Canon 24-70mm or 24-105mm?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dave in Ancaster, Mar 5, 2011.

  1. I have a Canon 7D. Current lenses:
    EF-S: 10-22mm
    EF:
    17-40mm F/4.0 L USM, 50mm F/1.8 II, 70-200mm F/4 L IS, 100mmF/2.8
    macro, 400mm F5.6 L

    I am thinking of selling the 17-40 and getting one lens to cover the
    range from my wide angle EF-S lens through to the 70mm range. However,
    either the 24-70 or 24-105 would leave a hole between 22mm and 38mm,
    since 24mm on the EF lenses = 38mm on my camera.
    I don't think the EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 is the optical equivalent of my
    17-40mm L.
    And the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS covers basically the same range as my
    17-40, so I'd still not have the range through to the 70mm.
    I am more of an outdoor/landscape/portrait than indoor event
    photographer. The author of the reviews at the-digital-picture.com
    says "For my personal uses in this focal length range, the Canon EF
    24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is on my camera more than the 24-70 L."
    Nicole Young in her book on the 7D also says this lens is on her
    camera most of the time. At B&H, even though the 24-70 is on sale,
    it's still more expensive than the 24-105. Of course, then I'll end up
    with 3 lenses that cover the 100mm range.
    Thoughts?
    Dave in Ancaster, Mar 5, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave in Ancaster

    otter Guest

    On Mar 5, 5:35 am, Dave in Ancaster <>
    wrote:
    > I have a Canon 7D. Current lenses:
    > EF-S: 10-22mm
    > EF:
    > 17-40mm F/4.0 L USM, 50mm F/1.8 II, 70-200mm F/4 L IS, 100mmF/2.8
    > macro, 400mm F5.6 L
    >
    > I am thinking of selling the 17-40 and getting one lens to cover the
    > range from my wide angle EF-S lens through to the 70mm range. However,
    > either the 24-70 or 24-105 would leave a hole between 22mm and 38mm,
    > since 24mm on the EF lenses = 38mm on my camera.
    > I don't think the EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 is the optical equivalent of my
    > 17-40mm L.
    > And the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS covers basically the same range as my
    > 17-40, so I'd still not have the range through to the 70mm.
    > I am more of an outdoor/landscape/portrait than indoor event
    > photographer. The author of the reviews at the-digital-picture.com
    > says "For my personal uses in this focal length range, the Canon EF
    > 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is on my camera more than the 24-70 L."
    > Nicole Young in her book on the 7D also says this lens is on her
    > camera most of the time. At B&H, even though the 24-70 is on sale,
    > it's still more expensive than the 24-105. Of course, then I'll end up
    > with 3 lenses that cover the 100mm range.
    > Thoughts?


    The 24-105 f/4 L is a very good lens, and has IS which comes in
    handy. It has a wider range than the 24-70 f/2.8 L. However, the
    24-70 is a little sharper and has less distortion, and is f/2.8. But
    doesn't have IS. It is also bigger, heavier and has a longer hood.
    What to do? What to do?

    You'll have to make that choice. I think you'll be happy either way.
    otter, Mar 5, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave in Ancaster

    Bruce Guest

    Dave in Ancaster <> wrote:
    >I have a Canon 7D. Current lenses:
    >EF-S: 10-22mm
    >EF:
    >17-40mm F/4.0 L USM, 50mm F/1.8 II, 70-200mm F/4 L IS, 100mmF/2.8
    >macro, 400mm F5.6 L
    >
    >I am thinking of selling the 17-40 and getting one lens to cover the
    >range from my wide angle EF-S lens through to the 70mm range. However,
    >either the 24-70 or 24-105 would leave a hole between 22mm and 38mm,
    >since 24mm on the EF lenses = 38mm on my camera.
    >I don't think the EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 is the optical equivalent of my
    >17-40mm L.
    >And the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS covers basically the same range as my
    >17-40, so I'd still not have the range through to the 70mm.
    >I am more of an outdoor/landscape/portrait than indoor event
    >photographer. The author of the reviews at the-digital-picture.com
    >says "For my personal uses in this focal length range, the Canon EF
    >24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is on my camera more than the 24-70 L."
    >Nicole Young in her book on the 7D also says this lens is on her
    >camera most of the time. At B&H, even though the 24-70 is on sale,
    >it's still more expensive than the 24-105. Of course, then I'll end up
    >with 3 lenses that cover the 100mm range.
    >Thoughts?



    My thought: You don't provide a single clue about what subjects you
    shoot, which makes it impossible to give any useful advice. So the
    only person who can possibly answer your questions is ... YOU!

    Unless of course you saw this as an opportunity to boast about how
    much expensive gear you own ...
    Bruce, Mar 5, 2011
    #3
  4. On 3/5/2011 5:35 AM, Dave in Ancaster wrote:
    > I have a Canon 7D. Current lenses:
    > EF-S: 10-22mm
    > EF:
    > 17-40mm F/4.0 L USM, 50mm F/1.8 II, 70-200mm F/4 L IS, 100mmF/2.8
    > macro, 400mm F5.6 L
    >
    > I am thinking of selling the 17-40 and getting one lens to cover the
    > range from my wide angle EF-S lens through to the 70mm range. However,
    > either the 24-70 or 24-105 would leave a hole between 22mm and 38mm,
    > since 24mm on the EF lenses = 38mm on my camera.
    > I don't think the EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 is the optical equivalent of my
    > 17-40mm L.
    > And the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS covers basically the same range as my
    > 17-40, so I'd still not have the range through to the 70mm.
    > I am more of an outdoor/landscape/portrait than indoor event
    > photographer. The author of the reviews at the-digital-picture.com
    > says "For my personal uses in this focal length range, the Canon EF
    > 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is on my camera more than the 24-70 L."
    > Nicole Young in her book on the 7D also says this lens is on her
    > camera most of the time. At B&H, even though the 24-70 is on sale,
    > it's still more expensive than the 24-105. Of course, then I'll end up
    > with 3 lenses that cover the 100mm range.
    > Thoughts?


    there is no "22-38" gap ... you just compare the numbers directly.

    I own the 10-22 and the 24-105. The 22-24 gap is no problem. The 22 at 22,
    on the 7D, will take cropping down to what a 23 would be with no problem.

    Well, the gap is a problem if you have to switch lenses, of course.

    I would suggest giving in to lens bloat and keeping the 17-40 and
    getting the 24-105 too.

    The 24-105 is a truly great lens for full frame. For a crop
    camera is is too big. The upside is that it is sharp to the'
    corners.

    Do
    Doug McDonald, Mar 5, 2011
    #4
  5. Dave in Ancaster

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 03:35:55 -0800 (PST), Dave in Ancaster
    <> wrote:
    : I have a Canon 7D. Current lenses:
    : EF-S: 10-22mm
    : EF:
    : 17-40mm F/4.0 L USM, 50mm F/1.8 II, 70-200mm F/4 L IS, 100mmF/2.8
    : macro, 400mm F5.6 L
    :
    : I am thinking of selling the 17-40 and getting one lens to cover the
    : range from my wide angle EF-S lens through to the 70mm range. However,
    : either the 24-70 or 24-105 would leave a hole between 22mm and 38mm,
    : since 24mm on the EF lenses = 38mm on my camera.

    No, that's bogus. A 24mm lens is what it is. The fact that it's wider on a
    "full frame" camera than it is on your 7D is irrelevant. After all, your
    10-22, if it were designed for use on a FF camera, would be wider there as
    well. The "hole" between the two lenses, on either type of camera, is a
    relatively inconsequential 2mm.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Mar 5, 2011
    #5
  6. Dave in Ancaster

    Bruce Guest

    Dave in Ancaster <> wrote:
    >
    >Thanks. Yes, Robert Coe pointed out my error, too.
    >Just for fun, I put the camera on a tripod and compared
    >the 10-22 and the 17-40, both set at 20.
    >Indeed, the pictures were identically framed.



    Just for *fun*? You mean you bought all that expensive equipment yet
    this is the first time that you understood what focal length meant?

    Before you spend a single cent on anything else, buy yourself a book
    on the basics of photography, read it and learn. Above all, it needs
    to be basic.
    Bruce, Mar 5, 2011
    #6
  7. Dave in Ancaster

    Bruce Guest

    David Evans <> wrote:
    >
    >Excuse me. I thought EF-S lenses were different from EF lenses,
    >so I thought the 1.6x didn't apply. I misunderstood that aspect.
    >However, I see it's pretty useless posting to this group, so goodbye.



    The only thing that's "pretty useless" is wasting lots of money buying
    things that you haven't even begun to take the time to understand.
    Bruce, Mar 5, 2011
    #7
  8. Dave in Ancaster

    MC Guest

    Bruce wrote:

    > Dave in Ancaster <> wrote:
    > > I have a Canon 7D. Current lenses:
    > > EF-S: 10-22mm
    > > EF:
    > > 17-40mm F/4.0 L USM, 50mm F/1.8 II, 70-200mm F/4 L IS, 100mmF/2.8
    > > macro, 400mm F5.6 L
    > >
    > > I am thinking of selling the 17-40 and getting one lens to cover the
    > > range from my wide angle EF-S lens through to the 70mm range.
    > > However, either the 24-70 or 24-105 would leave a hole between 22mm
    > > and 38mm, since 24mm on the EF lenses = 38mm on my camera.
    > > I don't think the EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 is the optical equivalent of
    > > my 17-40mm L.
    > > And the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS covers basically the same range as my
    > > 17-40, so I'd still not have the range through to the 70mm.
    > > I am more of an outdoor/landscape/portrait than indoor event
    > > photographer. The author of the reviews at the-digital-picture.com
    > > says "For my personal uses in this focal length range, the Canon EF
    > > 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is on my camera more than the 24-70 L."
    > > Nicole Young in her book on the 7D also says this lens is on her
    > > camera most of the time. At B&H, even though the 24-70 is on sale,
    > > it's still more expensive than the 24-105. Of course, then I'll end
    > > up with 3 lenses that cover the 100mm range.
    > > Thoughts?

    >
    >
    > My thought: You don't provide a single clue about what subjects you
    > shoot, which makes it impossible to give any useful advice. So the
    > only person who can possibly answer your questions is ... YOU!
    >
    > Unless of course you saw this as an opportunity to boast about how
    > much expensive gear you own ...


    Quote: " I am more of an outdoor/landscape/portrait than indoor event
    photographer"

    This may not be a comprehensive list of subject matter but it is, at
    least, definately a single clue :eek:)

    MC
    MC, Mar 5, 2011
    #8
  9. Dave in Ancaster

    otter Guest

    On Mar 5, 8:35 am, otter <> wrote:
    > On Mar 5, 5:35 am, Dave in Ancaster <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > I have a Canon 7D. Current lenses:
    > > EF-S: 10-22mm
    > > EF:
    > > 17-40mm F/4.0 L USM, 50mm F/1.8 II, 70-200mm F/4 L IS, 100mmF/2.8
    > > macro, 400mm F5.6 L

    >
    > > I am thinking of selling the 17-40 and getting one lens to cover the
    > > range from my wide angle EF-S lens through to the 70mm range. However,
    > > either the 24-70 or 24-105 would leave a hole between 22mm and 38mm,
    > > since 24mm on the EF lenses = 38mm on my camera.
    > > I don't think the EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 is the optical equivalent of my
    > > 17-40mm L.
    > > And the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS covers basically the same range as my
    > > 17-40, so I'd still not have the range through to the 70mm.
    > > I am more of an outdoor/landscape/portrait than indoor event
    > > photographer. The author of the reviews at the-digital-picture.com
    > > says "For my personal uses in this focal length range, the Canon EF
    > > 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is on my camera more than the 24-70 L."
    > > Nicole Young in her book on the 7D also says this lens is on her
    > > camera most of the time. At B&H, even though the 24-70 is on sale,
    > > it's still more expensive than the 24-105. Of course, then I'll end up
    > > with 3 lenses that cover the 100mm range.
    > > Thoughts?

    >
    > The 24-105 f/4 L is a very good lens, and has IS which comes in
    > handy.  It has a wider range than the 24-70 f/2.8 L.  However, the
    > 24-70 is a little sharper and has less distortion, and is f/2.8.  But
    > doesn't have IS.  It is also bigger, heavier and has a longer hood.
    > What to do?  What to do?
    >
    > You'll have to make that choice.  I think you'll be happy either way.


    I may be talking to the wind, since Dave said he is leaving, but I'd
    just want to point out one other option. In my opinion, neither of
    these two lenses are all that well suited as a "walk-around" lens for
    a crop camera like the 7D. They work much better for a full frame.
    As you point out, 24mm on a crop is the equivalent of 38mm on a full
    frame, which is not all that wide.

    For a crop camera, the lens that I see getting rave reviews is the EF-
    S 17-55 f/2.8. If I had a 7D, I would use that as my general walk-
    around lens, and build my lens collection around it.
    otter, Mar 6, 2011
    #9
  10. Dave in Ancaster

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 16:10:06 -0800 (PST), otter <>
    wrote:
    : On Mar 5, 8:35 am, otter <> wrote:
    : > On Mar 5, 5:35 am, Dave in Ancaster <>
    : > wrote:
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : > > I have a Canon 7D. Current lenses:
    : > > EF-S: 10-22mm
    : > > EF:
    : > > 17-40mm F/4.0 L USM, 50mm F/1.8 II, 70-200mm F/4 L IS, 100mmF/2.8
    : > > macro, 400mm F5.6 L
    : >
    : > > I am thinking of selling the 17-40 and getting one lens to cover the
    : > > range from my wide angle EF-S lens through to the 70mm range. However,
    : > > either the 24-70 or 24-105 would leave a hole between 22mm and 38mm,
    : > > since 24mm on the EF lenses = 38mm on my camera.
    : > > I don't think the EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 is the optical equivalent of my
    : > > 17-40mm L.
    : > > And the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS covers basically the same range as my
    : > > 17-40, so I'd still not have the range through to the 70mm.
    : > > I am more of an outdoor/landscape/portrait than indoor event
    : > > photographer. The author of the reviews at the-digital-picture.com
    : > > says "For my personal uses in this focal length range, the Canon EF
    : > > 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is on my camera more than the 24-70 L."
    : > > Nicole Young in her book on the 7D also says this lens is on her
    : > > camera most of the time. At B&H, even though the 24-70 is on sale,
    : > > it's still more expensive than the 24-105. Of course, then I'll end up
    : > > with 3 lenses that cover the 100mm range.
    : > > Thoughts?
    : >
    : > The 24-105 f/4 L is a very good lens, and has IS which comes in
    : > handy.  It has a wider range than the 24-70 f/2.8 L.  However, the
    : > 24-70 is a little sharper and has less distortion, and is f/2.8.  But
    : > doesn't have IS.  It is also bigger, heavier and has a longer hood.
    : > What to do?  What to do?
    : >
    : > You'll have to make that choice.  I think you'll be happy either way.
    :
    : I may be talking to the wind, since Dave said he is leaving, but I'd
    : just want to point out one other option. In my opinion, neither of
    : these two lenses are all that well suited as a "walk-around" lens for
    : a crop camera like the 7D. They work much better for a full frame.
    : As you point out, 24mm on a crop is the equivalent of 38mm on a full
    : frame, which is not all that wide.
    :
    : For a crop camera, the lens that I see getting rave reviews is the EF-
    : S 17-55 f/2.8. If I had a 7D, I would use that as my general walk-
    : around lens, and build my lens collection around it.

    That's the lens I bought for my 7D. It took a surprisingly large AF correction
    to get the body and the lens to sync up properly; but once I figured that out,
    I've gotten very good results.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Mar 6, 2011
    #10
  11. Dave in Ancaster

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:04:24 GMT, "MC" <> wrote:
    : Bruce wrote:
    :
    : > Dave in Ancaster <> wrote:
    : > > I have a Canon 7D. Current lenses:
    : > > EF-S: 10-22mm
    : > > EF:
    : > > 17-40mm F/4.0 L USM, 50mm F/1.8 II, 70-200mm F/4 L IS, 100mmF/2.8
    : > > macro, 400mm F5.6 L
    : > >
    : > > I am thinking of selling the 17-40 and getting one lens to cover the
    : > > range from my wide angle EF-S lens through to the 70mm range.
    : > > However, either the 24-70 or 24-105 would leave a hole between 22mm
    : > > and 38mm, since 24mm on the EF lenses = 38mm on my camera.
    : > > I don't think the EF-S 17-85mm F/4-5.6 is the optical equivalent of
    : > > my 17-40mm L.
    : > > And the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS covers basically the same range as my
    : > > 17-40, so I'd still not have the range through to the 70mm.
    : > > I am more of an outdoor/landscape/portrait than indoor event
    : > > photographer. The author of the reviews at the-digital-picture.com
    : > > says "For my personal uses in this focal length range, the Canon EF
    : > > 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens is on my camera more than the 24-70 L."
    : > > Nicole Young in her book on the 7D also says this lens is on her
    : > > camera most of the time. At B&H, even though the 24-70 is on sale,
    : > > it's still more expensive than the 24-105. Of course, then I'll end
    : > > up with 3 lenses that cover the 100mm range.
    : > > Thoughts?
    : >
    : >
    : > My thought: You don't provide a single clue about what subjects you
    : > shoot, which makes it impossible to give any useful advice. So the
    : > only person who can possibly answer your questions is ... YOU!
    : >
    : > Unless of course you saw this as an opportunity to boast about how
    : > much expensive gear you own ...
    :
    : Quote: " I am more of an outdoor/landscape/portrait than indoor event
    : photographer"
    :
    : This may not be a comprehensive list of subject matter but it is, at
    : least, definately a single clue :eek:)

    And importantly, it suggests that the constant-aperture f/2.8 lenses that are
    a staple of event photography needn't play a prominent role in this
    discussion.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Mar 6, 2011
    #11
  12. >>>>> "otter" == otter <> writes:

    otter> For a crop camera, the lens that I see getting rave reviews is the EF-
    otter> S 17-55 f/2.8. If I had a 7D, I would use that as my general walk-
    otter> around lens, and build my lens collection around it.

    I have that lens for my 7D and am very happy with the results. I've
    paired that with the 70-300 DO lens for a good "travel" range.

    --
    Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
    <> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
    Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
    See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion
    Randal L. Schwartz, Mar 6, 2011
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rita  Ä Berkowitz

    Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D vs. 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D IF

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    482
    Gadgets
    Sep 27, 2004
  2. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Macro with Canon 24mm f/2.8 and Nikon 105mm f/2.8

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, May 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    583
  3. deryck  lant

    Canon 5D Hands-on with 24-105mm F4L IS samples

    deryck lant, Aug 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    476
    David J. Littleboy
    Aug 27, 2005
  4. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 vs. 18-70mm Kit lens?

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Sep 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    619
    Ed Ruf
    Oct 6, 2005
  5. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    Nikon Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR vs. Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    836
Loading...

Share This Page