Canon 5DII: Lens Selection...

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Yes, the eternal debate!

Anyone here have experience with both of these lenses?

Comments appreciated.

I think I would go for the 24-70 but its weight is indeed a turn off.
 

finbarqs

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2005
3,617
2
81
i have the 24-70L my gf has the 24-105L, and i like using her lens more... we're both on the 5d mk2, and my biggest gripe about the 24-70 f/2.8L is the soft results, whered it's like winning the lottery to get a sharp copy!

plus the extra reach and IS makes me lean towards the 24-105... sure i would like to have the extra stop, but 1 stop is a good compromise!
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
I can't comment on the 24-70, but I have the 24-105 IS and it is by far my favorite lens. I use it most of the time when I am walking around because it is so versatile. Having said that, I find the F4 limiting. Even with the IS enabled, a tripod is a must with this lens in low light situations.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
I can't comment on the 24-70, but I have the 24-105 IS and it is by far my favorite lens. I use it most of the time when I am walking around because it is so versatile. Having said that, I find the F4 limiting. Even with the IS enabled, a tripod is a must with this lens in low light situations.

Well, if I got the 24-70 I would probably have at least one prime in the mix.
 

damocles

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,105
5
81
I have used both and prefer the 24-105 for the IS and portability.

Personally I am waiting for a new 24-70 with IS and better optics (this hasnt been announced yet but I am hoping by the end of the year there will be news)

24-105
Smaller
Lighter
Better range
IS
Usually sharper (in my exerience)

24-70
2.8
Images less distored at 24mm
 

angry hampster

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2007
4,232
0
0
www.lexaphoto.com
I greatly prefer the 24-70. The extra stop is always preferable to me over IS. I like the weight..I think it's balanced nicely on my 5D+grip. Never had an issue with sharpness.
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
Well, after going back and forth, going to a local store to handle various lenses, I am down to this decision I think:

5DII
17-40 F4L
70-200 F4L IS (already own)
35 1.4L
85 1.8
$4850.00


OR


5DII
16-35 F2.8L II
24-105 F4L IS
70-200 F4L IS (already own)
85 1.8
$5,000.00
 

finbarqs

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2005
3,617
2
81
it's NOT world's ahead of the 24-105. Like I said earlier, I have the 24-70, my gf has the 24-105. Her results are generally sharper, and nails the focus MUCH more consistently than my 24-70. But then again, it could be my copy. The range on the 24-105 is worth the sacrifice of the stop of light!

But don't forget the godly 135 f/2L... they rank this about the same as the 85 f/1.2L
 

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
29,767
33
81
The 24-70 is now out of the question.

As for the 135, I am aware of its stellar reputation. It is still in the running.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
I'd wait a bit and look at that Sigma 85/1.4. Do consider the 135, but if its between 135 and 85, I think both are nice lenses, but the 85 will get far more use. Think of it that way. Which one will you use more?
 

slashbinslashbash

Golden Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,945
8
81
Yeesh. That's a hard choice between the two scenarios. It is very hard to say. Personally, I would make a compromise:

5DII
17-40 f/4L
24-105 f/4L
70-200 f/4L
50mm f/1.4 (Sigma version if you can swing it)
85mm f/1.8

Of course you knew that's what I was going to recommend.... it's practically what I own already! (Only swap the Sigma for the Canon... which I would, if I could, and I will sometime, depending on whether Canon gets a new 50/1.4 out soon, as is rumored.)

Rationale: A) I don't think you'd be happy with just the one prime, and a telephoto at that. A 50mm prime is much more versatile. The 35mm/85mm combo would be better than the 50mm/85mm, but you're looking at a lot more money for the 35 than for the 50.
B) I don't think you'd be happy without a normal zoom. The 24-105 is just... nice. 24mm is wide enough that I don't often feel the need to swap to the 17-40. 105 is decently long... not as long as I'd like it to be, but definitely quite a bit better than 70mm.
C) You'd be giving up the 16-35 for the 17-40, thereby saving $700... which is more than enough to buy the 50/1.4! A little more and you could also buy the 28/1.8 which would give you a nice trio of fast primes in wide, normal and tele.