4/f, then one would be inclined to think that it is sharp - but would the 24-70 at 4/f not produce the same result? how about at 5.6? nah, dili gyud ni maghuman ning debateha.

at any rate, naa ra gyud na kung unsay pulos sa lens; what kind of photography you're into. kung laag2x tirada nya usually hayag, 24-105. kung medyo close ka sa imong shootan, especially kung indoors, aw 24-70 hands down. the 70-200 has an entirely different purpose.

what i would really like to see is an EF 18-135mm constant f/2.8, or maybe 2.2 L na lens - this is going to be one bulky and HEAVY glass, pero i'd be willing to build up the muscles and the funds to use and get something like. now that would be something. for now, i'll stick with my 85mm 1.8... mao ra man tawn ma afford na arangan.

[markyap]

i have used both lenses extensively for some years...ive had several copies pass thru my hands over the years

to answer the thread starter whos going to use it for general photography...
i think the 24-105L4IS would be the better choice. why? because its has IS (4 stops) which can compensate more than the 2.8 can in gathering light. more usable photos in the end with IS. sharper images in slow shutter. lighter so your shoulder/neck will thank you for it. longer range covers wide to tele.

ive also noticed faster and more accurate focus from the 105 in low light conditions paired with the 5D.
i think it may have something to do with DOF but i prefer the results sa 105. no sweat at all. i need to work harder with the 70 in those same conditions to get as good a result as that with the 105.

rare ra sad kaayo ko ganahan mu gamit 2.8 setting when shooting kay very shallow DOF na...thus the F4IS works best for me. napatulog nalang ang 24-70 2.8 sa dry box hehehe. regarding color, contrast and sharpness, i would have to disagree sad by others who posted here. para nako inpar ra ang duha in those regard.

aside from the 2.8 advantages that also bring a hand full of disadvantages...i have two additional praises sa 2.8 parin.
i love the hood design and functionality (talk about robust) and it is less prone to flare than the 24-105 in extreme conditions.