EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM or EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

I'm looking to upgrade to an L lens and trying to decide between these two. I do a lot of run & gun stuff which goes indoors and outdoors and the f/4 concerns me as I've been used to a f2.8 for so long. Also would I get good DOF with the f/4? The obvious advantage is the IS and again I have been so used to having this on my previous lens.

Has anyone ever noticed any difference in sharpness between these two, and for a video/photography combination what would you say is the better lens?

any advice most welcome. thanks

If it were me, I would go for the 2.8L. An f4 is going to make some indoor/night shots tough without having to raise your iso considerably, or using a lot of artificial light. It is amazing the difference between 2.8 and 4. IS is nice, but there other ways of dealing with stability. You can get a Glidecam for a decent price and use that for moving shots. I think my glidecam 2000 cost around $300, which I feel it was worth it.

Besides 24-70 is a pretty good range for video. A lot of the draw of these DSLRs when it comes to video is their lowlight capabilities, but you aren't going to be able to take advantage of it without a fast lens.

wait for Tamron 24-70mm IS, test it , and then you'll decide,
I am definetly going to take very close look at it as soon as it's available

24-70 2.8 without a doubt. And add another 70-200 2.8 later and you have the two best zoom lenses that Canon can offer.

The extra stop makes a lot of difference in the real world.

Go with the F/2.8. A larger aperture is ALWAYS the better choice. I've got the 24-105, and frequently lament it only opens to f/4.

Martin

thanks guys. Very interesting - I was sure everyone was going to say go with the 24-105mm!

I've come across posts and reviews saying that the 24-105mm is slightly sharper too. But, I have seen footage of the 24-70 and it was excellent - very sharp.

Well, to play devil's advocate ...

There is only a one stop difference between 2.8 and 4 -- but you gain image stabilization. Handheld, that's a big gain, and stop-wise ... a modest price. All else being equal, a stop is a stop -- but the absence of IS on the 2.8 lens has to be considered if you often shoot off the sticks.

Cheers,
GB

Aww Geoff....you've just gone and thrown a spanner in the works now!!! lol
If only it was a simple case of Black n White!! Ideally I should really get my hands on one and try it indoors.

I know it's stills, but this video review of both lenses and the 24-105mm is sharper. (5.00 in)

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L vs 24-105mm f/4 L vs Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 G - YouTube

I know it's stills, but this video review of both lenses and the 24-105mm is sharper. (5.00 in)


I'm not sure if that is very relevant. These lenses, including the non-L series ones, are optimized for higher resolution stills. Video only uses 2MP of it, and it should be impossible for someone to tell the difference between the two as far as 'sharpness' is concerned, at least on HDSLRs. On a camera like the C300, the differences will be far more pronounced.

At f/8, it's tough to tell the lenses apart even in stills mode. This also applies to non-L glass. There are other limitations of glass that tilt the balance, but that's a different topic.

When you find yourself shooting in low light, you'll be extremely glad you have that extra stop. One stop is not just one stop - it's the ability to shoot at half the light from the previous stop. For video work, this is critical. To look at it another way - you'll need double the light to shoot at f/4. This boils down to striking a balance between aesthetics and the lighting budget.

The advantage of owning an f2.8 is that you can always shoot at f4. The extra throw on the zoom lens isn't that great a difference, in my opinion. If it is for you, why not check reviews to see if the lens really performs very well at 105mm? If the difference isn't too great, how hard would it be to move the camera a few feet forward to get the same FOV?

Questions to ask yourself:
1. Do you like the look of f2.8 or f4?
2. Will you always have enough light to shoot at f4, or will you find yourself needing more light?
3. If you will need more light, can you afford more lights, or would you prefer the extra stop?

Hope this helps.

thanks Sareesh - great post.

I think the answer is probably yes - I will need that extra stop. I'm definately going to get my hands on a F2.8 and at least try it out.

I'm really surprised that the new version of this lens (soon to be released) is not an IS. But the price of it alone?......................OOOOOUUUUUUUCCCCHHHHHH!!!!!!!

A good partner for the 24-70 would be the 100/2.8L IS. Same speed, close focus, long reach, and (great hybrid) IS.

I already have a 70-200mm IS lens Jon so I'm not sure if the 100/2.8L IS would so different to make it worth spending that much - then again, I could be soooooo wrong!

I was thinking on the 24-70mm L, and also picking up a wide 16-35mm L lens. Also a 50mm 1.4 and I think the set would be complete?!!

If you already have the zoom, there's no need for the 100L, unless you want a macro or prefer to travel with a smaller lens.

I have a 70-200L II IS at work and when we got it, I thought it would be awesome. I quickly found it to be big, heavy, and flashy for using on the street. That's why I chose the 100L for my personal kit.

Nothing against the 70-200 quality, of course. When the size, weight, and flash aren't an issue, it's great!

I have the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 an they work great as a set. ( I also have the 50mm 1.4 which is a lovely addition) I haven't used the 24-105 but have seen a lot of nice stuff shot with it.

Also, I had the 16-36 for a short while but due to not getting to use it much I had to sell it. I remember it was an excellent lens though.

Re sharpness, a mate of mine has the 70-200 F4 and I would say his stuff on video is slightly sharper than my 2.8.

We have shot quite a few plays together standing in the auditorium about 30 feet away. Typically at F5.6 or so, 640 ISO. Both 5D2s set up exactly the same in terms of F stop, colour balance picture style etc. And his is always just a tad sharper.

I mention because maybe it's the same for the 24-70 too.

Well, to play devil's advocate ...

There is only a one stop difference between 2.8 and 4 --

Well one stop is double the amount of light...

I have the need for speed yo.

after reading all these posts I'm convinced that I should go for the 24-70mm 2.8L!

A little late to the party, but I debated this one myself and I find the IS to be incredibly useful so I bought the 24-105. It really makes a noticeable difference - but I shoot a lot of stuff off the sticks. A lot of my shooting is run-and-gun on a Manfrotto video monopod or a Cowboy Studio shoulder harness thing, I'm constantly moving to get more shots and its usually with the 24-105. All my other lenses are Zeiss primes, and they rarely see action on the Cowboy rig, just the monopod and tripod as there's just too much motion without the IS.

I've shot at night on the street at f4 and only pushed the ISO to 3200 and 6400 - it still looks great. If you're always on a tripod the extra stop would be worth it, but I still like having IS in a zoom. Everyone has different needs, so YMMV. I'm getting the Samyang 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 for a pair of low cost, sharp and fast options for shooting people when there's not a lot of available light - two stops faster than the 24-70 and sharper to boot. The Samyang's rendering is so good, I'm selling my ZE 35/2 as soon as I know I've got a good copy.

I find 35mm and wider on a full frame cam to be fine handheld - when tracking something that's moving. At NAB last year, I shot a lot of stuff where I would start on a logo then move to show a product. I had to do a lot of selective editing to find the most stable takes. On the other hand, when tracking people or moving cranes/dollies, all the footage looked good.

Hand held on moving objects always seems to come out well Jon, I've noticed that. It's when you have to hand held on static stuff that I start cringing. Mind you, I saw a news report the other day on TV and i felt sea sick after he'd finished wobbling about the room filming the presenter and guests!

Yeah, tracking movement is one trick. The other is filming in natural environments, rather than in rooms and on streets with lots of vertical and horizontal lines. Those lines not only tell the audience when the camera isn't level, they are like test patterns for rolling shutter.

Of course, one can't film a project about Wall Street in the jungle!

On the end of the Mario&Nette 5dmkII promo video,where they show scenes with lenses used they Posted EF 24-70mm f2.8L IS II USM ! Not just once but twice, Does that mena that the New 24-70 NOW has IS ?! whooohoo!


The Canon promo videos and BTS link: Canon?EOS 5D Mark III?Sample Images & Movies (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/)

I have both own the 24-70mm F/2.8L & the 24-105mm F/4L & much prefer the latter. It has a longer reach, it is sharper, it has IS & weighs a lot less than the 24-70mm (670gm vs. 950gm). Losing a stop of light isn't that big a deal on the 5DII as it is already so good in low light. However I also own the 16-35mm F/2.8L II & prefer that out of the three lenses on the basis that you can never have a lens that is too wide & if I need a longer reach then I switch to the 70-200mm F/2.8L II IS.

Thanks Nigel - I think you have helped sway my decision back to the 24-105mm!!! IS is going to be the critical factor I believe, especially in run and gun work. If you have both and are saying that the 24-105mm is very slightly sharper then that would also go with what I've been researching too. It will also save me a small amount. I could go for the 16-35mm F/2.8L II at a push - but it's a helluva lot of money for it. Is it really worth it? I have a Tokina 11-16 already, all be it that it's a crop sensor lens.

Canon claims that the 5D3 is more sensitive than the 5D2. That makes an f/4 lens more viable on the 5D3.

If it's an honest two stop improvement, an f/4 lens on the Mark II would work in f/2 conditions on the Mark III. That's significant!

Thanks Nigel - I think you have helped sway my decision back to the 24-105mm!!! IS is going to be the critical factor I believe, especially in run and gun work. If you have both and are saying that the 24-105mm is very slightly sharper then that would also go with what I've been researching too. It will also save me a small amount. I could go for the 16-35mm F/2.8L II at a push - but it's a helluva lot of money for it. Is it really worth it? I have a Tokina 11-16 already, all be it that it's a crop sensor lens.The extra weight of the 24-70mm F/2.8L makes the 5DII really nose heavy. The camera feels much better balanced with the 24-105mm.

I love the 16mm extreme wide angle look but like to have the option of zooming to a 24-35mm more normal wide angle if necessary. I am mainly shooting weddings & other events so using the 16-35mm in that run'n'gun environment using an extreme wide angle helps with interiors & gives plenty of depth of field so focusing isn't so difficult in low light.

It really depends what your shooting style is as to which lens will suit you.

i know you are looking for a zoom, but i have the 24-105 and a 5D and am looking at the new 24 2.8 IS for run and gun. I find the f4 doesn't cut it indoors, and hand-held run and gun i would rarely be zooming anyway, esp. to 105! i also have the 35 f2.0 which i like, but really wish it had IS.
i think a 24 f2.8 IS with a larger variable ND filter (to avoid possible vignetting) would be great for zooming with the feet to capture both close ups and landscapes, and flexible enough for low light, tightly cramped interior shots. plus it is a little wider than the 35 to also use on my crop T3i. with the 3x video recording ability, it becomes a 38 and a 115 2.8 IS (if my math is right). pretty darn flexible!
as a stills lens, though, the 24-105 rarely leaves the 5D!
anyway, just a thought...

The extra weight of the 24-70mm F/2.8L makes the 5DII really nose heavy. The camera feels much better balanced with the 24-105mm.

I love the 16mm extreme wide angle look but like to have the option of zooming to a 24-35mm more normal wide angle if necessary. I am mainly shooting weddings & other events so using the 16-35mm in that run'n'gun environment using an extreme wide angle helps with interiors & gives plenty of depth of field so focusing isn't so difficult in low light.

It really depends what your shooting style is as to which lens will suit you.

I couldn't agree more. the 24+70 is an amazing zoom, but I swapped it for a 24-105 (+ cash) as the latter is significantly lighter too. the 24-70 weights a ton!
I found myself tired after a while instead that never happens with the 24-105

but hey... it's horses for courses

WHY oh WHY didn't Canon put IS in the new 24-70? they are a piece of work these guys

I'm still going through this. If Canon indeed came out with a 24-70 f2.8 L IS lens - problem solved. The kicker for me is two fold for my keeping my 24-105 f4. 1. it is IS and 2. the 2.8 will always give a very limited DOF anyway when shooting video. I find I need to stop down the camera to f4 or f5.6 just to get enough DOF especially if I'm flying with the Blackbird. So yes for event photography the 2.8 would be great but for video I feel like I really going to have to go smaller on aperture than 2.8 anyway and the IS sure helps too.