« on: December 09, 2012, 01:15:44 AM »
Yes! the 24-70 II is a special lens. The 24-105, while a fine lens, doesnt come close to comparison in image quality. Also low light focusing will be much nicer @ 2.8. It is THE finest zoom in that focal length available. .
I agree. I just did a lot of research on the 24-70 II...balanced against primes. I already own a 50mm f/1.4 Sigma and the Canon 85L...so I was considering puchasing the Canon 24mm L & the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 or the new Canon zoom. Either way I would be spending the same amount of money.
I had sold my Canon 24-105 back in the spring to buy the new 24-70mm...but then there were all of the delays...and this GREAT Sigma 35mm appeared out of nowhere. I was torn. The price of the new zoom really put me off.
In the end I bought the new Canon Zoom. It is REALLY sharp and many times it is just great to have that zoom range in your hands an not be changing out primes. Way more interactive..with trade-offs.
The 24-105 is a good lens...but I was never WOWED by it.
Check out this comparison of it to the new 24-70mm II:
..from a sharpness and DOF the new 24-70mm blows the 24-105mm out of the water. (but the 24-105mm is a very good zoom for the money).
I LOVE primes....but I am a little wowed by this new zoom. Could just be the honeymoon period...but my feeling is that it is very prime-like, both in contrast and sharpness (even wide open)....and...unfortunately, you are DEFINITELY paying for that privilege! I do not think you would be unhappy if you bought this lens. I know that I am very content with the decision I have made.
(SteenerMe...I just noticed that U and I have almost the EXACT same range of lenses...no wonder I agreed with you! LOL.)
+1 for the 24-70 2.8 II. I'm selling my 24-105 because it just doesn't compare in sharpness/IQ, etc. The shallower DOF is nice too but if I really want to isolate my subject, i'll use the 70-200 2.8 IS II...remember that longer focal lengths also contribute to shallower DOF so at 2.8 on that lens, your DOF is even shallower).
The 24-105 f/4L just didn't wow me either. And if you're planning on doing video, get a tripod. Don't use/rely on IS. Also, f/4 for video isn't that great. I personally ALWAYS use primes for video anyway and since you already have some..you're set there.
One more minor thing is that at 2.8, your flash doesn't have to work as hard compared to f/4 to get the same amount of exposure. The wider aperture will allow more light from the speed light in at the same power level. This equates to lower recycle times and overall less battery usage.