24-105mm f4/L IS USM or 24-70mm IS USM f4/L

[CalebTurna]

Ok, so i am in a little bit of a pickle here. I am somewhat new to Photography and recently bought a 60D Second hand for a bargain. I am now looking at Lenses to buy for it. I am looking for a good all round lense that i can carry over to a FF Camera when i am ready. From the research that i have done the best options for are the 24-105mm f4/L and the 24-70mm f4/L. I was thinking of buying second hand, of course with the proper inspection. Is it worth buying second hand? It will be mainly for photos but i do plan on doing a decent amount of film. If necessary i would rather photo quality than video quality. I would like the capability of up to 105mm but from what i have heard is that is is slightly worse image quality wise to the 24-70mm. I have also heard that the IS of the 105mm is better? My budget is some what limited but i can save towards another lense if recommended. What would you guys recommend? 

Thanks 

[ScottyP]

The 24-70 does have better IQ and does allow near-macro closeup as a somewhat surprising little extra. OTOH, they are both f/4 lenses and the 24-105 does give more range. 

I could go either way but I think I’d do the 24-70.  Either way I would personally want to also have a lens that can do a bigger aperture than f/4. I think I’d either save up for a 24-70 f/2.8 L II or I’d get the f/4 zoom but supplement with a bright f/1.8 or f/1.4 prime lens at 50mm or 35mm. 

Used is is fine if you go with a reputable place or at least use it to test. Canon returns are very dependable but often not all that cheap, especially since they will charge you sales tax. 

[CalebTurna]

I was planning on getting the 50mm 1.4 aswell sometime. Is it worth saving for that 24-70mm f2.8? I was thinking just to get me started and going for quite sometime the 24-70mm f4 would be best. 

[wq9nsc]

Long-term if you can swing the price difference you won't regret choosing a F2.8 over a F4 lens.  Even with the excellent low noise performance of current sensors that extra stop is appreciated and it also allows you to choose a shallower depth of field, compared to a F4, when needed. There is certainly nothing wrong with the 24-70 F4 lens BUT you will keep a good lens longer than you will keep a camera body so buy it for the long term.

I have Canon 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 glass and they are my most used.  Even with the excellent higher ISO noise performance of my 1DX2 I frequently have the aperture set to 2.8.  Lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8 also provide faster autofocus and a brighter viewfinder since composing and focusing is done at the maximum capable aperture of the lens.

Rodger

[CalebTurna]

Is there a difference that matters between the mark i and the mark ii f2.8?

[wq9nsc]

Canon continually upgrades their offerings and the mark ii version appears to be a little better but BOTH are excellent lenses and I will be staying with my original version for the foreseeable future because it does everything I need. You will find a much better price on the older version but as always buying used be careful and get it from a reputable source and make sure you can return it if it isn't as represented.

If you are into "pixel peeping" and take the same image with version 1 and 2 lenses you will be able to tell the difference.  But if you take a random series of exposures with both version 1 and 2 and ask people to pick out which lens version was used they won't be able to do so.  The same would be true of the F4 version in good lighting or when very shallow depth of field isn't needed but even if you don't use F2.8 often when you need it you REALLY need it. 

If the choice were between an older 24-70 2.8 and a new f4 version I would definitely choose the older version with the wider aperture capability.

Rodger

[TCampbell]

---

CalebTurna wrote:
Is there a difference that matters between the mark i and the mark ii f2.8?

---

I own the Mark I (not the Mark II).  I upgraded my 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM I to the Mark II because it’s the lens I use more than any other (I probably use it more than all the rest combined).  But I don’t use the 24-70 f/2.8L USM nearly as much.

Optically the version II is better (the version I is good, but not exceptional like the II).

The version I is a “reverse zoom” ... meaning that when you zoom OUT (to 24mm) the lens actually gets LONGER... when you zoom IN to 70mm the lens gets shorter.   This gives the lens an advantage because the version I has a much longer hood.  Normally you don’t want a long hood with a wide angle of view because the hood would cause vignetting... but at long focal lengths (narrower angle of view) the hood doesn’t cause vignetting and having a long hood is an advantage.  So the reverse zoom is nice in that regard.  The version II has a normal zoom direction and the hood is much shallower.

The version I has 77mm filter thread diameter.  The version II has 82mm filter thread diameter.

Neither version has image stabilization.  The f/4 version DOES have image stabilization.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@CalebTurna wrote:

Ok, so i am in a little bit of a pickle here. I am somewhat new to Photography and recently bought a 60D Second hand for a bargain. I am now looking at Lenses to buy for it. I am looking for a good all round lense that i can carry over to a FF Camera when i am ready. From the research that i have done the best options for are the 24-105mm f4/L and the 24-70mm f4/L. I was thinking of buying second hand, of course with the proper inspection. Is it worth buying second hand? It will be mainly for photos but i do plan on doing a decent amount of film. If necessary i would rather photo quality than video quality. I would like the capability of up to 105mm but from what i have heard is that is is slightly worse image quality wise to the 24-70mm. I have also heard that the IS of the 105mm is better? My budget is some what limited but i can save towards another lense if recommended. What would you guys recommend? 

Thanks 

---

The lenses serve different purposes. The 24-105 is the quintessential walkaround lens on a FF camera. I'd guess that more than half of the FF users in this forum have it. It's a bit long as a walker on an APS-C camera, but I've used it for architectural photography on a 7D with very good results. It's a fine lens, and concerns about its image quality are misplaced. There are actually two versions; the Mk II came out a year or so ago. I haven't used it; among those who have, my impression is that the jury is still out as to which is better. One tell might be that there isn't always a lot of price difference between them.

The 24-70 f/2.8 is at its best as an indoor event lens, possibly the best of its kind currently in production. If you're photographing an event with two FF cameras, you want the 24-70 f/2.8 on one and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on the other.

The 24-70mm f/4 is a bit of an odd duck: not enough range to be an ideal walker and at a disadvantage to the 24-70 f/2.8L as an event lens. So I guess I have to agree with those who suggest you not buy it. It's probably a fine lens, just not necessarily the best choice.

[ebiggs1]

Here is my take on this, always go for the Mk II version of any lens you choose.

Second the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens is the best zoom lens made.  Better than anybodies, even brand-N !

 I know for a fact personally since I have both.

It does cost quite a bit but the best usually does.  Is that what you want? I would not be without mine. I use it constantly, every day.

The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens and its big brother the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens make the best two lens combo on the planet.  If these don't do it for you there is nothing better. Again including brand-N.

Every shoot I go on, these two go no matter what else I take along.

[CalebTurna]

See i am still in a little bit of a pickle. I would love to have IS cause i know i will be doing a decent amount of film. The 24-105mm has less IQ but a nicer zoom range than 24-70mm. I am leaning for towards 24-70mm f2.8 i. Does anybody have experience on recording with that lense?