Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS : Seller's remorse?

[CANONisOK]

So I have a buyer lined up through CL to sell off my hardly-ever used 24-105mm for $800. Ever since purchasing the 24-70mm mk2, it has been gathering dust. I'm not lacking anything over that FL range, so it shouldn't bother me, but...

I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It SHOULD be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.

I did the AFMA on focal, but I've never been able to get true sharpness from this lens in darn near any situation. My prior workhorse was a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 on a T3i, and I didn't observe signiciant difference in the "upgrade" to the 24-105 (although, I felt color was noticeably better).

I'd hate to have seller's remorse if there is some secret to its awesomeness I just haven't unlocked yet. Or maybe I just have a crap copy. I suppose since I'm getting about the same as I paid for it. No loss, and hopefully prices will be similar in the future if I want to try to jump in again. What do you think; will I regret it?

[neuroanatomist]

I sold mine and haven't regretted it.  The only real advantage I see to the 24-105L over the 24-70L II is that the former has IS - if you're shooting static scenes in dim light without a tripod, that can be a huge advantage, giving you the exposure of an f/1.4 lens without the thin DoF.

[curtisnull]

I sold mine a week after I got the 24-70/2.8 II. That was 6 months ago and I haven't missed it yet.

[jdramirez]

 I'm not sure if the mkii is lighter than the original,  but from previous conversations purple have gone back to the 105  because it was lighter and didn't cause an ache over a full day of shooting.

I  think you will be fine and my concern is whether I want to sell mine to get a 24-70mkii...  but I see no reason to have both.

[tphillips63]

If you did not sell now but kept it for another six months or so and still not using it, you'll know for sure that it will be ok to sell.

[tron]

I do not have 24-70 2.8 II so maybe I am not entitled 10)% to express an opinion but I am satisfied with my 24-105. You will not lose only IS but the 70-105mm range as well. You may have this range in another lens, say a 70-200 but unless you always carry 2 bodies you will have to switch lenses more often. Unless you tend to use the lens more at the wide  end.

[tron]

If you did not sell now but kept it for another six months or so and still not using it, you'll know for sure that it will be ok to sell.

+1 That I admit is a good idea. I would make it a year though to increase the possibility that most  (if not all) of activities that OP is involved are encountered.

[fyah5dmarkiii]

There is no comparison between the 24-70ii and the 24-105 is...24-70 is just incredibly sharp! All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!

[cr316892]

I just wonder, am I missing something obvious about this lens? I have wanted to love it since I bought it over a year ago. So many people on this forum and others extoll its virtues (IQ, versatility, IS). To be frank - I just haven't seen it. And I think it sounds great on paper - good FL range, IS, compactness. It SHOULD be my go-to walkaround lens. But it isn't.

If you are using the 24-105 on a cropped-frame camera, it will never be anywhere near as sharp as if you use it on a full-frame camera.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/169/%28brand%29/Canon/%28camera1%29/619/%28lens2%29/164/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/619/%28lens3%29/164/%28brand3%29/Canon/%28camera3%29/795

[insanitybeard]

All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!

All serious photographers with deep wallets that is.... Or are you not a serious photographer without these lenses? 

[bluegreenturtle]

I have found as a video shooter that the 24-105 is just a perfect B roll lens.  Light, great at wide, great at 105, has IS, allows fairly shallow DOF at long end wide open, but too shallow.  It's just a workhorse - I might shoot 100-150 clips in a day on a project for B roll and it works well.  That said, if somebody made a 16mm-70mm 2.8 or 4 IS  that would be the perfect lens, paired with a 70-200. 

[Sporgon]

There is no comparison between the 24-70ii and the 24-105 is...24-70 is just incredibly sharp! All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!

Guess I'm not a serious photographer then 

Seriously, it depends upon how much pp work you are able to do. For those who need to produce images straight off the camera due to time or volume constrains then you'll see a difference. For those that want a higher quality IS standard zoom the 24-70 f4 is very good in practice, despite the so-so reviews.

There seems to be an unacceptable amount of copy variation in the 24-105. This may explain why some people are dissatisfied with theirs.

[jthomson]

All serious photographers need the 24-70ii and the 70-200ii in their kit!

All serious photographers with deep wallets that is.... Or are you not a serious photographer without these lenses? 

Serious photographers use primes 

[insanitybeard]

Serious photographers use primes 

You've done it now. I'm off to take cover!

[CANONisOK]

If you are using the 24-105 on a cropped-frame camera, it will never be anywhere near as sharp as if you use it on a full-frame camera.

I agree completely. Shortly after getting the 24-105, I moved to a 5D3... where its flaws are even more apparent IMO. Thanks for the feedback!