IQ of 24-105 and 700-300 lenses

[21tones]

Like many people I'm contemplating upgrading to full-frame with the introduction of the 6D and Nikon's D600.
Given I won't be able to use my EF-S lenses on the 6D the Nikon is a possibility.
Given cost and weight considerations I want two lenses to cover the 24 to 300mm range.
For Nikon this means 24-85 and 70-300. But when looking at test results on slrgear.com the results for these lenses do not seem as good as Canon's 24-105 and 70-300.
However, I was still somewhat disappointed by the 24-105's results from 70 to 105 at full aperture on a full-frame camera. (see link below), yet the lens is widely praised on this forum.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/145/cat/11

How useable is the 24-105 from 70mm upwards?

The results for the 70-300 seem very good (given it's price) at full aperture on full-frame. The review site suggests they are better then the 70-300L for sharpness. Yet the non-L lens seems to get criticised on this forum. (see link below)

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/253/cat/11

As I'm primarily concerned about sharpness, given most other things seem treatable in software, I'm wondering whether Slrgear got atypical copies of these lenses, or are their results not consistent with peoples' experiences of using these lenses? I'm confused!
I would appreciate the comments of people who own, or have used these lenses.

Thanks

[21tones]

When I ask about peoples' experiences of  "these lenses" I'm talking, of course, about the Canon lenses!

[gn100]

The 70-300 L is much better than the non-L. I had the non L and stopped down up to 250mm was good, but wide open, or at 300mm, was a little disappointing. Moving to the L I have been very happy - good results wide open at 300, better IS, faster AF, and better build. Generally a far more versatile lens.

I don't have a 24-105 lens but reports generally say it is OK, and an excellent range, build quality and IS - at either end 24 or 105 is where its weakest.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Like many people I'm contemplating upgrading to full-frame with the introduction of the 6D and Nikon's D600.
Given I won't be able to use my EF-S lenses on the 6D the Nikon is a possibility.
Given cost and weight considerations I want two lenses to cover the 24 to 300mm range.
For Nikon this means 24-85 and 70-300. But when looking at test results on slrgear.com the results for these lenses do not seem as good as Canon's 24-105 and 70-300.
However, I was still somewhat disappointed by the 24-105's results from 70 to 105 at full aperture on a full-frame camera. (see link below), yet the lens is widely praised on this forum.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/145/cat/11

How useable is the 24-105 from 70mm upwards?

The results for the 70-300 seem very good (given it's price) at full aperture on full-frame. The review site suggests they are better then the 70-300L for sharpness. Yet the non-L lens seems to get criticised on this forum. (see link below)

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/253/cat/11

As I'm primarily concerned about sharpness, given most other things seem treatable in software, I'm wondering whether Slrgear got atypical copies of these lenses, or are their results not consistent with peoples' experiences of using these lenses? I'm confused!
I would appreciate the comments of people who own, or have used these lenses.

Thanks

The Canon 70-300L is absolutely sharper and, above 200mm, more contrasty than the 70-300 non-L from Canon. SLRGear was doing silly things there. I've had both and so have many others. The non-L used to be the best one around (other than the 100-300L in some ways) but the new L is definitely the best 70-300mm anyone makes. The Tamron 70-300 VC is also one to look at if the 70-300L costs too much.

24-105 is loved by many but I didn't like it that much, it seemed kinda soft at the edges wide end FF and it just seemed to be priced too high for the IQ IMO, I hated it, but many love it, it's a weird lens I see it more often on favorite Canon lens lists than any other lens and yet I also see it more often on least favorite/most hated Canon lens lists more than any other  . Probably due to a mix of expectations and how people use it and some getting blinded by buying it as their first L and then over-rating it and copy variation (). It is very convenient, great range, IS, fast AF, pretty contrasty. Lots of distortion at the wide end, and, IMO, a bit softer than some others. My vastly less expensive Tamron 28-75 2.8 was sharper at 28mm. But many do swear by it.

The 24-70 II from Canon is really good but $$$$$ the new Nikon 24-70 is pretty solid too also $$$$.

[CharlieB]

Here's my comparison -

24-105L

The 28/1.8 is hands down sharper with less CA at f/4
The 50/1.4 is the same at f/4
the 100/2.8USM (non-L) is the same and then some... at f/4

But I still find the 24-105L a good lens.... mostly because of its utility and the IS (even the older IS)

So there ya go.

[jdramirez]

I have a 24-105mm and a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM.  I really like my 24-105 though I acknowledge it does have some limitations when used indoors.  As of late, I use a 430ex ii in combination and bounce the light off of ceilings, floors, and walls.  I'm happy with the results.  It is a great range with excellent picture quality.  My copy does get a tad soft at 105 and at 4, but I usually just back off a bit and shoot around 95.  I don't lose shots, though I wouldn't say I love all of my shots, especially in comparison to my 100mm f/2.8L IS macro. 

But I'd rather have one 24-105 rather than 5 primes in my bag for ease of use purposes. 

As for the 70-300... I have no clue.  I'm not a big fan of smaller apertures or variable apertures, so I haven't really considered it.  Having said that, I'm having back focusing issues with my 70-200 and I have to decide what I want to do about that.  :/

[MrFotoFool]

I am one of those who love the 24-105 f/4L.  (BTW, the Nikon equivalent is NOT the 24-85 mentioned, it is the 24-120 f/4).  Anyway, I guess I do not use the lens much at the telephoto end, but at the 24mm wide end it is incredibly sharp in my experience.  The Paris photo attached was at 24mm and I have a 24x36 enlargement in my place and it is sharp even on the corners.  IMO the best general purpose zoom around.  Sure, the 24-70 2.8 is great (I have never used one), but a lot heavier and of course a more limited range of focal lengths.  I really feel the 24-105 is the perfect walk-around lens.  FYI I use it on full frame only (5D2 and 1N film).

[AudioGlenn]

I like my 24-105, even on a crop.  It's not as good (sharp) as my 70-200 but hands down, my most versatile lens.  I too like using it with bounce flash and get decent results.  I'm mostly shooting wide open at f/4, too.  If I go to a venue that I don't know and I'm only bringing one lens, I bring the 24-105.  Generally though, I know what I'm doing and where I'm going so I bring the 35L, and 70-200 OR 10-22 depending on what I'm planning on shooting.  The 24-105 is perfect for walking around during the day but f/4 just isn't fast enough for me in low light. 

[risc32]

Can't speak for the 70-300 stuff buy i rather like my 24-105mm. I just recently got it, but we are getting along well. you might care to know that there are lots of treviews out their done by well respected places that show it beating the 24-70mm f2.8 (v1) pretty handily. All while offering more range, and IS at a much lighter weight in exchange for 1 stop of speed. but of course sometimes you need that one stop, but often i find that if f4 won't do it, neither will f2.8, but that's subjective.

[natureshots]

Like many people I'm contemplating upgrading to full-frame with the introduction of the 6D and Nikon's D600.
Given I won't be able to use my EF-S lenses on the 6D the Nikon is a possibility.
Given cost and weight considerations I want two lenses to cover the 24 to 300mm range.
For Nikon this means 24-85 and 70-300. But when looking at test results on slrgear.com the results for these lenses do not seem as good as Canon's 24-105 and 70-300.
However, I was still somewhat disappointed by the 24-105's results from 70 to 105 at full aperture on a full-frame camera. (see link below), yet the lens is widely praised on this forum.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/145/cat/11


How useable is the 24-105 from 70mm upwards?

The results for the 70-300 seem very good (given it's price) at full aperture on full-frame. The review site suggests they are better then the 70-300L for sharpness. Yet the non-L lens seems to get criticised on this forum. (see link below)

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/253/cat/11

As I'm primarily concerned about sharpness, given most other things seem treatable in software, I'm wondering whether Slrgear got atypical copies of these lenses, or are their results not consistent with peoples' experiences of using these lenses? I'm confused!
I would appreciate the comments of people who own, or have used these lenses.

Thanks

Real quick, Canon has better lenses and Nikon has better cameras AT THIS CURRENT MOMENT, with the exception of the 1dx vs. D4. D4 is extremely disappointing for Nikonians. I think lenses are more important so I am a happy canon user.

From people who have the 24-70 f2.8 mkI and the 24-10 f4 IS they tend to like the f2.8 more because its a bit sharper (not huge difference) and you can use the narrower depth of field and less distortion. For people who do a ton of low light photos (read wedding photographers) they sometimes prefer the 24-105 for the IS. Landscape photographers generally like the 24-105 because they can leave their tripod at home more often and can put their camera into a pack more easily and they're shooting with a tiny aperture so f2.8 is wasteful. The 24-105 does get some significant pincushion and barrel distortion at either end (luckily minimal complex distortion) so architectural photographers like the 24-70. All this time I'm talking about the mk1 and kind of ignoring your post sort of. I'm trying to say that you should take a look at a used mkI but make sure that you check it out before you buy and make sure that the elements are lined up well bc like pretty much all 24-70 f2.8s the elements get knocked out of place super easy and the manufacturing tolerances on lenses that are brand new are not tight enough for cost reasons. The canon 24-70 MkII just like nikons 24-70 has this problem too which is not as big a deal when you have a 24-105 f4 because of DOF. Take a look at the tamron 24-70 f2.8 too but its got some shortcomings which you can read about that may or may not be a big deal for you.

IMHO, it seems like a good number of people are getting inconsistent results from the 24-70 mkII (there's posts in this forum about the problem too) which is partly to be expected from all 24-70 f2.8s, partly because this lens is brand new and partly because canon and nikon are trying hard to keep up production after the earthquake and QC from both companies has suffered (D800 issues anyone? D600 is too new to tell if it is also going to have the same sort of problems). SLRgear probably got shafted. The 24-105 is more consistent although not as sharp as the mkI and definitely not as sharp as a good copy of the mkII. Rent the lenses and cameras before you buy. Lensrentals.com is a really good place and their QC seems good but don't forget to AFMA especially on any of the 24-70 f2.8 from Nikon or Canon. In the end the money you spend at lensrentals seems well worth it rather than kicking yourself for the next 5 years because you listened to some dumbass named natureshots on a forum.

[neuroanatomist]

Real quick...

Ummmm...that was quick?   

[FlowerPhotog]

I own both the 24-105 and the 70-300L.   When I initially received the 24-105, as the kit lens with my 5DMkIII, I was fairly disappointed with it's performance at the 70mm and higher end of the range.  I took a series of comparison shots and compared to the 70-300L, it was definitely not as sharp on the margins when viewed at 100%.    I have since done AFMA (needed +6 at the tele end, and 0 at the wide end).  This has improved it vs the original images I took, but it is still not as sharp at the 70-300L when pixel peeping at 100%.  When viewed at 50%, however, which is closer to the size you might magnify for a large print, there is much less obvious difference between the lenses.   In the center portion of the image I find it difficult to tell them apart, so for most of my applications I find it to be acceptable.   Take a look at the Photozone  reviews of the two lenses - at 70mm their resolution graphs pretty much match what I have observed,  the 70-300L is sharper.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/570-canon70300f456islff?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

[natureshots]

Real quick...

Ummmm...that was quick?   

Lol, just meant the first part about the cameras and lens comparisons. I'm well aware that people see huge blocks of text, listen to my ramblings and stop reading after 2 sentences.

[21tones]

Thankyou to everyone for your thoughts. As natureshots points out Nikon seem to have better cameras at the moment but Canon better lenses. Even the nikon 24-120, never mind the 24-85,  doesn't seem as good as Canon's 24-105. I'll wait and see what the reviews of the 6d are like.
thanks

[tron]

Here's my comparison -

24-105L

The 28/1.8 is hands down sharper with less CA at f/4
The 50/1.4 is the same at f/4
the 100/2.8USM (non-L) is the same and then some... at f/4

But I still find the 24-105L a good lens.... mostly because of its utility and the IS (even the older IS)

So there ya go.

What kind of comparison is that?

At f/4 the 24-105 is fully open. The 28/1.8 sucks fully open and so does the 50/1.4 ....