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

[@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 😊

[@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!

[@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.

[@GreenCurryiykyk]

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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 :(

[@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

[@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)

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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).

[@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.

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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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%

[@dblclick]

An excellent explanation today, I personally own both. 24-70 is my go to lens when doing shoots outside in location, but I really enjoy the 24-120 (Nikon's Version) for Studio work. This is because in the studio it's a great range and because you can control the light the f/4 is rarely an issue shooting wide open. This way, I have a wide focal range for portraits to full body.

[@joelcleare]

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

[@thegeneral123]

F2.8 24-70 always. You can crop in on a 24-70 with a modern camera to the 105 focal range with little noticeable loss in quality when shared on social media formats. That full F stop of light and the shallow depth of field ability to leverage bokeh are much harder to compensate for. Plus generally speaking the F2.8 lenses tend to be better corrected, sharper, less image compromises.

[@m.4209]

But wont you be able to get an even farther reach by cropping into a 24-105mm?

[@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!

[@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.

[@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!!

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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!

[@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

[@itaylorm]

I own a 24-105 instead of the 24-70 because of several reasons: 1. Weight as it is easier to carry around especially when I am also carrying my 85 3 pound+ lens. If I need low light the 85 works great otherwise I use the 24-105. 2. I shoot with a R5 so ISO is not an issue and if it is the 85 fixes that. 3. Sharp in the zoom ranges of 24-35 and 85+. 50 is a bit less but not really noticeably less.

[@KP_Macro]

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

[@chrishan9138]

Definitely the 24-105 as the general purpose lens. Anyone that strongly feels they NEED the extra stop probably a) has specific situations in mind, b) is a more advanced user, c) is more likely to buy and carry additional lenses to satisfy their needs. For general users the extra reach, lower weight, price difference, and often +OSS make the 24-105 an easy win.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@wellwhatthen10101]

Hi David had the choice 4 years ago to go for the 24-105 canon lens , but i settled on a tamron 35- 150 f2.8- f4.00 I didn't mind sacrificing the 24mm range and never regretted that decision The Tamron is great its sharp and gives you that extra reach i use this lens 90% of the time on my canon camera When i get the R5 that's all i need is the EF to RF adaptor . people forget that nearly all EF glass will fit the new Canon mirrorless without any problems at all with the adaptor. That includes sigma tamron samyang tokina zeiss and more . and you will find that some white wizard people slate the canon for not opening up a licence to third part manufacturers. Hopefully one day they will.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@TheFirstRealChewy]

If you need to ask, go for the 24-105. It's the most versatile lens. The main thing you want to decide on when comparing them is focal range and depth of field. Then there's price. A little bit slower shutter speed and a little bit higher ISO mixed with a little bit of post processing will take care of a difference in exposure. I've done a lot of shoots over the years, including weddings. I find that the most important piece of equipment is my flash, or some form of lighting. Just a little bit of light can go a long way.... as long as its not too long.😁

[@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.

[@tamduong4910]

I have Canon 6D, canon 50 f1.8, canon 24-105 IS f4, canon 70-200 IS f2.8 II. I choose the 24-105 over 24-70 f2.8 due to stabilization and canon 6D is very good at low light, there is no problem to pump ISO to 800-1600. Beside that I have the other lenses (50, 70-200) to cover almost every situations which I need. Thank you for your video.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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 :)

[@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.

[@randyficken1892]

Good information...I shoot both a 5DM4 (backup camera) and an R5. Use EF lenses. Shoot both the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-205 f/4. Situations sometimes require the extra stop of light that the 2.8 offers however, the f/4 gives me different versatility that I enjoy as well. (I shoot a good bit of rodeo and some of the "arenas" that events are held, lighting, if you can call it that, is extremely poor, thus the extra stop is the only way to go...therefore the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 are the two go to lenses. Other situations, the 105 and then the tag along is the 100-400, works well also. Know it sounds a bit weird but it works. Do shoot a 35, 50 and 85mm prime as well.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@luistunonjr.304]

I like portraits, beauty, etc. I am not an outside photographer. I have the 24 to 105 RF L lens f/4. For some reason I have always hated this lens but I can't live without it. That's the lens I use for 95% of my time taking pictures ( I am usually shooting at 5.6 or 6.3 ISO 100 and 200 speed- indoors with flash). The 70 to 200 never sees the sunlight (it's in a totally different back pack that most of the time stays home). I compliment the 24-105 with a 50 1.8 and an 85 1.4 (all RF lenses). I am waiting for the brains at Canon to come out with an RF 105 to 200 F/4 L lens at a reasonable price but who knows where their minds are.

[@pblogic007]

70mm seems ok for portraits, I think I'd rather deal with a slightly shorter portrait lens and have the 2.8.

[@davepastern]

not on full frame. Plus, can take a step back, set the f4 zoom to 105mm and get compresesion [on the background]. Plus, most portrait photographers don't shoot wide open at f2.8...

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@Ultrarmx]

I’ve stopped using zooms. Only zoom I still have is 70-200. Primes are my go to lens.

[@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.

[@adrianvanleeuwen]

If a photographer chooses Nikon, they can get a 24-120mm f4 which gives extra reach than a Canon 24-105mm f4. I also own a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and use both. Thanks for review, both are good lenses for different uses as mentioned.

[@texmex9721]

Back in the DSLR days I chose the 24-105mm EF because it had IS, and the 24-70 did not. Once the 24-70 got IS, it was was a more difficult choice. But the price difference is even greater than you mentioned. The 24-105 is actually cheaper in 2 ways. One you can get it as a kit lens where it adds $1100 to the cost of an R5 or R6, and second, many people sell the less they got as a kit so its possible to find them almost new for $8-900. Verses $2400 for the 24-70, that is a huge savings.

[@williamgollatz1911]

Kits vary with time.

[@marekward6202]

I have the 16-35 F2.8, the 24-105 F4 and 70-200 F2.8 L Class Lens. . . The 24-105 F4 has been my go to lens for ages. I love it. Like Adorama says, it's light and versatile. . I mostly shoot Street and environmental portrait, some landscape, ships and holiday snaps. . Personally I feel that Bokeh is for one is for portrait work. For me, having the subject within a considered landscape adds context and story interest. I like the reach of the 24-105, like one can picture the whole cathedral then zoom in on the gargoyle, whatever or take the girl in the city then zoom in for portrait with a little subtle bokeh. . Works for me. . .Thanks Adorama :)

[@apaajaayo8759]

Sold my 24-70 f2.8 and Keep For 24-105 F4. The 24-105F4 is 90 percent always live on my camera body and most versatile lens ever. if low lights is a problem, i use prime lens. Extra Focal Lenght at 24-105 is very usefull for extra reach and compression. i am doing journalism and as a travel photographer/videographer.

[@PhotoTrekr]

I owned the original 24-70mm GM Sony lens. But, it was a beast to carry around. So, I sold it and bought the 24-105mm G lens which is much lighter. Both are great lenses and both have their designed strengths and limitations. Then Sony offered the new 24-70mm GM II. Much lighter than the original GM lens. So, I sold the 24-105 and bought the new 24-70mm GM II lens. I like both the 24-105 and the new 24-70 GM II. Which to buy just depends on your needs. Do you want a faster lens or a longer lens? Can't go wrong with either.

[@pj2614]

Just did an event and used the 24-105 on my R5. I tell you,,,,,,,I was blown away be the results. Great shots and such freedom of movement. I was able to cover a lot more without the restriction of having to change lens. Guess what? I have a Tamron 24-70 2.8 and used it constantly to cover events and landscape. Guess what????…… ‘I left it home……………… Who needs it.? The 24-105 is FINE. No, it’s better than fine,,,,,,,,,it’s great.

[@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.

[@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?

[@quintennn]

I just bought a used 24-105. As a total amateur and hobby photo taker I really like it. I also have a 28-75 2.8 but it's broken. For a trip I'm making I wanted something better than the kit lens and more range than my 50 1.8. I always thought meh f4 is lame, why pay so much only to have f4? I need 2.8 no doubt. I actually bought the lens because I needed a lens quickly (and it was a good deal). Snapping a few photos with it made me realise that it actually is good enough. f4 is enough light for most of what I do and I realised that I often wasn't shooting at 2.8 anyway. I still would like a 2.8 maybe 16-35 ish range but we'll see!

[@josiahlee805]

Canon watched and listened, now we have the 24-105 f2.8!

[@okaro6595]

Costs only more that those two together.

[@kevykevTPA]

@@okaro6595 I don't need the extra aperture for that much $$. I'll go with the 24-105 f/4, and IF (big, big if) I end up missing the 2.8 bad enough, I'll wait until Tamron makes an rf version, and pick that up instead. I had the EF version of the Tamron, until it got dropped and no longer works. :(

[@angelogarciajr5356]

I tried using my RF 24-105 f4 last night at a football pregame. It was not dark, but near sunset and it was worthless. Even worse in the dark under the lights at post game. If you are ever going to shoot low light action, go with the 24-70 f2.8 or the newest RF one that goes down to f2. My opinion in this, f2 or f2.8 is always the way to go for a great all around lens. That F4 has been useless for me a lot of times. Go out and spend the extra money!

[@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.

[@galenfong4377]

In term of image quality, I believe the 24-70mm f2.8 is better than 24-105mm, which is applicable for all camera manufacturers. I am a Sony shooter. I bought the 24-105mm for my Sony is because of the weight. When Sony introduced the 24-70mm MK 2 with the weight less than 700g. I rushed to replaced the 24-105mm. It is not only the weight and also the image quality. I know a lot of people like the extra reach of 35mm but I found that NOT a lot of photos were taken longer than 70mm focal length. As I am using 40+ MP, I still can use the crop mode to get 105mm. Of course the MP will be dropped to 18MP.

[@RusiRusev]

Hey, good video, Canon user here, RF mount, EF glass user. I have both 24-70 and 24-105. In low light i use 20-70 (mind that, if you shoot group of people, you close the lens anyway fo f4, 5.6) , but 24-105 you can stick with your camera and use it anywhere. Mind that, 24-105 have IS biult in (24-70 f4 also have it), so you can slow down shutter at 1/60, so you can compensate low light. For outdoors portraits i have 70-200 f2,8 with flash trigger and softbox with stand, but sometimes i use 24-70 2.8 with same flash trigger and softbox. Some people will tell you that 24-105 f4 is a Kit lens, but hey, it do the job properly. I have the second versions of the lens, sharp images, good quality. Bokeh ? You can fix this in Luminar after that . Becaouse if you shoot it 105, you got more compression that 70. Not a big difference if you have enought light.

[@krane15]

The Canon model was out of my price range so I settled for the Sigma Arts instead, which came in at just under a grand. Short story: I was transporting my lens from one location to another, and temporarily placed it into a plastic bag. As misfortune would have it, the bag had a hole in it and lens fell out at the very moment I stepped off the grass and onto the concrete sidewalk. I held my breath as I slowly checked the front of the lens and sure enough it was crack clean across the lens. On closer inspection I notice I had placed a filter on the lens and to my good fortune, it was the filter that bore the brunt of the impact and was cracked. That's one time when the lose of $99 (vs $999) made me a happy camper.

[@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

[@silenc3x]

I much prefer the 24-70 f/2.8 II as it's sharper and the wider aperture helps, especially at night. I also don't really need that extra 35mm very often. I will add I haven't tested the RF version of the 105. Only the EF version. Maybe it's sharper now, but it was never very impressive to me coming from Zeiss lenses and other sharper lenses. I feel like that should have been something you mentioned. The specs on paper aren't everything. This same review could have been done by someone who has never even touched the lenses. f/4 vs f/2.8. $1200 vs $2400, etc. Let's hear you describe shooting with them and how they each felt. How they reproduced colors. How the wide angle distortion appears, etc.

[@DaneRThomas]

When I had the Canon EOS 5D mk4 I was not happy with the image quality with the EF 24-105 lenses (I tried both versions.) I upgraded to the EF 24-70 f/2.8 for a season and got good results, but when I switched to mirrorless with the EOS R, I switched to the RF 24-105 f/4 as I found that I was rarely shooting wider than f/4, but I was frequently cropping in shots that I had taken at 70mm. The combination of extra telephoto range, lower weight, and lower cost were all more important for the kind of shooting that I do with that walk-around lens for travel, landscapes, and city shooting. I have the RF primes at 16, 35, 50, and 85mm for when I need an extra stop (or more) of light or when I want a shallower depth of field, and the RF-70-200 f/2.8 is my go-to lens for events, concerts, portraits, and sports. Even so, the 24-105 is the most frequently used lens for all-around shooting for me.

[@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?

[@killseacocks]

I have 24-70 mm f2.8 and 24-120 mm f4. Love to use both of them. I use 24-70 most indoors and 24-120 outdoors. F4 is good enough when I am shooting outside.

[@Jon-mz2wp]

Im shooting with both Sigma(s) 24-70MM & 28-70MM and having the time of my life with each ! The only issue i have with each (and there arent many) 👌 They dont have the capture ratio of the Canon 10-18 MM. With the 24-70mm i use the speed booster from my Canon 50mm Prime and the lens works Magic ! 👌

[@simonykli]

my set of lens is a 17-40/f4, a 24-105/f4 and a 70-200/f2.8, this seems to cover most of my needs, and if it really needs extra focal length, I would add a 2x extender tube to the lens and get a 400/f5.6, which is still very much acceptable. for the 24-70 and 24-105 comparison, it's really up to how deep your pocket is and how your shooting environment is like. My friends working as event and wedding photographers usually has a 24-70 for the faster shutter in low light, as they can walk up right close or even getting on the stage to take the photos, while my other friends working as photo journalists mostly get a 24-105 for the versatlity, and if there's not enought light, they just pop the flash on and start blazing the target. the only thing I don't like about these two lens is that they don't have the internal zoom like my 17-40 or 70-200......when you do have to shoot in the weather (photo journalism, outdoor events gone bad, etc), internal zoom really gives you peace of mind, so you won't worry as much as having a normal zoom lens (I once had to go out and shoot in a typhoon, and my 5D4 and 70-200 survived)

[@davidgrandy4681]

I owned a Canon 24-105 f4L IS and recently picked up a used Canon 24-70 f2.8L. These are both the Classic or Mark I lenses. My take on these lenses are as follows. The 24-105 is not nearly as sharp as my 24-70, or 70-200, and that’s anywhere along the focal range. I had a 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) that I would routinely use for business portraits/H&S shots. In spite of the alleged glamour of doing location business portraiture, I was usually stuck in a narrow space to one side of the board room table, and with the 70-200 I didn’t get in the way of the lighting. Recently I was going through some raw files from an older assignment and I was thinking, “These are not as sharp as usual.” And when I checked the metadata I realized that these shots at 5.6 were from the 24-105, not the 70-200. My original 24-105 has IS but I’ve always wondered how effective it was. Having said all of that the images from the 24-105 were OK once some post production sharpness was added, and I have many many 24-105 shots in my portfolio. The 24-70 2.8 is sharper. There’s no doubt in my mind about that. But on a full frame body I miss that extra focal length. If I was still shooting weddings I probably would have stayed with the 24-105 for that reason alone. Obviously I have a 70-200 f2.8 and I recently upgraded to the IS Mark II version, so I could just use that lens for a little bit more focal length, right? But there’s no time at a wedding to switch out lenses. Even for more static shots where I’ll use a tripod, the big difference is that I mount the camera on the tripod with the 24-105, and mount the lens (using the tripod collar) with the 70-200; so it’s not as simple as taking one lens off the camera body and putting another on. The 24-70 is a LOT heavier and a lot thicker than the 24-105 in spite of both of them taking 77mm filters. With the lens hood reversed it’s difficult to get the 24-70 into the lens tube in my Domke camera bag. An individual lens’s weight probably doesn’t mean much, but when you’re trying to carry four lenses, and they’re huge (think Sigma Art) then the max goes to three or two. That weight means something, and I don’t think that’s taken into account when lenses are discussed as you can only carry so much. My camera bag lens package used to be a Canon 70-200, 16-35 f2.8, 85mm f1.8 and 24-105. Now I’ve taken the 85 out and I barely can get those three lenses in. Domke please design a new lens pouch. I’ll buy one! For the work that I do now, I enjoy the 24-70. I don’t miss what I think was an ineffective IS, and I don’t have the need for the instantly available longer focal length with the 24-105. I don’t like the size and the weight of the 24-70 but I’ll put up with it. The other lens in this Canon stable is the RF 28-70 f2. Its crazy expensive and as it’s twice as heavy as my 2.8 it defies logic! I think that my photographer friends would be very impressed (it has a high impression ratio, we used to say) but dragging that thing along would get old very quickly. I should end this by saying that my 24-70 is in pretty much perfect condition, but I got it used, I’m at least the third owner, so two or more other users decided that they could live without it. That may or may not say much as there are often other reasons to sell a lens. The 24-70 is a very good, very sharp lens and an improvement on the 24-105 so I would still make that deal to get it.

[@PetCactusA_HarmlessLittlePrick]

Start with the 24-105mm f/4, then add a 24mm f/2.8, f/1.8, or f/1.4 prime if you want or need the speed. Or, add a 20mm prime to your collection.

[@JoeCastellon]

TECHNICALLY: since 105mm/4 = 26.25, and 70mm/2.8 = 25, if you move back and zoom to 105mm in the F/4 to have the same frame as the 70mm in F/2.8, the bokeh in the 105mm should be ever so slightly better 🤔

[@jaycarlton2010]

I have both Sigma 24-70mm F/2.8 Sigma and a Sony 24-105 F/4 lens. I love them both and decided not to part with either. I use the 24-70 for indoor parties where I may need a faster lens, but I use the 24-105 for landscape photography because it has image stabilization and a longer range. The 24-105mm was actually slightly more expensive, but it is also a little smaller and a lighter being better suited for traveling all day. Both are exceptional lens though.

[@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

[@Belofz]

Made the same decision) hope it’ll work

[@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

[@jaywbus]

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

[@PeterSzaban]

This was an easy choice for me. I mostly shoot outdoors, where there is usually lots of light and lots of space,. I can get pretty good bokeh when I want at f/4 using the long end of the 24-105 zoom range by moving in close, and focusing on the subject ,while keeping far away from the background. I found myself doing a lot of blown out sky cropping with 24-70, and not liking how 70mm distorts noticeably more than 105mm when the lens can't be held horizontal. I understand the value of f/2.8, but can usually work around it, and value the extra reach and compression.

[@rjakiel73]

24-105 on a Viltrox speed booster on my M50. Now it’s f/2.8 due to the extra stop provided by the booster.

[@GOOLLYBOOISCAREDU]

Hi There! How is that working for you? I am trying to find the perfect lens for my M50, to take pics of my kiddos who play outdoor soccer and indoor futsal. Any insight on fast moving objects and photo quality w this lens and the booster?

[@peterguman7298]

I bought the Sony 24-105 over the 24-70 primarily for the extra 35mm since I do mainly portraits. Also, if I switch to APS-C mode, I get a 1.5 magnification, extending the lens to about 157 mm. I have a 20mm 1.8 for strictly landscapes or street and an 85mm 1.8 or 90mm 2.8 if I need wider aperture for portraits.

[@josephkraig3368]

I used to shoot with several lenses. I always kept the 24-70 on the camera and lugged the others around. My 24-70 is every bit as sharp as my 50 1.4 so I just don't even carry the 50 around any more. I won't go anywhere without my 85 or my Tamron 15-35 but a couple years ago I got the Nikon 28-300. Some of you will throw rocks at me but this is a good lens. It is not a stellar lens but it is a good lens. I often go now with nothing but the 28-300. Yes I lose some aperture but I'm shooting on a D850 that simply doesn't care about what ISO I use, I shoot a lot on auto ISO and can always get the shot no matter how far away it is without having to change lenses. In those cases where I need something longer I lug the 150-600 around. The Tamron 150-600(G2) is a stellar lens but you won't find a need for it very often and with the 28-300 with you all the time you don't compromise on framing. When I purchased the 28-300 I was actually going to pick up the 24-105 and changed my mind when I shot a few shots with the 28-300. I love it.

[@scyfox.]

24 - 105 here. Amazing for everything I do on a regular basis. Only indoors or in low light places I miss the aperture of the other lens but I manage with flash or with higher ISO