Art and Photography

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

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 18th, 2021 6:14 am
[OP]
Deal Guru
Feb 19, 2008
14567 posts
5193 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.
3 replies
Sr. Member
Feb 16, 2014
770 posts
194 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
1358 posts
815 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.

Top