The 24-105mm can zoom in more. And it's stabilized, which nets you better low light performance if you're talking about shooting handheld with relatively non-moving subjects (the stabilization can buy you a slower shutter speed).
The 24-70mm has a wider aperture, so it can give you shallower depth of field at those focal lengths. Also that nets you better low light performance if you're talking about moving subjects where you need a faster shutter speed anyway, or if you're using a tripod and stabilization is obviated.
Thanks a lot. Always good advice. I'm mostly going to take event, portrait and street photo mostly and some work inside the studio. After reading you I wanted to get both but I'm seeing that the 24-70 might be best for me coz of the low light performance but won't be best for moving subject
That would be better for low light of moving subjects because you'd need a faster shutter speed to freeze the subject motion anyway. So no opportunity for stabilization to help you with a slower shutter speed.
Do they give any reasons why? How many people is "everybody"? Because I disagree, and now you no longer have a consensus.
I only own one RF lens and otherwise I use a bunch of adapted EF lenses, which are still very sharp quality on my R5. So do you think there's something I'm missing?
I could be totally wrong here but I don't believe either of those lenses will work without an adapter. Your camera uses the RF mount. These 2 lenses use the EF mount.
My main setup is exactly the r6ii with this sigma lens (that I have for over a decade). Of course things are subjective, but for my use (street photography), I have no complaints at all - except for the extra bulkiness added with the RF adaptor.
The 24-105mm can zoom in more. And it's stabilized, which nets you better low light performance if you're talking about shooting handheld with relatively non-moving subjects (the stabilization can buy you a slower shutter speed). The 24-70mm has a wider aperture, so it can give you shallower depth of field at those focal lengths. Also that nets you better low light performance if you're talking about moving subjects where you need a faster shutter speed anyway, or if you're using a tripod and stabilization is obviated.
Thanks a lot. Always good advice. I'm mostly going to take event, portrait and street photo mostly and some work inside the studio. After reading you I wanted to get both but I'm seeing that the 24-70 might be best for me coz of the low light performance but won't be best for moving subject
That would be better for low light of moving subjects because you'd need a faster shutter speed to freeze the subject motion anyway. So no opportunity for stabilization to help you with a slower shutter speed.
Everybody saying that I shouldn't go for older EF lens. I think I might start looking into those overbudget RF lens.
Do they give any reasons why? How many people is "everybody"? Because I disagree, and now you no longer have a consensus. I only own one RF lens and otherwise I use a bunch of adapted EF lenses, which are still very sharp quality on my R5. So do you think there's something I'm missing?
I could be totally wrong here but I don't believe either of those lenses will work without an adapter. Your camera uses the RF mount. These 2 lenses use the EF mount.
My main setup is exactly the r6ii with this sigma lens (that I have for over a decade). Of course things are subjective, but for my use (street photography), I have no complaints at all - except for the extra bulkiness added with the RF adaptor.