24-70mm f/2.8L II or EF 24-70mm f/4L IS or EF 24-105mm f/4L IS at F9

[Rotrypwr]

I see continual comparisons between the canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 24-70mm f/4L IS and the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS but they are all shot at low apertures.  I shoot a lot of landscape photography and would like everyones advice on the sharpness of these lenses around F9 or F11.  Will I notice much of a difference at this aperture between any of these lenses?

[Drizzt321]

Without doing some research, I'd guess that the 24-70 f/2.8 v2 will be sharpest, however all 3 should be pretty good. The other bits you need to look at is CA and distortion. At the wide end, the 24-105 has a good bit of distortion. It's correctable, but you lose some resolution with that. Honestly, if I were doing landscapes (haven't done much), I'd look for some primes. the 24L, 35L, 17 or 24 TS-E. Maybe the 14L, depending on how wide you need to go.

[robbymack]

 Little to no perceptible difference at that aperture would be my guess.  Are you printing very large?  I'd say maybe beyond 12x18 you may be able to tell but it's still likely going to be slight at best.

[Z]

Quick comparison of the 24-70 f/2.8 II vs. the 24-105 at f/8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Summary: Slightly more CA and slightly less sharpness with the 24-105. Likely to be indistinguishable in real world viewing.

[Dylan777]

If you only shoot f9 to 11, then 24-105 might be a better choice. Lighter, cheaper and more reach.

My 2 cents: I like 16-35 for landscape

[wickidwombat]

I use my 24-105 mainly between f8 and f11
and only ever use f4 if i need to due to light
its plenty sharp at these apertueres and i find the IS and extra reach
and weather sealing to be a big benefit

the things i dont like about the lens
lots of distortion at 24
softer corners at 24
and not very nice light sparkles when stopped down (compared to say the 16-35 II which has very nice clean pointy ones)

I use the 24-105 mainly on my 1Dmk3 in very very dirty industrial environments so I dont really want to take expensive gear into these places overall stopped down its a very sharp lens

[steliosk]

you won't see much of a difference at f/9 on sharpness with any lens
the distortion of 24-105 at 24mm is a bit annoying but if you have 16-35 you don't care, the 35-105 range of 24-105L is perfect, plus its cheap and light as said.

I use mine on a crop body and i'm impressed with this lens sharpness from 24 to 105 at f/5.6 which looks the same as f/8 or 9
honestly? for landscape get the fantastic 16-35 L II if you don't have it already and 24-105L and you'll be fine..

i'd reject the 24-70 f/4, i think its the most stupid lens canon ever made.. not better than 24-105, not sharper, shorter 70 vs 105 and costs almost twice as the 24-105 bulk.

i don't know which one will buy this one over the 24-105.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Little to no perceptible difference at that aperture would be my guess.  Are you printing very large?  I'd say maybe beyond 12x18 you may be able to tell but it's still likely going to be slight at best.

I doubt that there is much difference at F/9, and by F/16, they are all nearly identical.
 
 
Don't spend a ton of money on a wide aperture lens if you are using it only at small apertures.
 
 

[Rotrypwr]

Thanks everyone, I've received a lot of good tips here.  The website comparison you provided Z did a great job of letting me check out the sharpness of the various lenses (especial at the corners and at different apertures).  I already own a Canon 17-40mm and a 24-105mm, looks like I'll use the 17-40 for most shots within this range and the 24-105 for anything above.  The corners look really soft on the 24-105 in the corners wide open but the 17-40 is a complete work around.  If I'm working in a more low light environment I'll just stick with my Canon 50mm 1.4 as it's tack sharp for these types of shots.  Thanks again!!