Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L USM v/s Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS USM

[lebanon]

I have been reading reviews and comparison about these two lenses, still I am not capable of deciding which one to go for, I am totally lost.

I will list the pros and cons and maybe you could help me decide.

24-70 L

Pros:
Faster lens, f/2.8 compared to f/4
Razor sharp in the center a little soft on the edges
Low Chromatic aberration
Very Low distortion at 24mm (exhibits some barrel distortion at its shortest focal length)
Good bokeh

Cons:
Discontinued thus the difficulty of finding a clean pampered example
Prone to quality issues especially early models (2002-2005)
Could need calibration after prolonged use

24-105

Pros:
Good quality very few issues on the QC (mainly very early production)
Still in production
Lower price
Longer reach 105mm vs 70mm
IS
Lighter

Cons:
Vignetting at 24mm with lower f settings
Some Chromatic aberration
Softer images
Slow compared to the f/2.8

On another hand I prefer to have my equipment with moving parts, thus I don't really like the IS system.

You opinion are very welcomed

[WhiteD3]

I've had the 24-105 for a few years now and found it a fantastic lens. A versatile, all around lens. Wide enough at 24 for landscapes, the IS works well, not so big physically that it's a pain to lug around, etc.

[slug_burner]

The 24-105 is my every day lens, it lives on the camera body. I have had it for 5 to 6 years and love it. The 24-70 f2.8 is as dear as poison. With the difference between those two you could get the 17-40 or 16-35 (non IS) if you are not happy with the wide angle performance of the 24-105.

[Slunnie]

I think that you have to remember that we're talking about L glass, so despite the reviews re abberations, softness, vignetting etc, they are still miles ahead of every other lens.

I think in deciding it will depend a lot also on your other lenses and how they overlap in FP. I use the 24-70 f2.8L as my middle lens and absolutely love it (between 70-200 f2.8L and 10-22 f3.5). The 24-105 f4L will give you a greater range of zoom, but you will lose a lot of low light flexibility which is where the f2.8 are strong. This said, I don't have any IS lenses so they may still be comparable - and if this is the case..... why wouldn't you use the extra flexibility of the 24-105.

[tailslide]

Hi,

You didn't mention what body you are using. The 24mm lens are not really wide angle on a compact sensor. 24mm/0.6 is about 40mm equivalent, because of this I went for the 17-40 f4L lens instead of the 24-105, if I had the spare cash at the time I would have got the 16-35 f2.8L instead...

On some occasions I miss not having a 2.8 aperture and have since purchased a 50mm f1.4 lens. I have been looking at the 24-70 f2.8L II USM as it ties in nicely with my 70-200L, but cannot bring myself to part with my money. I'll probably upgrade to the 5D mark III first.

I would recommend getting your hands on both and giving them a try. I borrowed a 24-70 from work for a few days and decided that it didn't really offer me that much compared to the lens that I already had.

Cheers
Ron

[lebanon]

In fact I am using the 30D but will be soon upgrading to a 5d MarkII

I purchased the 50mm f/1.8 which is a great lens yet it is limiting withe the crop factor of the 30D my other lens is the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 which turned out to be a terrible combination with the 30D, I have investigated the cause of the problem and I am doing some test that I will be publishing the results soon.

unhappily this is not possible as their is no one that rents lenses over here.

Hi,

You didn't mention what body you are using. The 24mm lens are not really wide angle on a compact sensor. 24mm/0.6 is about 40mm equivalent, because of this I went for the 17-40 f4L lens instead of the 24-105, if I had the spare cash at the time I would have got the 16-35 f2.8L instead...

On some occasions I miss not having a 2.8 aperture and have since purchased a 50mm f1.4 lens. I have been looking at the 24-70 f2.8L II USM as it ties in nicely with my 70-200L, but cannot bring myself to part with my money. I'll probably upgrade to the 5D mark III first.

I would recommend getting your hands on both and giving them a try. I borrowed a 24-70 from work for a few days and decided that it didn't really other me that much compared to the lens that I already had.

Cheers
Ron

[wrinklearthur]

Hi Lebanon

Is it possible for anyone to post some pictures on here, showing the differences of those two lenses and what would the best type of test subject be that can be used to highlight those subtleties?

At least you have narrowed your choice down to that two.
I am still wanting to make that jump to a full frame sensor and a set of L lenses. I'm looking forward to the day ( soon I hope ), that I can get a nice EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, then I will be after a 5D mark II body as well.

For now I have as my walkabout lens, an old EF 28-135 1:3.5-5.6 IS, for the photography that I do it has been very useful and stays on my 400D most of the time, that lens however I find is wanting when photographing wildlife in low light situations though. The other lenses I have for land scape work are a; EF 20mm 1:2.8 and EF 50mm 1:1.8mm, they don't get used much but are always kept handy in the camera bag.
.

[lebanon]

That would be a great idea, yet we should take into consideration the fact that the pictures will be of low resolution to be published on the web an our monitors will give different rendering.

Hi Lebanon

Is it possible for anyone to post some pictures on here, showing the differences of those two lenses and what would the best type of test subject be that can be used to highlight those subtleties?

At least you have narrowed your choice down to that two.
I am still wanting to make that jump to a full frame sensor and a set of L lenses. I'm looking forward to the day ( soon I hope ), that I can get a nice EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, then I will be after a 5D mark II body as well.

For now I have as my walkabout lens, an old EF 28-135 1:3.5-5.6 IS, for the photography that I do it has been very useful and stays on my 400D most of the time, that lens however I find is wanting when photographing wildlife in low light situations though. The other lenses I have for land scape work are a; EF 20mm 1:2.8 and EF 50mm 1:1.8mm, they don't get used much but are always kept handy in the camera bag.
.

[wrinklearthur]

That would be a great idea, yet we should take into consideration the fact that the pictures will of low resolution to be published on the web an our monitors will give different rendering.

I was thinking more about distortion, but I agree that there would be some colour change between monitors.
If there was any photo's put up, maybe the one site could be used and then at maximum resolution possible.
.

[s7000]

24-70 all the way for me! (now)

The only thing I would say that you'd need to do is get it calibrated if you get one.

I will openly admit how much I hated it on my old 400D. When the Aperture diaphragm needed replacing I dropped it in with me 1Dii. They calibrated it and since then it's been so damn good. However, the other reasons for my hatred were because it was on a 1.6 crop. so if you have an XXXD or XXD camera, I would lean towards the 24-105.

I always found on my 400D it was either never wide enough, or never long enough. Add that on to the sometimes sharp and sometimes soft calibration issue, it caused all the frustration...

If you're in Sydney, you're welcome to check my 24-70 out and see how you like it... I can't offer up a 105 though.