24-70 vs 24-105 (Page 2): Thomas902, having a bad day? Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? You’re using dynamite when a pair of tweezers probably would have worked. Reporting the...

Robertl594 Loc: Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and Nantucket

Thomas902 wrote:

Ruthlessrider your query belongs in the Main Photo... (show quote)

Thomas902, having a bad day? Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? You’re using dynamite when a pair of tweezers probably would have worked. Reporting the innocent post to the admins? I would bet that a gentle suggestion to the
OP would have been enough for him to move his post, got your message across as left the benevolent, helpful and encouraging environment of this forum in tact. But you chose to attack, with a diatribe, that left me a bit embarrassed for the way some people answer questions. No need for this, unless you are trying to drive people away.

Do as you wish, this is just my opinion. Thought about making this comment to your post, came back several times before I did, then decided to share my reaction.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Longshadow wrote:

I'd keep the 24-105. Greater range, Probably require a bit less lens changing than the 24-70.

Canisdirus

Longshadow wrote:

I'd still go with the 24-105...
I seriously doubt someone looking at a print would know if the "quality" was slightly different.
Especially if they had nothing to compare.
I primarily use an 18-200, the results are what they are...

I'll always choose aperture over focal length. You will see the difference.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Ruthlessrider wrote:

If you had the two lenses listed in the title and a 70-200 lens and wanted to trade one of the 24+ lenses (both 24+ lenses are f/4), which one would you keep?

I've had both. Sold the 24-70. Also sold the 70-200.

bwa

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Ruthlessrider wrote:

If you had the two lenses listed in the title and a 70-200 lens and wanted to trade one of the 24+ lenses (both 24+ lenses are f/4), which one would you keep?

I'd trade both for a 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS. That is the most popular wide to short full frame tele zoom used by professionals. The extra stop is highly useful.

My Micro 4/3 kit includes a 12-35 mm f/2.8 and a 35-100mm f/2.8. With the 2X magnification factor, those cover the full frame equivalent range of 24-200mm. I also have a 30mm f/2.8 macro for copy stand work, and a 42.5mm f/1.7 for portraits and video interviews. All my lenses are stabilized.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Canisdirus wrote:

I'll always choose aperture over focal length. You will see the difference.

I'll always choose focal length over aperture, I don't care about the difference.

We each have our own preferences, don't we.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

burkphoto wrote:

I'd trade both for a 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS. That is the most popular wide to short full frame tele zoom used by professionals. The extra stop is highly useful.

My Micro 4/3 kit includes a 12-35 mm f/2.8 and a 35-100mm f/2.8. With the 2X magnification factor, those cover the full frame equivalent range of 24-200mm. I also have a 30mm f/2.8 macro for copy stand work, and a 42.5mm f/1.7 for portraits and video interviews. All my lenses are stabilized.

Alas, our vague OP didn't give us the needed details to recommend an alternative mirrorless option of a Canon RF model... We don't even know the brand / mount being questioned. How they found any of the responses useful is open to debate.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

CHG_CANON wrote:

Alas, our vague OP didn't give us the needed details to recommend an alternative mirrorless option of a Canon RF model... We don't even know the brand / mount being questioned. How they found any of the responses useful is open to debate.

I’m going with brand agnostic but full frame equivalent field of view…

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

24 to 105......still using it.....every day

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

If you asked me 19 months ago I would say keep the 24-70 given that you also have the 70-200.

However, if you asked me 18 months ago I would say keep the 24-105 for the longer reach and less lens changing.

Experience is a great teacher.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

chrisg-optical wrote:

If you asked me 19 months ago I would say keep the 24-70 given that you also have the 70-200.

However, if you asked me 18 months ago I would say keep the 24-105 for the longer reach and less lens changing.

Experience is a great teacher.

Wow, I wonder where I heard that before.

JackB

Thomas902 wrote:

Ruthlessrider your query belongs in the Main Photo... (show quote)

Geesh or OMG - only wait to describe this without using some nasty words!

Ruthlessrider

CHG_CANON wrote:

Alas, our vague OP didn't give us the needed details to recommend an alternative mirrorless option of a Canon RF model... We don't even know the brand / mount being questioned. How they found any of the responses useful is open to debate.

I have both a Canon 5D IV and an R5. All lenses are Canon,m and both lenses are f/4

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

JackB wrote:

Geesh or OMG - only wait to describe this without using some nasty words!

We all should start posting in the most opposite category available.

The Category Police will have a breakdown.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Ruthlessrider wrote:

I have both a Canon 5D IV and an R5. All lenses are Canon,m and both lenses are f/4

Thanks. Because this info is relevant, especially if you want to share lenses on both mounts. The feedback on the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is this lens is just as good as the IS-enabled RF mount version. I'd consider the EF lens for both cameras.

I also have the EF 24-105 f/4L IS II. This lens is nearly as good as the 24-70, above, but I use it whenever I know I'll need the reach and / or the 105 zoom option and the IS support. With the high pixels of the R5 and the IBIS, this 24-105 is useful on both cameras and is cheaper, but you could get the better image quality of the 24-70. The 24-105 II is overall excellent, it just isn't the premium results of the 24-70 II.

The 70-200 also needs more details. Are you saying you don't need that focal length, as much as the 24-70/105 options? I hardly use my 70-200 lenses, I have two, but I prefer the 100-400 if I need a zoom into that range. But, when I need an IS-enable f/2.8 lens, that zoom is always amazing and the best fit for that situation.