Art and Photography

Canon 24-105 F4L vs 28-70 F2.8L?

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 12th, 2021 1:11 pm
[OP]
Deal Expert
Feb 19, 2008
15584 posts
6757 upvotes
London

Canon 24-105 F4L vs 28-70 F2.8L?

I'm looking at these two lenses right now.

$550 for the 24-105 and $800 for the 28-70

I'm looking for something on the shorter focal range to go with my 100-400

I shoot with a 70D (looking at possibly getting a 90D) and I currently have a 17-55 F/2.8 IS, which from what I've read online is 99% as good as the L lens, but made for APS-C sensors.... however the zooming on it is loose which becomes problematic if I point the camera up or down, which is the only reason I'm looking to get rid of it.
10 replies
Sr. Member
Feb 16, 2014
874 posts
261 upvotes
London
Not sure it might be of help, but I can share my experience with the same lenses in Nikon realm. In a nutshell, unless you need to work indoors in a very dim light situations, and you wanna nail your shots in a speedy manner(sports, gyms) or you wanna nail the focus in night time shootings scenarios where every bit of the light is utmost important(night street photography, night indoor concerts), the 2.8 lens is a must. Otherwise, you will be extremely happy with the f/4 version of the lens considering its performance. I believe the Canon version should be in the same league.
Newbie
Dec 20, 2008
28 posts
4 upvotes
So the 90D has some of the heaviest pixel density on the market. I think it converts to a 60mp equivalent on a full frame equivalent, this is good and bad. You will notice you in expensive glass if you put it on it.
Deal Addict
Feb 25, 2007
1425 posts
880 upvotes
Ottawa
I've used both of these lenses on Canon APS, though don't own either one. They're both great lenses, and not too dissimilar in price and weight.

If you really prioritize low-light performance, then of course f/2.8 wins. Otherwise, I'd go for the 24-105. Of course, depends on your shooting style.
  • A few mm on the wide end doesn't feel like much, but once you experience it, it's hard to go back.
  • The "missing" 70-105, adjusted for crop factor, is actually super useful for candids. And I personally hate having a missing focal range in my bag -- somehow whatever it is, it always ends up being what I want. I think the eye/brain is biased to wanting "just a little more" (whether that's wide or tele) and it's frustrating if that's a gap in your lineup.
  • I vaguely recall feeling the 28-70 has more contrast (and a quick Google confirms at least some other people think so). But that's not that big a deal if you post-process.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 28, 2006
6654 posts
905 upvotes
Ottawa
I'v used 24-105 L, 17-40 L, and 17-55 is, not the 28-70 L but have read raven reviews about that lens. 24-105 L has been working very well for me on 6D even though it does not give you the "Wow" look from the photos right away, and the price now is so low if you buy used and it is really good value for the money. 28-70 L is a great lens, but it would be not really very wide on your APS-C camera, plus it is a very old lens and if anything happen, it is hard to get it serviced. I honest would just sell 70d/17-55 is and get a used 6D and 24-105 L pair or better yet get a used 6D and 24-70 f2.8 L II. Budget is always a problem, but the price of them are nothing compare to the new price of mirror-less camera or RF L lens.
Jr. Member
Oct 22, 2020
109 posts
91 upvotes
It's been 10 years since I used one, but I recall the 24-105 also suffers from self extension when pointed down and you are walking around. I don't like the 24-105 myself for the optical qualities on a full frame. I'm happy with a 16-35 as a everyday lens [on a full frame].
Jr. Member
Oct 22, 2020
109 posts
91 upvotes
rivet wrote: Budget is always a problem, but the price of them are nothing compare to the new price of mirror-less camera or RF L lens.
Have you seen some of the newest RF non-L lens that appear to be very good value?

Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM
Canon RF 100-400mm IS USM

The RF 100-400 is one stop slower than a EF 100-400L, but only 1/3 the price! Those two lenses, plus something in between, and that's a pretty budget setup.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Sep 21, 2007
11147 posts
9429 upvotes
Winnipeg
i would sell that 17-55 and get the 24-70 2.8 IS II.. that lens is the best well rounded lens. It's also the most versatile for any situation.
"An essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail." -- Edward Land
Deal Fanatic
Dec 28, 2006
6654 posts
905 upvotes
Ottawa
EF 24-70 f2.8 L II does not have IS though, only the RF version have, otherwise, I agree it is the best option. It is hard to find a good price for used EF 24-70 II though given how expensive the new RF couterpart is.
faken wrote: i would sell that 17-55 and get the 24-70 2.8 IS II.. that lens is the best well rounded lens. It's also the most versatile for any situation.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 4, 2016
1663 posts
1607 upvotes
Sorry for the late reply. But the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC G2 might be the best of both worlds for you. Research about it.



Best shopping deals I got from here:
Asus Zenfone 3 Zoom $300, ZTE Blade V8 Pro $175, Fluld 55' 4k TV $360

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)