topic Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8 in EF & RF Lenses

24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

msewellphoto — Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:15:20 GMT

So of course months after I by my RF 24-70 2.8, Canon came out with the RF 24-104 2.8.

Which do you think is more resourceful to have. I’m wondering if it’s worth trading the 24-70 in to get the extra reach.

Would love to pick anyone’s brain.

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

jrhoffman75 — Sat, 30 Dec 2023 23:35:20 GMT

Do you have other lenses? Are you reach limited?

Probably cost you over $1000 for the 24-105mm lens.

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

Tronhard — Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:13:59 GMT

To echo John's questions. What is there about your current lens that limits your photography?

The lens is the lens, but it has value for you only if it offers a benefit to you personally in your photographic endeavours and either improves your performance or removes a constraint in your photography. In essence, it's more about your performance potential rather than technical potential - e.g. will getting this lens make you a better, or more effective photographer?
TBO that is something only you can answer.

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

msewellphoto — Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:52:03 GMT

The 24-70 serves me well on everything from my portrait work to my production work (thestre, dance, etc).

I just was curious to hear from others if they found the extra 30 mm beneficial or not.

my arsenal right now is a 50mm, 85mm, 24-70 and a 70-200.

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

Tronhard — Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:55:17 GMT

Thanks for your helpful response. While of general interest, given your statements about considering trading and later saying the 24-70 fulfils your needs, I would personally not invest, especially when it is newly released and high-priced.

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

shadowsports — Sun, 31 Dec 2023 04:48:28 GMT

@msewellphoto,

John and Trevor both make valid points.

I just started paying more attention to the 24-105 Z two weeks ago. I've owned the RF 24-70 since June of 2022. It was my first RF lens and is one of my favorites.

I chose it over the 28-70 because it was smaller and lighter. The 24-105 Z is very attractive because it's an internal zoom. Its nearly pound heavier, and almost 3 inches longer than the RF 24-70 f2.8.

Worth a look.

24-105Z manual

Fun Facts:

You cannot use an extender

You cannot perform multiple exposures on the R, RP, Ra, R5, R6 & R5 C (probably others to)

The collar rotates but only the foot can be removed. Not a con, just something to know

24-105 Z

Its IS works like other Canon lenses. However, mode 3 might be quieter.

It has 2 programmable buttons. Their default is AF Stop. The manual states its useful for AF Servo. This is an interesting idea.

It has an IRIS mode switch. This is a clear indication of the lens's future capability with cinema cameras. Then there are the power zoom adapters.

Is your 70-200 f2.8? I am not bothered by the RF 24-70 and RF 70-200 being external zooms. Myself, I would not spend $2999 to get 30mm. I prefer the size and weight of my 24-70 and can happily switch lenses (70-200) if more FL is desired.

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

rs-eos — Sun, 31 Dec 2023 13:13:34 GMT

It's going to come down to if the 24-105mm will end up paying dividends in the long term. What I'd first do is check over your images from at least the past year or two and see what focal lengths you're capturing them at. If you find that say 90% or greater are all within 24 to roughtly 105mm, then it could be that the 24-105mm would be beneficial.

I'm also thinking though of potential time savings when needing to swap lenses. I guess here, look at series of images where you swapped between your 24-70 and 70-200. Tally up the number of lens swaps you needed. And then compare if you had been using a 24-105 and 70-200 instead. Though it will really all depend on if lens swaps are slowing you down to the point where you'd either consider a second camera body, or a lens with a larger range of focal lengths.

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

ebiggs1 — Sun, 31 Dec 2023 16:04:00 GMT

If I were buying, I would buy the 24-105mm. However since you already own the 24-70mm, I would not. You already have 105mm in your 70-200mm. There is no gain here.

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

Aurora4233 — Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:12:46 GMT

You've gotten a lot of advice about picking the lens that meets your needs and I'll throw in the advice about picking the lens that fits your lifestyle/work given there are huge trades between what you're comparing that are a much bigger deal than a little extra reach at f2.8.

The 24-105 f2.8 is a whooping pound heavier (30% more), it's 3 inches (nearly double longer), and it's $1,000 more! Those are serious trades to consider...

If you're doing indoor, evening, low light event and video work the 24-105 f2.8 is a remarkable choice and you'd pay the price in size, weight, and the literal price.

If you're a doing street, journalism, or on the go casual photography and really need to hit 105mm I'll simply say get the RF 24-105 f4 for about a third of the cost of the f2.8 (~$1300) and a fraction of the weight and size. The majority of my most appreciated photo work was shot on the original EF 24-105 f4 because it was easy to carry and took beautiful pics. I love my wide primes and my f2.8 L's but even with them I'm shooting at f4 or above 85% of the time.

Unless you have a really worthwhile use case for the 24-105 f2.8Z I'd recommend any of the other less expensive options to catch some reach you feel like you're missing. If I were doing more video work I'd already have the Z with the fantastic add on zoom control and I wouldn't regret it for a second so there certainly are use cases, just get it for the right reason.

*** Since 'reach' was your original instigating point and you clearly appreciate the benefits of f2.8 just spend $500 less for the RF 70-200 f2.8 that's shorter and lighter than the 24-105 f2.8 you're thinking about then you'll have more beautiful reach than you'd hoped for. I know when and why I put on the 24-70 f2.8 and when and why I switch to the 70-200 f2.8 and thankfully both are reasonably comfortable for long days versus bulkier and heavier options that could cover that entire range at the same time.

Two cents from the portability and comfort peanut gallery - - The ultimate rule always applies "The camera you use is the camera you carry" so just ensure you're not backing yourself into a carrying discomfort corner you hadn't anticipated. Not considering size and weight against your use case will leave you with lenses on the shelf on not out in the wild with you (anyone lug an amazing 150-600mm around for long!?!)

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

shadowsports — Thu, 11 Jan 2024 01:19:11 GMT

Greetings,

You mirrored many of my sentiments. When and where a lens like the 24-105 f2.8 Z might fit into someone's kit. There is utility and convenience when carrying a smaller rig for hours. We never found out of the OPs 70-200 was f2.8. I feel the same as you. For me, lens changes are a part of life and something I accept.

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

ebiggs1 — Wed, 10 Jan 2024 15:24:20 GMT

" The ultimate rule always applies "The camera you use is the camera you carry" ..."

I would rephrase that. "The camera you carry is the camera you will use!"

Re: 24-70 vs 24-104 2.8

Aurora4233 — Sun, 28 Jan 2024 09:21:30 GMT

I'll rephrase it yet again with - "The camera you CAN carry is the camera you will you"... I ran across this pic of me with my 150-600mm that is all sorts of optically amazing... but... it doesn't get used (enough) because even with a substantial bonus support strap it wears me out. It really deserves a tripod...

I'm painfully aware and super sensitive to how important size and weight are when considering lenses for long days.

Chris