Toronto Photography Meetup Group

this was gonna be my next question, why some people give up the 24-105 to go to 24-70 2.8L but thanks for the post.

Ok...now I'm confuzzled. I had a similar question about this on a thread I made the other day: http://tpmg.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18794

I know I said I should really try it out for myself. Unfortunately, I'm just a hobbyist trying to figure out where I'd like to focus my skills on. I love taking landscape/random/architectural photos but this past weekend I went to my buddy's wedding and took some shots. I rather enjoyed taking the photos because it was lively and "fun". It was beautiful to capture the moments during the first day of a newlyweds' life.

Anyway, people have told me that the 24-70mm f2.8 L would be better for indoor/wide angle/night shots, yet some like the people on this thread have mentioned that the 24-105mm f4 L IS would be better because of the IS.

So...what's the consensus?

LOL! I suppose you're right. My bad.

Short answer, stop trying to have other people make the decision for you.

For some shooters, having the 2.8 is more important. For other shooters, having the extra range and IS is more important. You have to decide what is more important for you. As has been previously mentioned, one way to try and make that decision more informed is by renting both of the lenses and trying them out with the type of shooting you do.

It may be a full frame / crop sensor debate we have here. When I use my 24-70 2.8 on FF, its a short lens, no need for IS really as most images are fairly wide. When you use the 24-70 on a crop sensor, its more of a midrange zoom, and it's a pretty great range on that size sensor, but, you end up using it on the long end a lot more often, and the need for IS becomes a bit more important. This may be why some people prefer it to the 24-70.

Either way, I'm not good at them numbers, but I think 2.8 with no IS helps bring up the shutter speed to get a sharper image more than IS would at f4 no?

Edit: I also wanted to take this opportunity to praise my squash skills. I'm not the best by any means, but I can hold my own. A picture of me playing squash was once published in the Etobicoke Guardian.

It's very easy: Try both lenses; figure out what you want to use the lens for; If it's general purpose get the 24-105 IS; If you have a more specific purpose you might want the 24-70.

In-spite of what you might hear: both lenses are excellent; both have noticeably better colour and contrast then non L full frame zoom lenses; it's a toss up which is better; I prefer the colour, micro contrast, flare and ghosting suppression of the 24-105 maybe because it of newer design; both have focal lengths where they operate better and sharper then the other; If used wide open both have good bokeh but the 1 stop faster and corresponding shallow dof of the 24-70 makes it slightly easier to compose, if this is your main reason to get one then certain prime lenses win by a landslide; 24-105 has better near macro capabilities, it's lighter and slightly more compact making it a better choice for walk around and travel.

Now is the time to stop asking question and to get out and try both lenses.

Just buy both and call it a day.

LOL - but somehow I pictured you recommending him to upgrade his 10D to a Nikon body

I'm not getting into the debates here, but i just wanted to say that this is not necessarily true. While yes, many successful people dont brag or need to brag, we can't ignore the fact that some people are also quite open about self promotion and it's a part of life as well, as much as we hope that isn't true.

Successful people don't brag?

Ever listen to Steve Jobs? Or Lebron James (although i think he's a loser in terms of personality, he is still successful in his field).

Or how about Muhammad Ali? I dont think he was shy about calling himself the "Greatest"! You can't say he wasn't successful.

That quote was from two years ago.

he he and it was still wrong back then. he he