Why I Chose The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L Over The EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L

Camera lenses

Money is no object so ... LOL; how I wish that were true :) But it DOES matter, and matter a whole lot, so I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the 24-105 is $300 less expensive (in the Philippines) than the 24-70 and is even the more appropriate lens for me. I didn't know there was a 24-105mm before the 24-70's exorbitant price drove me to painstaking research :)

Here's a rundown of the points I considered:

1. Zoom Range: The 24-105 is 35mm more far-reaching than the 24-70; a nice advantage to have when taking landscape and travel photos. And, that's not to say that the 24-105 is heavier and longer than the 24-70; it's actually 280g lighter and 16.5mm shorter even when extended. The 24-105's lens hood is also much smaller than the 24-70's.

2. Aperture: The 24-70's greatest advantage over the 24-105 is its wider aperture of f/2.8 across the zoom range compared to only f/4 for the 24-105. This allows twice as much light through the lens making the 24-70 the better lens when you need to stop action, especially in low light, like when you're covering indoor events such as weddings.

3. However, the 24-105 offers a 3-stop IS which can dramatically reduce camera shake blurs when shooting handheld at slow shutter speeds. About 1/4 the light levels required for the 24-70 to be handheld. If you're anything like me, that is with shaky hands as I get on in years, you'll love the image stabilization feature of the 24-105.

So, if money was, indeed, no object, indoor event photographers will probably benefit from the wider constant aperture that the 24-70 offers, while those into travel and landscape photography like me might just find the 24-105 to be THE lens for their craft.

(Photo by: Alexeywp)

Photo credits: Alexeywp.
  • Edayrit100
  • Batangas, Philippines
What's good about photography is that it keeps you constantly searching for beauty ---- a scene, a person, a thing ---- and that is good for your mind, body, and spirit. It keeps you positive.

Your comment must be written in English.

We value all opinions and we will not censor or delete comments unless they come from fake accounts or contain spam, threats, false facts or vulgarity.


August 21, 2011

My thoughts on this-
What matters first is what you are intending to shoot and how? Tripod, off camera lighting, outodoors, indoors, studio, people, places or things? These are the questions I asked myself first, and then decide what to snap on the camera.
I believe that the equipment has to fit the need.
But I would always recommend the heavy glass that Canon is famous for! The color that pops of the print is worth the extra$$ Oh sure maybe a photoshop guru will tell you different or you may have gotten a few stunners from regular glass that make you scratch your head on why spend the big bucks. But, if you want 99% keeper rates and know what you are shooting for before the shutter goes off, then L glass has to be in the camera bag!


August 17, 2011

useful blog!


August 17, 2011

I've never had an image rejected because of depth of field. With a narrow depth of field it becomes critical that the focus be in the proper spot ( e.g. the eyes rather than the end of the nose) and an image can be rejected for that but give DT some credit, selective focus via depth of field is perfectly fine in stock. Depending on the distance to the subject, dof is compressed with distant objects bringing more into focus anyway so the extra stops you get from 2.8 is valuable. Ruben's argument is the only one I agree with as far as selecting one over the other. That and price.


August 17, 2011

Both lenses are for different purposes; 24-105 is better for a let's say relaxed camera body/studi shot as 5D Mark and 24-70 is for a body with cropped sensor as serie 1D Mark Iii/ IV; I have personally owned both and due to I have an 1 D body the 24-70 is attached most of the times, really that extrastop and lighting speed of focus matters with me as most of my pictures are editorial now and I have to deal with the light avalaible.


August 17, 2011

Right on Cafebeanzphoto! Most art directors that I deal with are always asking me for very narrow depth of field images. The eye sees that way. The out of focus part of an image acts like a frame for the more important part of the image, the in focus part. It also makes a photo less busy and more graphically interesting. Let's hope the Dreamstime review crew get a little bit of enlightenment! F/22 and be there should no longer be the mantra!


August 17, 2011

One of my dream lense, and yes money does matter ^_^
Congratulations! Have fun with your new lense...


August 17, 2011

Thanks guys. I just got one yesterday, and boy, can I tell the difference. It's like you'll never want to go back on a non-L lense again. The feeling is much like when I first shifted from stick to automatic transmission :) If only they were more affordable :)


August 17, 2011

useful blog! I hope I will have one in the medium future :))


August 16, 2011

I used. The 24-70 fio a while, it's a bunky heavy lens, you are much better with the 24-105 with the is for sure.


August 16, 2011

Great blog, you have pointed out all the important facts about both lenses. But if i can add one important fact, stock agencies would rather have images that are all in focus or "DOF" to be deeper f/18 ,rather than more shallow f/2.8. That being said, the f/2.8 is almost irrelevant for stock purposes. I own both lenses, but use the 24 -70 more for wedding assignments, and use the 24-105 for stock images for the agencies. Nevertheless ..... L lenses rule !!!!!