A&P 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4 IS

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Fearan, Feb 29, 2008.

  1. Fearan

    Fearan Guest

    Which one would you get as a main lens and why? :wavey:
     
  2. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,602
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    24-70, 'cause i already have it. it's a great lens.
     
  3. OlafBeserka

    OlafBeserka girls pee pee when they see me OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hella Bay Area
    24-70 because f/2.8 > f/4
     
  4. GregFarz78

    GregFarz78 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Messages:
    64,128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    2.8 > 4
     
  5. aCab

    aCab New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    18,292
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    I've had both. Honestly, It depends on what you want to do and your style. The 24-105 was a great lens - if you need the extra reach or the IS, then get it. That said, I sold it in favor of the 24-70 due to the fact that I didn't need either of those two - and f/2.8 serves me a lot better than f/4. I never shoot it wide open except for low light concerts or on certain portraits.
     
  6. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    if I was on a crop body neither of those and get a 17-55IS
     
  7. Fearan

    Fearan Guest

    40D. Going for a cheaper wide lens, Tamron 17-50 seems like a good deal for landscape photography.

    So there's a lot of votes for the 24-70. Seems reasonable. Too bad it's heavier and lacks IS. :dunno:

    I haven't found a store that had the 24-105 in stock to actually try it out.
     
  8. aCab

    aCab New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    18,292
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicaaago
    Rent both for a week and see which you like the most.
     
  9. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    if you're doing landscapes get a 10-22
     
  10. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,602
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    agreed
     
  11. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    i would love to get a 10-22 and a 24-70, add in a 70-200 2.8 is and that would be my ideal kit :o
     
  12. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    I have a 10-22 and I'd still rather have the 17-55 2.8 over the 24-75
     
  13. MSTRBKR

    MSTRBKR New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    7,584
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cydonia
    .
     
  14. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    go wide for the landscapes (10-20, 10-22, 12-24), then get the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a 70-200. I don't think the 24-70 is worth the money or having an extra lens unless you have a specific use for it. Otherwise, i'd rather use the 17-50 or the 70-200. :dunno:
     
  15. Bowzyr

    Bowzyr sup bro

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,655
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, Ca
    24-70, godly quality..
     
  16. Jhegro

    Jhegro wtf is a jhegro?

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    depends on what you shoot obviously. alot of wedding photogs have ditched their 24-70's in favor of the 24-105's, but then again, alot have gone the other way around. if your shots are static, i'd go with the 24-105. if not, 24-70
     

Share This Page