Most versatile? 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 24-105mm f/4 | Ask David Bergman

[@robigerovasilisphotography]

I own both and they really each have their own purpose and need. The 24-105mm is my go to lens for travel and outdoors and the 24-70mm is my indoor lens.

[@berca4870]

Just own both too. Exactly what I was thinking. 24-105mm for traveling, Outdoor stuff where I dont need high Shutter Speed or just want that extra 35mm. And when I team up on a wedding to produce both photo and video the 24-105mm is my main Videolens for the day. 24-70 for everything else and most of my payed work. Its really a workhorse. And of course on Weddings as a fast versitile zoomlense. And what has to be said the minimal focus distance is way better on the 24-70!

[@annagokieli1497]

I got the 24 - 105 as a kit with my Canon R6. I love this lens. I shot portraits with it for a whole year, just this lens. Then i got into 2nd shooting wedding photography, realizing i need to step it up and go more pro, i knew i needed another lens. Every video i watched raved about the 24 -70 F2.8 or 28 -70 F2 for weddings specifically. So i decided to spend the big bucks and go for the 28-70, a whopping $3K !!! it only took me 2 weddings to realize that i made a HUGE mistake. What i SHOULD of gotten was the 70 -200! As a second shooter you are zooming in to get the reaction of family and friends in the crowd during the ceremony, the dinner portion and then dancing .......and now i lost 35mm of zoom for all those shots!!!! I literally almost bumped into a person trying my hardest to get physically closer to getting the shot i wanted. Sure the bokeh is more creamy at f2 compared to f4 but honestly i will trade the bokeh any day for more zoom capability, ESPECIALLY for weddings. Live and learn!!! Great video, wish i saw it before.

[@MowMent]

It's okay. 24-70 is still a beast of a lens. Most people own 24-70 and 70-200 altogether! 😊🎉

[@lbeetech]

I got the F4 trinity and use cheap primes when I need a larger aperture...works great...

[@lordgaber]

im planning to do weddings to but i cant decide between the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-105 f4 , ( here the f4 is way more cheaper) do you notice the lack of light? Im planning to use it with a flash ( godox v1)

[@ritchiesanchez8658]

Will you be getting the 24-105 f2.8 now?

[@decibelav1037]

Word of advice, hire first a lot cheaper in long run 😊

[@chakwong]

I’ve the 24-105 EF on a Canon 6D. It is like having a well-maintained Camry that runs forever. Sharp, reliable and versatile. A classic!

[@Ajmalluu]

Camry ❤haha

[@jaywbus]

one of best reviews out there! no rambling. straight to the main points.

[@kobuslouw7768]

I use a ef 24-105 f4 paired with a 70-200 f4 primarily landscape and street photography. Csn't fault the 24-105 f4, and the biggest benefit is the weight difference between the f4 and f2.8. A camera bag can get heavy if you're taking it for a walk up a mountain. You can compensate for the apperture with the f4 through iso settings, but you can't compensate for the focal length with the 2.8... My advice... go for the 24-105 f4

[@krishnaramachandran7722]

I agree we can bump up the iso and live with F4 aperture instead of 2.8 aperture. Bokeh at 105 f4 is comparable to bokeh at 70 f 2.8. The f4 lens is just 690 gm. F 2.8 lens is very difficult to use outdoors all day long.its huge

[@danriley3064]

Like others, I have both lenses. My RF 24-70 I mainly use when I want the subject to pop where the background is blurred or changing light. The RF 24-105 is my all around carry when out an about; It's a fun lens and lighter. The other lens I have is the RF 70-200 2.8, which I love. For the past 40 years, photography is my mental health hobby and I was honored when out grandson asked me to shoot his senior photo this year. David, keep doing what you do, I learn so much from your videos.

[@stevepark6243]

I feel the proud from reading your comment. I am looking forward to my girl asking me to take photos of her for formals and etc.

[@NickGranville]

I’ve owned both, but currently own a 24-105 and a bunch of primes. Prob cost what the one 24-70 would have cost and is far more versatile. I much prefer the look of primes for what I do, and having the one zoom on the occasion I need it is good hence why I went the 24-105, and as I shoot Sony high iso isn’t really a problem (not the I really need to go high iso often)

[@SeguraCine]

Good goal, I'll buy it

[@tedinohio3981]

Being able to get to 105 is also useful for landscape. I have the RF 24-105 and RF 100-400. Because it was not very expensive, I added the RF 16mm 2.8 for those rare occasions when I want to go very wide.

[@damientoman]

I have those 3 lenses except my 100-400L is EF, not RF. I now want an RF 10-20L. Might sell a few of my older EF lenses to minimise the damage. Way back I had the old 28-70 f2.8L. A great lens but the 70 end was too short for head shots. The 105 really scores for portraits. I can live without f2.8 now on my R5 - just bumping up the ISO. In my film days those wide apertures were much more important than these days.

[@robertmccutchan5450]

Thanks for such a great video! I don't do low light very often, but I do shoot outside a lot, and I shoot anything from very close up to very far away, and I don't have much time between the two situations. My current set up: 24-105 f4 on a full frame camera, and a 70-200 f4 on a crop frame , sometimes with a 1.4X teleconverter. With this set up, it gives me essentially a range from 24mm - 448mm f4-5.6, with the 24-105 around my neck as my main camera, and the 70-200 on a belt clip. This is an incredibly versatile set up. I keep a couple of spare batteries and memory cards in my pocket, and I'm good for hours of shooting in any situation without having to carry around a bunch of gear. If I need to really blur the background, I just back up and use one of the longer focal lengths. I also have a 50mm f1.8 and a 135 f2 in my bag just for the occasional low light stuff. If I were to go back to shooting weddings, this is the set up I would use. One thing to note: the 70-200 f4 is MUCH lighter than the f2.8 version. I sometimes carry 2 cameras all day for days on end, so weight becomes a factor, especially since the 70-200 is on a belt clip. Thanks David!

A pro needs what is needed for the job, and any expensive lens is nice to own if you can afford it, but most enthusiast photographers might want to consider the overall versatility of the longer zoom, and buy an inexpensive f/1.8 prime lens for when they really need that kind of aperture. If there’s one thing I’ve found over the past 50 years is that people greatly overestimate how often they really use fast lenses wide open in everyday photography, and that includes portraits.

[@TravelDude]

The 105 has image stabilisation as well.

[@JamesAAshton]

The review was explicitly not about particular lens models. The Canon RF 24-70 has image stabilisation.

[@lifetimesofamultiplemediam1003]

Only recently got the Canon 24-105 f4, as I was previously busy using the 24-70 f4 and loving it. It's light, sharp, and image stabilised meaning, excellent for video and photography. I bought the 24-105 to use at events especially where I was stuck in one location filming with a big dv cam on a tripod, but also wanted to capture some stills of the event in the meantime. The 24-70 was just too short, and hence I went for the 105. It has really surprised me, as it's the old EF version, and reviewers have always claimed it to be not that good. I have found it to be very good, and fits the purpose I bought it for perfectly. Now, if I want to shoot portraits in a controlled environment, I'll grab the 24-70. If I'm shooting an event, I'll grab the 24-105 simples

[@johng5819]

Great job explaining. For me, the 24-105 f4 is the more versatile walk around lens but for indoor shoots, the 24-70 f 2.8 is the one.

[@jlopez7596]

David as we expect a well versed and concise explanation. When i switched to canon i went with the 24‐70 f2.8 and at times i miss having the 24-105 f4 for the range and lighter but have enjoyed the extra light in situations where flash is just not practical. An ideal lens would be 24-105 f2 for focal length and aperture but I would never own it because it would be horribly expensive, bulky and heavy to carry. Again a very good explanation to help someone to decide

[@larrycjones6765]

I also have both. I still have an EF 24 -70 f2.8 and an RF 24-105 f4. I had weddings wherer I had switch lens during the ceremony because I was not allowed to move any closer. I have prime lenes in that focal range between f1.4 and f2.8.

[@revan.3994]

What's the more ideal combination for someone who is doing nearly 50:50 in Travel/Landscape and Portrait photography? 1) RF 24-105 f/4 & RF 70-200 f/2.8 or 2) RF 24-70 f/2.8 & RF 70-200 f/2.8 ...looking forward to the upcoming R5 MkII to switch from my 5D MkIII with the EF 24-105 f/4 Kitlens and my old Sigma EX 100-300 f/4... as I am not sure if I should spend the extra 1000€+ for the 24-70 f/2.8 🤔. I also have to say that in the last years I switched from 80% Travel/Landscape and 20% Portrait to the before-mentioned 50:50. Thanks in advance for your tipps! 👋

[@dexon555]

I've also noticed that between both of those RF lenses, the 24-70 f2.8 autofocuses much more confidently in low light in comparison to the 24-105 f4. However, in most situations, I appreciate the focal length versatility and lighter weight of the 24-105, especially when using strobes.

[@markusbolliger1527]

My workhorse is the RF 24-105mm F4.0 L IS lens. Because it's so versatile. Last weekend I covered a euchristic liturgy in a catholic church, in exreme low light situations. It was necessery to shoot with ISO 1600, 3200, 6400 and even above 12800: No problem with my R6 MkII in combination with DxO Pure RAW 4!! The images look still very good!

[@cliquemediaproductions]

I actually have both. I was shooting many events, and the 24-70 was perfect for that, mainly when I was restricted from using flash. I later got the 24-105 because I was traveling a lot (pre-pandemic), and it was perfect for packing with the minimum amount of equipment.

[@Greeniykyk]

Same reasons for me. Both used a lot.

[@sohzhausen9518]

For travelling, which lens will you recommend? 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 24-105mm or 20-70mm (newly launched). I am a new to photography and hoping to get some guidance ^^

[@sythanh14]

Honestly I would buy another body so that I can use 2 lenses at the same time without having to change them, if the work is serious.

[@DeputyNordburg]

I have the 24-105 f4 for general shooting. I have the 28-70 f2 for high end shooting, weddings, portraits etc. I bought my 24-105 for $700 from someone who bought a kit and was selling off the 24-105. To me it was a $1600 savings over 24-70 f2.8.

[@tourinojacks5844]

Oh really? I did not know about the 20-70mm. That might be what "I" need. I hate to lose my Sigma 16-35 mm but I need more distance of a 70mm. @@sohzhausen9518

[@jakemcavoy2554]

This presentation is very helpful. As a weekend photographer with limited knowledge, I’ve been contemplating for 20-70 for quite sometime when I already have 24-125. I’ll stick to the latter for my purpose without further expense. Thank you, David!

[@miketupy9363]

I made the choice between the two for travel photography by going with the canon EF 24-105. The thing that helped me was that the EF 24-105 has stabilization where the 24-70 did not. I figured the one stop I lost in aperture I could get back with the stabilization in low light. It has worked great for me over the last 5 years or so.

[@lj1616]

Thanks so much Dave. I own the 24-70mm and have found it to be a great lens. Paired with the 70-200mm, you are ready for almost anything.

[@63nuke]

I left the APS-C world and went full frame for one reason: I wanted to be able to use a 24-70 f2.8. There is no crop sensor equivalent as f2.8 really renders as an f4-f4.5 on a crop sensor. While they are big and heavy it's just a wonderful lens. The extra reach would be nice but honestly for the type of work I do it isn't missed. I have an 85mm in the bag if a little extra reach is a must. I do met a well known landscape and fine art photographer in NM though that uses the 24-105 for 95% of his work and it's stunning.

[@seasterl]

I own the 24-70 f/2.8 but recently bought the non-L version of the 24-105 for travel and walk-about since it’s more compact, light, and inexpensive in case something happens on vacation. The big 24-70 is great for when I don’t want to make any compromises or leave any quality on the table. Canon currently does not offer L series primes less than 50mm, so this works for me.

[@kevinjoseph6636]

This was the best video on these two types of lenses yet!

[@nelsono4315]

I purchased the 24-105 f4 over the 24-70 f2.8 because I liked the extra reach and with my full frame cameras I knew I could bump up the ISO a bit with no worries. I find it to be a superb lens. I'm the house photographer at a jazz club.

[@RafaelUnplugged]

If you never upgrade to 2 body setup the 24-105 is great but If you run two bodies RF 15-35m 2.8 (EF 17-40 4.0 also decent and lighter) Or 24-70 2.8 or 4.0 70-200 2.8 or even 4.0 if budget doesn't allow. I'll also run 35 prime and 85 prime If you're mirror less and still rocking one body the 28-70 f2 is that beast of a zoom that although heavy (but not as heavy as the 24-105) is gonna get you that shot and light, and with the RF dual pixel you can drop into 105 or shoot at 1.6x crop mode when you need to. Just gotta be able to pay that price for the Lens.

[@MS-gn4gl]

F4 for music event photography? Wow. Not sure I could pull that off and be happy with the results. Is it a brighter environment than I'm imagining?

[@sythanh14]

@@MS-gn4gl Calm down that will do just fine. I got through a long event with changing light condition with an f3.5-4.5 lens from Nikon and there were little to no problems. Just bump up ISO to compensate for that.

[@anthonywallace319]

​@@MS-gn4gl on a quality full frame, bumping up the ISO makes up for it without sacrificing quality or noise.

[@PhotoArtBrussels]

I use my 24-105 F4 for all studio shoots, as we're at f8 anyway, the extra reach gives great flexibility. I also use the lens often for photo walks (where you do not need f2.8, but again the 105mm is useful then). My most used lens by far.

[@karikaru]

I also think of what are you doing at those focal ranges. If you're doing mostly architecture or landscape at that wide end, what are your odds of needing that shallow DoF? I'm usually trying to shoot my sharpest aperture for those genres to get a large subject as detailed as possible. If you're doing those, you're probably on a tripod or braced and your subject is stationary so the light gathering isnt that big of a factor for me. If the guy is doing street photography at night, the 2.8 would probably help to make sure you can keep your shutter fast enough to freeze the action but again - that's not a big issue to me with modern ibis and noise reduction. Plus if there's any genre of photography where it's okay to have high iso noise, it's street photography since you're likely going to throw a film simulation on there anyways so you can roleplay as Joel Meyerowitz on the streets of new York. The bigger plus for the 2.8s seems to be that they tend to have better optical performance and sharpness. Your f4 on the20-70 2.8 generally speaking is going to look better than wide open on the 24-105. If you look at the DXOmark scores, your average pro 2.8 zoom is going to be notably sharper than the f4 across the board. Whether you "need" that or not I suppose depends entirely on you since photography is an artform which is our own creative expression and some people want a clinical razer sharp image while others throw dispersion filters on their lens or grab old vintage lenses to create soft dreamy pictures.

[@davepastern]

I'm thinking of a small, non-pro, 100% amateur home studio and the 24-105mm (over the 85mm f1.8 prime or 135mm f2.8 soft focus prime). My studio will be small - 10' by 12' at most. Just a simple 2 light setup with a reflector panel (over a v-flat). I simply want to learn more about studio lighting and photography, not really looking to make a $$$. F stop wise - f8 or f5.6? Will the latter give me enough DOF for the average human face in the studio?

[@garyrowe58]

I have the Canon EF f/4 24-105 and it was great on the 5D Mk II, it was always pretty sharp at the centre but the edges weren't as good. However, now with an R5 (with double the megapixels) on an adapter I can't stand the edges on the 24-105, they really stand out as they are so less sharp than the centre ... ok for people in the centre of the frame, but not for group shots or landscapes. It's a real pity as I love the range of the 24-105 :(

[@parisborn624]

@@karikaru You probably have a 24-70 f2.8, that's why you talk like it's a dogma. Nothing could be further from the truth, the F4 lens is similar in sharpness to its f2.8 blood brother, period.

[@jean-pierrelaclau4138]

I am exactly at the point of changing body and lenses and I wonder if there is a resolution difference between these two zooms. Fuji has recently launched a debate on this point with a list of their lenses that have a sufficient resolution for their new 40 Mb sensor (on APS-C), and not all do. Keeping with Canon for the sake of illustration here and assuming the 2.8 is a better zoom than the 4.0, would one say that putting a 2.8 on an R6 would be wasting money as the sensor would not be up to par, or that the 4.0 on an R5 would not do justice to the sensor capabilities? I would like to have your thoughts on matching sensor and lens. Thanks

[@BrianKilgoreCanada]

It's thanksgiving here in Canada. As always, I enjoyed your show. I'm getting old. My first telephoto lens was an 85mm for the Nikon S3 rangefinder camera. Then I switched to Pentax SLR, and to a Pentax 105 lens. -- BAK --

[@fsend9191]

I have the 24-105 f4. Took the $1100 savings, added $200 and bought an R8. Any loss of shallow depth of field I lose I can effectively regain by moving back and zooming in more. Also have the 50mm f1.8 if I need that f-stop.

[@HoustonRay]

Great video! I would say the 24-70 F/2.8 is more versatile right off the bat, strictly because there are very few run-and-gun/lifestyle image opportunities that are completely made or broken by the difference between a 70mm maximum focal length and a 105mm one. That being said, the extra lighting potential from an F/2.8 aperture gives you a lot more leeway when you're in an unpredictable lighting scenario, especially if your camera isn't very high quality and can't handle shooting quality images at higher ISOs. You're paying a good bit more, of course, but a quality lens will last you a long time and get you the most bang for your buck in the long run!

[@charlessummers7381]

I own the EF 24-70 f/2.8 It's so versatile and performs well in low-light situations. I can always 'foot-zoom' a couple of steps to take care of that 85mm-90mm portrait opportunity. It is heavy, but I'm acclimated to it by now. And the bokeh is great!!

[@Petroscapes]

I did a 10-week trip with lots of hiking, photographing mostly landscapes, and the only lens I took was a 24-105. Even with only f4 it was fine for close-ups of flowers and plants, and I've sold several of those photos as stock.

[@lawlinyourface]

Where can I sell my stock images? Spent to much money on year to not have this option

[@unknown_play0_086]

Id like to know too

[@OldGirlPhotography]

I've read lots of complaints of lack of lens options when shooting Canon mirrorless. This proves otherwise, even if the piece was intended to be brand agnostic. In fact, there is also a 24-240 for that totally versatile, albeit confined to good light, shooting range. Personally, I've gone with the F4 series for all my lenses (and am ok with variable aperture lenses too).

[@beitarjerusalem4169]

Is 20-105 good for studio? What is better for newborn photography in the studio?

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

If you're using strobes and have plenty of light, then yes - the 24-105 is great in the studio. I use it all the time.

[@fountainvalley100]

If you check a DOF calculator you can see there isn’t a lot of difference in the depth of field between the two. Like the exposure triangle the depth of field is a triangle between focal length, aperture and distance to subject.

[@joelcleare]

2.8 is a must in my case. Indoor & outdoor low light.

[@khdzstudio]

I have a 24-105 f4L and a 50 1.8 rf honestly unless I'm doing night photography, I'd use the nifty fifty for that and its lighter. The 24-105 f4 is great for daytime/landscapes unless you need to go extra wide. The only issue is the nifty 50 does not have stabilization but if videography is your main goal then I'd look into the 35mm lenses L series for that. Just depends on what you will be photographing and when. 24-105 is also a great option if you plan on doing both daytime video and photography with its stabilization.

[@rickymcc8624]

Very fair assessment. Possibly one of the harder choices to make. I have used both options extensively on both Nikon DSLR and Sony Mirrorless systems. I'm an amateur, fortunate to be able to afford any lens I want. I have also done many paid assignments, press work, sports etc (mainly vanity shoots), but nowadays shoot mostly for myself - especially portraits and travel. Now I'm finally, again, convinced on the merit of 24-70 in Sony GM in version mk2. IMO it's probably the best in class currently available. That said, all options are good and should suffice for most use cases, especially if not shooting fast-paced events professionally. 4 years ago I switched to Sony (selling 3 Nikon bodies and 10+ lenses as I was underwhelmed by initial Nikon Z bodies and limited native 'mirriorless' glass vs Sony). Initially I just used a 55mm and 85mm f1.8 primes for mid range. I was honestly not impressed with Sony's mk1 GM 24-70 f2.8 (heft, speed and cost). My first Sony mid zoom (I already had wide, tele and super tele zooms) was their 24-105mm f4. I found it way better than expected, sharp, convenient and even OK as a one-lens 'walkabout' if wanting just light day-use versatility (eg day travel). When adding a fast prime eg a Sony 35m f1.4 it made a great 2-lens combo for travel. But, Sony started setting new standards with their mk2 reworked GM glass. Having already experienced the much improved mk2 70-200 GM I looked forward to trying Sony's newer 24-70 f2.8. I finally bought one 2 months ago and think it's superb (better than expected). So, I will soon sell my otherwise excellent 24-105 f4 G lens. I was late getting into a mid-range zoom as I'm generally not shooting paid pro events and typically prefer primes when I have time and bag space to accommodate (bulk and mass). Also as an amateur able to 'please myself' I typically prefer the often more dramatic look of an ultra-wide or more tele perspectives. IMO most photographers could work either a 24-70 or a 24-105 lens. Yes there are slight trade offs, but both options are good - either as indy glass or in brand Nikon, Canon or Sony. It's more about you the photographer, your skills, preferences, budget and backup lens options (eg fast primes) that will determine what is best. My absolute favorite lens now is Sony's 35mm f1.4, used wide open for environmental portraits or stopped down for general scenics. But I love fast primes, owning GM primes at 14mm, 24mm, 35mm and 135mm as well as my slightly slower (f1.8) primes 20mm, 35mm and 85mm. I will probably also buy a 50mm f1.2 and possibly an 85 f1.4 if/when Sony do a mk2. I'm not trading my 85 f1.8 anytime soon for Sony's original mk1 85mm GM. I might even keep it (ie a f1.4 and f1.8) which is profligate for most. Why? Because the uber compact f1.8 options are really good and don't mark you out as a 'photographer' for discrete 'street' use. I'm clearly atypical but still shoot both my 35mm f1.8 G and 35mm f1.4 GM primes - obviously not at the same event - I pick which is best for the situation. A single small f1.8 lens is really compact, discrete and doesn't generally mark you out as a 'serious' or pro photographer - ideal for blending into the background and when 'shooting from the hip'

[@bartjes2509]

For landscapes f/4 is sufficient, especially when using a tripod. Weight is also a consideration since for landscape photography you may wanna hike up a mountain or in a region. Often you end up buying a long lens as well so consider the focal length of that lens as well for the choice you make with the standard zoom 24-70 or -105. Personally I own the 24-105 f/4 and a telephoto 100-400 f/5.6 and I photograph landscapes mostly. I also have a nifty 50mm f/1.8 for the bokeh requirements, cheap to buy and a lot of fun

[@tedk2814]

at first I owned the 24-70 but I always had to take a 70-200 along. Then I purchased the 24-120 f4 and it's the only lens I take for events, senior portraits and local newspaper jobs like town hall or political meetings. I don't miss the 2.4 aperture at all. If I were to do more serious portrait work, I would probably get an 85mm 1.8. Thanks David, that was a great comparison. Ted, home of the $9.00 haircut.

[@Jason_Connolly]

Like evening in photography, there is always a trade-off. Having used both lenses, this is the best explanation for the compromises for these lenses that I've seen. Great video

[@Terp1325]

What would yall recommend between the two for wedding photography

[@DanDill]

Is there a difference in weather sealing between the two lenses? Thank you.

[@zaghirabrazier8846]

Would u recommend the 24-105 fór a all day wedding

[@joshuagharis9017]

I find the 24 to 105 is perfect for in the studio because you can get wide shots medium shots and and you can zoom in to 105 mm and 5 mm and get some tight head type portrait shots

[@SomitS13]

Does this comprision still holds good on Crop sensor?

[@jerrym8140]

I totally agree, I have both but not a huge fan of the 24-70 2.8 non mirrorless as it’s often not quite long enough. Just got the 24-120 f4 for my Z mount from Nikon and used it for the first time yesterday and loved it. It’s not replacing my 85 1.4 my favorite lens but it’s so easy to use and versatile. David, great advice as usual.

[@mdeezie220]

Your comment just helped me make up my mind. My 85 is my favorite as well. I was debating between the 2 lenses in this video I’m going to go with the 24-105

[@Reason-fg4ik]

Agree, I'm not a fan of my 24-70mm f2.8. I got the 24-120mm f4. I didn't gain much from the 24-70mm that I couldn't get by bumping the iso on the 24-120mm by a stop. Further, I lost some weight carrying the 24-120mm.

[@sagetheowlfatfeathery2083]

I have the RF 24-105. I find the versatility outweighs the odd occasion when I’d want a really shallow depth of field, and paired with my R6 which is great in low light and the ability to punch in to APS-C and get a focal length of 168mm means this can be the one and only lens you take with you for general photography.

[@marknongkhlaw1674]

Is there an APSC (EF-M) to RF adapter?

[@litechasers]

I have the 24-105 F4.0 for its versatility. One lens does it all mostly. That is it!!! Thanks for the comparison of the 2 lenses.

[@ranjithkrishnan9148]

Hi David, What is the best camera compared to Canon 5d mark IV & Canon EOS mirrorles R5?

[@MatthijsBrendel-Kovacs]

Very helpful video, thanks! I think I will go for the 24-105 as my first step into the RF system, it seems very well-suited as a general purpose walk-around travelzoom.

[@GrantUchida]

I use prime lenses and telephoto lenses majority of the time unless I am vlogging, then I use a 16-35. but I always wanted the 24-70 for that 2.8 I have a 24-105 but I never know if the grass is always greener on the other side, I just know that with the image stabilization and the f4 aperture I can drop my shutter down to 160 in lowlights and still be able to get a decent shot.

[@carmenospina2203]

Hi. I’m traveling in May and I have Canon mirrorless R6. My question is what lens can I buy for low light like for inside churches, etc. Thank you.

[@johnjohnston2439]

Which lens between these 2 mentioned for shooting landscape, as in Teton park and Yellowstone park using Canon R6 mark 2 camera? Leaning towards 24-105 f/4?

[@djdeff1]

I got the 24-70 and was wondering if I should even bother getting the other. This explained alot. Altgough im still indecisive.

[@LukeChristo]

I find the barrel distortion at 24 with the 24-105mm much more pronounced. I've used both in EF and RF.

[@silenc3x]

It's also softer. This video should have mentioned these things based on actual usage. Not just talking about the numbers. I've never been really wowed from photos produced from the 24-105 f/4. Very meh IMO.

[@PatrickGratton]

If i primarily shoot sports and have a 70-200 f/2.8, which of these would you recommend? Primarily shoot lacrosse. Thank you!

[@aviator201]

besides the versatility trade offs, range vs light gathering, there is also a difference in contrast and sharpness. If you shoot into bright lights (like the sun), I have found the 24-70 will have better contrast (your subject is clearer). I also think for landscapes if you like sun stars, the 24-70 does a better job reducing artifacts. still the 24-105 is great - smaller/lighter and very nice images but even at the same focal lengths and apertures the 24-70 has a leg up imho.

[@brentanthony]

That's exactly what I'm planning to order. The Sony 24-105 f4, an 85 f1.4GM, and the Sigma 150-600 f5.6. This decision came after many months of videos and books on the subject so I'm glad to get this confirmation. Thanks.

[@CRobbins131]

I keep watching g and reading about the image quality of the EF mount 24-105 f4, was it sharp enough for your professional use?

[@w9jim]

I own both these lenses for my 5D4. The 24-105L is always on my camera. I haven't used the 24-70 f/2.8 in years.

[@joserocha1840]

I went with the 24-70 2.8 after evaluating both. It's good to have prime-like quality at all those focal lengths, and after testing I found the 24-105 to be very weak at the corners, which I found to be a bad investment since I like to shoot landscapes too. Although it is a bit heavy to hang on my neck, I spent last summer crossing the country and photographing a lot of things from landscapes to old dark churches and museums, and family portraits of course, and I found I could bare its weight with a wide leather wrist strap. Yes it is a very expensive lens and I'm not sure it's worth the extra money, but since I can do pretty much everything with this only lens, I think it was a good buy. I also have the RF 50 1.8 when I want to do some street photos or casual stuff. Having the 24-70, my next investment will probably be a used EF 135mm f/2 or even 200mm f/2.8 just for the different look.

[@danielson_9211]

Thats the situation I'm in now, I don't shoot portraits but I do shoot museums and indoors a lot with some landscapes as well, was thinking that extra reach would help a bit, but its always dark in churches and indoor lighting is usually terrible.

[@ChargedPulsar]

That's very good important info, thanks for sharing!

[@randyhurlburt]

I own the 24-105. Appreciated your explanation. Because I also have primes at 35, 50, and 85, the 24-105 is actually my least frequently used lens. I mostly use it for outdoor work, whether landscape or portrait, and so the f/2.8 aperture is not critical and I can get very good bokeh at 105 mm and f/4. Thanks again for your video, it reaffirms my decision to get the 24-105.

[@digitalclips]

Great video. There is a lot of rethinking going on for me these days after a lifetime of photography, videography and computer graphics. First, I must state I am retired so this is all just a hobby now. After many years as a Canon DSLR shooter I had a collection of L lenses including several f/2.8 models, which I saw as the ultimate lenses. Since shifting totally to Sony mirrorless I've experienced a tectonic shift in photography. I now have a collection of G and G master Sony lenses and currently an A7IV (I can't justify the A1). Between this and an iPhone 13 Pro Max I have had to reevaluate everything I thought I knew and understood about photography, especially the concept that I need >/f2.8 in low light. The sensors and the computational power these days (not to mention the likes of Topaz GP and Adobe Neural Filters) have changed everything. I use the Sony 200-600mm for birds and so far I can't beat that without spending $12,000 (which isn't going to happen) and the 24-105mm f/4 as a walk about... or did. The iPhone has pretty much taken over that function! I just attended a wedding and shot the entire ceremony hand held on the Sony A7IV in 4K 60 fps. I extracted the best 10 minutes and to my utter amazement I have 36,000 still shots to select from, any one as good as the pictures I would have got from my Canon a decade ago shooting stills. What a world we live in technologically eh?

[@marknongkhlaw1674]

Is there a speedbooster I can use with the 24-105mm to enlarge the aperture? And whether I can adapt this lens to APSC camera, more specifically the EF-M mount? Thanks

[@moviewryter1985]

Having an APS-C changes things a bit you think? Maybe enough to rethink the 24-105?

[@johndonaldson5126]

David, I've fallen into ballet stage photography. My APS-C camera and lenses choices targeted portraits. I just was not able to freeze frame the dancers with the zooms I had. Ballet stages are notoriously low light. It didn't take long to decide on going full frame and buying an A7 IV. Then I looked into the lenses and quickly decided a Sony 24-70 f/2.8 was just the ticket. Unfortunately the combination of the 24-70 for the low end, coupled with the very good Tamron 70-170 (105--270 on the APS-C body) left a gap in the focal range. I then discovered the Sony 24-105 f/4. Perfect right? I agonized for weeks over the decision of which lens to buy. 24-70 for low light but lacked the reach I wanted. Or 24-105 for the reach, sacrificing one stop vs the 2.8. I thought of renting the camera and two lenses but that was too expensive. I watched dozens of KZbin videos that I hoped would help. But many were landscape or city channels. Some were heavily focused on video which I don't do. No channel zeroed in on my use case. I could use the 24-70, then crop in post. Would I lose the good qualities of the24-70 that way? I could use the 24-105 and bump the ISO up one stop. Would that introduce unacceptable grain. I thought of designing tests to help me decide on which lens to keep. Ultimately I figured the best way to choose was to buy both and actually use them at a real ballet. I have five more days until the gear is in my hands. In the long run I hope to have enough use of both lenses to make a final decision - then sell one of them.

[@dannylevsade2322]

I own the 24 105 use it for family portrait and landscape and I like it a lot. Speed usually is not an issue especially for landscape, I adapt the camera to a tripod so I can still remain low ISO and still compensate between 2.8 to 4. I can use the extra money for fix lens

[@Chasers2]

Thanks for posting, David! We find ourselves shooting with a 24-105 most often. Things like lightning and supercells. But, for tornadoes, we like a 70-200. And, we can get a 70-200 in either f/4 or f/2.8.

[@ProductRandomReviews]

The 24-105mm was always my go to. Back in the days the f4 was a bit more challenging but now in modern cameras it is less so an issue. But that 105mm on the long end was always great for not having to switch lenses.

[@Fonggren]

I've always wondered why camera companies, especially 3rd party manufacturers, have not offered a 24-105 f2.8. Would it be prohibitively heavy? Way too expensive? Both?

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Probably both!

[@davidrichards5964]

Apologies but I didn't know exactly where to post my question which is....should I spend money getting the Fuji XH2 or stick with my XH1? I generally take land/seascapes and portraiture.

[@kirkdarling4120]

I'm shooting primarily studio-type portraits. I've used a 24-70 in the past, but I discovered that last 35mm was essential. I was always needing to switch to my 70-200mm just to get 100mm. The 24-105 can stay on my camera all day long. The difference in lens speed is irrelevant, since I'm shooting at f/5.6 to f/11.

[@locsbcn]

Agree 100%

[@Gravelbomber]

I have the rf24-105 f4, and will never give it up, BUT, I do plan on getting either the 24-70 2.8 or 28-70 f2 for the low light situations.

[@echelon-thepanamanian_papi6144]

Which would you use for real estate

[@RosMyster]

Is there any lense I can buy with 24-200 mm F1.4?

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Nope. A 24-200 1.4 zoom would be insanely big and cost tens of thousands of dollars, I assume. If you want 1.4, go with prime lenses. I did a video in 2016 about them here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eam8gqChgsR-fpY

[@normansuchorzewski1026]

I have the 24-105 RF lens. It came as a stock lens with the camera deal. O my word - what an amazing lens. I also have the Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM. Was thinking of getting the 24-70, but really could not justify it. The 2.8 does make a difference, but I could not believe the 24-105 is F4 as it handles low light really well. If you need the reach get it.

[@MDKTuber]

Great video David 👏👏 Having a 2.8 wide open lens is awesome though I am loving my RF 24-105 F4 as the day to day Travel, Landscape & Portrait pics. Paired with 50mm 1.8 for the low light & Bokeh clicks

[@etobelow]

Made the same decision) hope it’ll work

[@partharoy3061]

If i shoot two photos of same subject with same composition, at 70mm f2.8 and 105mm f4, which lens will give more blurry background?

[@guildjs2]

I use the Tamron 35 -150 f/2.8 - f4 on both my 5D MkII and my R via the adaptor. A very good lens in my opinion, so much so that it is always on my second camera.

[@ryzenbiel4145]

great to have that lens its rare to find that lens that my dream third party lens for event traditional and simple only.. I can save a lot of money... having more focal length in one lens is insane... for me that's perfect made by Tamron...

[@memento_photographer]

Where can I buy it?

[@kentao4]

This is my current debate. I struggle with the 24-105 inside of clubs etc because of the lighting. Some of that is my own fault as far as results and I always keep a prime with me to help. 24-70 is what I want but the price tag is so hefty! I feel like I’d sell the 24-105 to get it but might regret it in the long run! Going to upgrade my body first and then see if that makes any difference in the low light

[@brandonjames3603]

We on the same page I'm thinking about going to Sony as well

[@kentao4]

@@brandonjames3603 i just sold my a7iii and got the a7rv (lost my whole mind) and I love it. Might get that 24-70 today and take the leap. Did you make a move yet?

[@indyjones720]

The R6 Mark II is a BEAST in low light. Considered to be among one of the best in the camera industry. F2.8 lenses are becoming less relevant in most shooting situations. F4 is more then able to get you an amazing shot on these new cameras.

[@jdelarosa89]

I’m not much of a zoom person- I mostly overthink when I have a zoom lens on the camera. I prefer a 35 and 85 prime.

[@zacklarez]

35 is the way.

[@genghis2510]

I'm a senior photographer and I've been using 24-70mm f/2.8 as my sweet spot in the slew of lens I have in my arsenal.

[@carvalca]

What do you think about comparison of RF 15-35mm and RF 14-35mm? I know 15-35 is more expensive and 14-35 has 1mm more of range , I am a non pro but I like to travel and photo to landscapes and events during tours , so I don’t know if 1mm is better than 2.8 f against 4f, I am not Astro photographer but I would like to take photos during the night with low light as well, what do you recommend me?

[@TorstenFelder-bn2ez]

I've got a 24-105mm kit lens that came with my 6D Mark II I picked up a little over 3 years ago. I've learned a lot about photography since then and have moved up in terms of my equipment, but I still use that kit lens for street/city photography on a regular basis. Don't know what it costs, but that may be a cheap but solid alternative to the 24-105mm f/4 presented here. It certainly works for me!

[@nicolecole2310]

I think if you have the money the 24-70 2.8 is fantastic. With the R5 I can do the 1.6 crop factor and end up with 112 mm 2.8 and still have enough megapixels in the image.

[@Xirpzy]

Wish I had gone R5 instead of R6. Adapting ef lenses and still have plenty mp would save me money otherwise spent on rf glass. Ill probably wait for the r5 mk2 now.

[@omranmohammed4811]

Same 😂😂😂😂 i got the r6 and im waiting for the r5 mark2 🥰

[@TerraThink]

With crop, it becomes more like 112mm f4.5 buy I agree with your sentinent :)

[@YaStarz]

Your ISO argument is pretty good. I cared way too much about the aperture of my lenses. After some time I noticed that I would often take the greater pictures less wide open, because those lenses performed better like that. But why having something like f2 then? I also realized that I always tried to avoid using ISO at all because when I started with photography someone suggested to only use ISO if there is no other option. This always stayed in my mind until another photographer explained how ISO should not be avoided. Then I actually tested it for myself (something you should always do, pls learn from my mistakes) and figured out that ISO is just awesome and barely decreases the qualitfy if at all.

[@roberttorres1382]

My work horse lens is the RF 24-105 f4 on my EOS R body. But when I am going to a convention to shoot cosplayers, I use the RF 24-70 f2.8, I typically rent before an event. I like the 24-105 for the reason given, it's just nice to have that range when I am just hanging out at the local air museum or car show and shallow depth of field is not required. I have also used the trick of maxing out to 105 and then adjusting my distance from my subject to get the shallow depth of field. However, I do love the RF 24-70 and when I get a few pennies ahead, I might just pull the trigger and buy it as well to keep in in the kit.

[@careylymanjones]

Pick the 24-70mm f/2.8, and carry an APS-C body. When you need the extra reach, mount the lens on the APS-C body. 24-70mm f/2.8 on APS-C gives you 105mm f/4.2 equivalent.

[@mikek1681]

Hi David...thanks. I have a 24-105L that came with my 5DII in a kit. Every time I've seen the 24-70 advertised, I'm tempted, but the ask myself is one stop worth it? I had to shoot a wedding ceremony from a fixed position. The 24-105 let me get the wide and closeups and made a big difference in the final portfolio. It was an outdoor event, so the aperture wasn't an issue. Later in the evening, I added a speedlight. But I probably would have had to anyway, even with a 2.8. Always enjoy your vids.

[@csc-photo]

Excellent and balanced advice here, as always. I opted for the 24-120 4 S, which I instantly fell in love with. Best all-arounder' I've ever had. I have a few fast primes too but as my event coverage jobs increase, I'm keeping the 24-70 2.8 in mind.

[@NiranjanNanda]

Man! I wish Nikon had this Tamron's equivalent of 35-150 f/2-2.8. I would buy that even if that's heavy. :) In the absence of that, I agree 24-124 f/4 is a better lens. The 24-70 f/2.8 S maybe a great lens, but not a versatile one for sure.

[@ivanwhitehall3899]

I own both. Initially I purchased the 24-70 f2.8 lens for landscape, but more recently, since I will be travelling (again) I added the 24-105 but will carry a 35 f1.8 prime in case I have some indoor work. 😮

[@maxramsey7860]

Does it matter on the EF model as well as i went to buy the 24-70mm and another photographer told me not to get it as it doesnt have Image stabilization. I do a lot of landscapes and night picture. He said i cannot keep the 24-70 mm w/o a tripod . I need some advise as i need to get it this week

[@christinecroucher56]

If you took the same picture at F4 on each camera would the one taken with the 24-70 f2.8 be a sharper/better image than the one with the 24-105 because of the larger, better glass in the 2.8 lens?

[@rishirajsharma7654]

I was in a similar dilemma and then came in the 28-70 F2. With it, I ditched everything else in favour of the later and I am in love with it. For me, it happens to be the most used lens and despite of its weight. Then added the 135 f1.8 against a 70-200. Though not a very versatile setup, but it helped me improve on my technique to overcome the shortcomings of 65mm.

[@JeffreyHawkins]

Is there an f/2.8 pro zoom with anything close to 24-120? Or even 35-120ish? I'm perplexed that everyone seems to have an f/2.8 in 24-70 as well as 70-200. But nothing in the middle of that. (???)

[@4amcreationshhi]

I use both with an R6. Totally agree that the 24-70 is perfect in low light. But I do love the 24 to 105 because of the versatility for any shots that I do during the day or that are not events. From my purview both are worth owning if you take what you do seriously.

[@mikedavis5099]

Good video but I have a few comments. Those of us looking at $2500- $3000 L series lenses don't really need a primer on the differences between prime vs zoom and how aperture works.

[@AlphaSierra95]

Thanks David! I was really on the fence as I have a 17-70 and love it but even in product photography I am limited on how much zoom I can use dependent on tripod, angle, setup, etc. and never having shot around f/4 as it was too bright and shallow DOF, I'll definitely be getting the 24-105. Save me some $500+ and I'll be glad to take some candid shots of my family with it. Don't own a prime but maybe that and further telescopic lenses are next.

[@karikaru]

Thanks for this, currently going through this decision tree. I used to run with a 16-35, 50prime, and 70-200 on a DSLR but then I got a baby and decided, I'd much rather one lens in the middle and less to worry about if I'm out with my family on vacation or outing. Pretty sure the 24-105 is what I want want, and if I can swing it later on I can always grab that 85 prime for specific portrait shooting