The 24-105 and/or the 24-70 II ...

[freitz]

Great Thread. I just purchased the 24-70II and I have the 24-105, I was wondering the same question.

I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?

[Pi]

I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?

A few people already did, and they find IS useful. IS also helps wit using ISO 100 more often, for better IQ and, well, DR, than say, ISO 400. I had cases where my 24-105 was better in landscapes than my 35L, handheld, because I could shoot at ISO 100 with the zoom, and I thought that my SS was enough with the prime (ISO 100) to reduce shake but it was not. Which is not to say that the 24-105 is better than the 24-70II for all uses, of course.

[neuroanatomist]

Great Thread. I just purchased the 24-70II and I have the 24-105, I was wondering the same question.

I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?

 It depends a lot on what you shoot.  If you frequently shoot landscapes and other static scenes handheld, IS can be useful (but a tripod would be even more useful).  If your subjects include people, you'll almost always need a shutter speed fast enough to mitigate subject motion, and that will mitigate camera shake as well.

[DaveMiko]

As I mentioned when I started this thread, I've used my 24-70 f2.8 II for a few months now. It has replaced my 24-105 as my walk around lens, practically all of the time. Only once when I took a few dozen pics at a friend's wedding did I find a few (quite a few) images soft. I guess, it was because the light available was fairly dim. ... That said, I don't really miss my 24-105.

[Sporgon]

Great Thread. I just purchased the 24-70II and I have the 24-105, I was wondering the same question.

I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?

If you read form the beginning of the thread you'll find some interesting comments and observations.

The 24-70II is a superlative lens; the best there is optically, and I can well understand people who have purchased it ditching the 24-105. But the former doesn't have IS and it depend on how much you value this. Over the years I have come to realise that I need IS.

Here's a shot that has made me a fair bit of dosh. I was shooting at the school, thought the evening light was a wash out, then literally five minutes before sun set the sun began to break through. I ran down the hill with the 5D and 24-105, waited briefly to get my breath back and then began shooting the sequence at 1/30s because I needed through DoF and low ISO (100 ). There was no time to take or set up the tripod. I've included a 100% crop which is straight of camera, converted and un sharp mask of 100% 0.3 pixel as I have sharpening set to zero for these shots.  The final image is sharp enough to be blown up to 3 metres across and is on display at the school. We sell smaller ones 1 metre across the the 'old' boys and girls of the school.

Without IS this shot would not exist.

[Ruined]

Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature.  And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable.  There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS.  Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.

The advantages with IS are plentiful.  Less shots needing tripod, less blurred shots, and even if you have a steady hand your shots will be slightly sharper with IS due to its nature as no one has the hands of a tripod.  If we were all as steady as a tripod, tripods would not exist.  More possibilities for photos are unlocked.  And it helps video, too, if you are into it.

There is no effective argument against IS.  Canon is just playing marketing games getting people to buy the same lens over and over again, because they can.  That is why it is not in the 24-70 II, no other reason.  When the 24-70 IS comes out, the 24-70 II will drop like a rock in value.  Take a look at how much less resale the 70-200 non-IS versions have versus the 70-200 IS versions. 

So, while people can say they might not need it, that is probably true.  But you also don't need L lenses or a full frame camera.  IS is another tool in the toolbox that is HIGHLY DESIRABLE.  Let's just hope we don't have to wait too long for Canon to milk the non-IS version before the inevitable 24-70 IS release.

Yes, the 24-70 II is sharper than the 24-105. But that has nothing to do with IS, it simply uses better glass.  Once the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out, the 24-70 f/2.8 will be soundly outclassed and lessened in value IMO.

[Random Orbits]

Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature.  And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable.  There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS.  Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.

The advantages with IS are plentiful.  Less shots needing tripod, less blurred shots, and even if you have a steady hand your shots will be slightly sharper with IS due to its nature as no one has the hands of a tripod.  If we were all as steady as a tripod, tripods would not exist.  More possibilities for photos are unlocked.  And it helps video, too, if you are into it.

There is no effective argument against IS.  Canon is just playing marketing games getting people to buy the same lens over and over again, because they can.  That is why it is not in the 24-70 II, no other reason.  When the 24-70 IS comes out, the 24-70 II will drop like a rock in value.  Take a look at how much less resale the 70-200 non-IS versions have versus the 70-200 IS versions. 

So, while people can say they might not need it, that is probably true.  But you also don't need L lenses or a full frame camera.  IS is another tool in the toolbox that is HIGHLY DESIRABLE.  Let's just hope we don't have to wait too long for Canon to milk the non-IS version before the inevitable 24-70 IS release.

Yes, the 24-70 II is sharper than the 24-105. But that has nothing to do with IS, it simply uses better glass.  Once the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out, the 24-70 f/2.8 will be soundly outclassed and lessened in value IMO.

The problem is that the optical formula with IS is different than the one without it.  Are the 70-200 f/2.8 IS versus non IS the same optical design?  According to the rumors circulating before the 24-70 II came out, both the 24-70 II and a 24-70 IS variant were being field tested.  They were different lenses.  The testers preferred what became the 24-70 II.  If that is true, then it is harder to design something that is as good as the 24-70 II and has IS.

[DaveMiko]

Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature.  And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable.  There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS.  Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.

The advantages with IS are plentiful.  Less shots needing tripod, less blurred shots, and even if you have a steady hand your shots will be slightly sharper with IS due to its nature as no one has the hands of a tripod.  If we were all as steady as a tripod, tripods would not exist.  More possibilities for photos are unlocked.  And it helps video, too, if you are into it.

There is no effective argument against IS.  Canon is just playing marketing games getting people to buy the same lens over and over again, because they can.  That is why it is not in the 24-70 II, no other reason.  When the 24-70 IS comes out, the 24-70 II will drop like a rock in value.  Take a look at how much less resale the 70-200 non-IS versions have versus the 70-200 IS versions. 

So, while people can say they might not need it, that is probably true.  But you also don't need L lenses or a full frame camera.  IS is another tool in the toolbox that is HIGHLY DESIRABLE.  Let's just hope we don't have to wait too long for Canon to milk the non-IS version before the inevitable 24-70 IS release.

Yes, the 24-70 II is sharper than the 24-105. But that has nothing to do with IS, it simply uses better glass.  Once the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out, the 24-70 f/2.8 will be soundly outclassed and lessened in value IMO.

Have you actually compared for yourself the output from the 24-105 vs the one from the 24-70 f2.8 II?!

[Sporgon]

Great Thread. I just purchased the 24-70II and I have the 24-105, I was wondering the same question.

I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?

Without IS this shot would not exist.

Do you any arguments to back up your claim?!

Errr.... not quite sure I understand what you mean. I took the shot and I can't hand hold 1/30th without IS to save my life at a focal length of 67mm, which is what this is. It's a commercial picture and had to be sharp. If it had been blurred it would have been in bin.

[bdunbar79]

In your case you might want to look at the 24-70 f/4 IS.  It has the sharpness of the 24-70 II, with better IS than the 24-105.  But, it is overpriced at the moment for sure as its now a 5diii kit lens.  Probably will be in the $1000 range in 3-6 months.

The 24-70 f/4 IS, is not as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.  Similar sharpness to the 24-105L according to the TDP comparisons (link below).  The 24-70 f/4 is sharper with less distortion at 24mm and 70mm, but the 24-105 is better at 35mm and 50mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

I believe some other CR members have had better luck with their copies of the 24-70 f/4.0 however.

The 24-70 f/4 IS does have the advantage of being somewhat smaller than the 24-105 and has near macro capability, but until its street price comes down considerably, I can't see it being worth the money compared with the 24-105L.  If the prices does drop to $1K, it would probably be a decent value.

I dunno, I've been looking at a lot of real-world A/B comparisons of photos and while the 24-105 is just as sharp in the center, it seems to be less sharp in the corners with increased CA.  Just what I have observed.  And technically the IS is inferior to the IS in the 24-70 f/4...

I think the extra range of the 24-105 is pretty cool to have though, especially if you have an a crop in addition to your FF.  Ideally, if you were to have two it might be neat to have a 24-70 f/2.8 II and a 24-105 IS.  But if you just picked one and wanted the best IQ in the smallest package, I'd say to go for the 24-70 f/4 IS.

The lens performance of the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens whips the living crap out of the 24-105L.  If you've ever shot with both you'd see what we all mean.  I quickly sold my 24-105L after buying the new 24-70 and haven't looked back.  There's nothing like "under the basket" shots for basketball than with the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens! 

[neuroanatomist]

Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature.  And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable.  There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase...

All else being equal, I would take a lens with IS over an equivalent lens without it.  But let's be real, all else is NOT equal.   Look at the 70-200/2.8 - the first IS version came out after the non-IS, and has worse IQ.  In the case of the 24-70/2.8, there's nothing to even rationalize – there's just no other option.  Image stabilization isn't magic, it's optical physics and engineering, and there are always trade-offs to be made – cost is not the only one.

[Eldar]

I find part of this discussion a bit weird. I think we can agree that non of the 24-70 2.8L II users, myself included, would protest if  it had come with IS. And I also believe we all accept that in certain cases, the IS provide the 24-105 f4L IS with a benefit, ref. the school photo posted earlier. But what we are saying is that we don´t miss IS, because we normally use it at shutter speeds were it´s OK not to have it and the fact that its IQ is far superior.

I had the 24-105 and I used it a lot, until I got the 24-70. From that day, until I sold it, it just collected dust.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

In your case you might want to look at the 24-70 f/4 IS.  It has the sharpness of the 24-70 II, with better IS than the 24-105.  But, it is overpriced at the moment for sure as its now a 5diii kit lens.  Probably will be in the $1000 range in 3-6 months.

The 24-70 f/4 IS, is not as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8 II.  Similar sharpness to the 24-105L according to the TDP comparisons (link below).  The 24-70 f/4 is sharper with less distortion at 24mm and 70mm, but the 24-105 is better at 35mm and 50mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

I believe some other CR members have had better luck with their copies of the 24-70 f/4.0 however.

The 24-70 f/4 IS does have the advantage of being somewhat smaller than the 24-105 and has near macro capability, but until its street price comes down considerably, I can't see it being worth the money compared with the 24-105L.  If the prices does drop to $1K, it would probably be a decent value.

Yes and I am one who has had better luck. It's way sharper than any of the number of 24-105s I tried (even the first 24-70 f/4 IS that I tried was even though it was definitely not as sharp as the second 24-70 f/4 IS, I returned the first one, the difference was easily clear enough to bother with a return, but even that first one did better than the best 24-105 I've seen). Now I certainly did give a special focus on near 24mm performance that is true since that was always the tricky thing to pull off on FF with a zoom. And not just for edge sharpness but for resistance to nasties like purple fringing it was better too.

The 24-70 f/4 IS is weakest right around 50mm, the farther above that and the farther below that you go the better it seems to get, it's possible it's no better than the 24-105 at 50mm, but a sharp edge to edge 50mm was never a challenge on a FF anyway, a $100 50 1.8 will do that for you with ease. And the 70-200/300Ls deliver 70mm+ in spades. Now a sharp 24mm edge to edge, now that was always the FF trick. No zoom used to deliver that. Now we have the 24-70 II and the 24-70 f/4 IS (maybe the tamron 24-70 vc to some extent? that is just about the only standard zoom I've never tried). For primes the 24 1.4 II, 24 T&S II, and I'd assume the 24 2.8 IS and 28 2.8 IS although I've never tried those two.

Anyway, all that said, the 24-70 II is generally sharper and a little more APO than the 24-70 f/4 IS (the 24-70 f/4 IS is easily more APO than the 24-105 though).

(I definitely did see copy variation with the 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS though, enough to be noticeable. The 24-70 II were all very sharp wide open, so it's not like they seem bad compared to anything else and actually mostly seem better, but some copies were just a whole new level of wide open sharp. Perhaps more, it seems hard to produce the 24-70 II with all corners set to the exact same flat across field focal plane as every copy seemed to tilt the focal plane a bit this way or that (that said, just about any copy still manages to noticeably outdo the 24-105, although the copy variation is kind of larger than you'd think at that price). The first 24-70 f/4 IS was a bit less sharp overall wide open, although not bad, the entire away from very central field was definitely softer and it was extra extra hard to avoid strong FC at 50mm, that said even that one still seemed to give better results at 24mm than 24-105, but the second copy was definitely better, no doubt whatsoever, and for $1000 f/4 you definitely don't want to accept other than that. In terms of having the focal plane evenly aligned it seems the 24-70 f/4 IS is probably less prone to that, although a test of 2 doesn't say much, but both copies seemed to be very similar in that regard unlike with the 24-70 II where every single copy I have seen has place the alignment of the plane of focus a bit differently, in some cases quite noticeably so.)

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If the prices does drop to $1K, it would probably be a decent value.

Actually it has quite a few times, some of the big stores have had them on sale for $1000-$1050 a number of times. When I was looking at them it was easy to nab at $1025 shipped. I agree the full list seems a bit much and I'd definitely hold out for a $1000 sale if anyone wants to give the lens a look.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Great Thread. I just purchased the 24-70II and I have the 24-105, I was wondering the same question.

I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?

Not if you run around outside during the daytime, even with cloud cover it should be perfectly fine.

In museums and no flash buildings where tripods usually are not allowed either then it could certainly help.

Otherwise perhaps if walking in the woods, which can be quite dark in some case and providing you don't want to get constantly get bogged down by tripod work, which granted is the ideal way to go (but sometimes you need to move along faster or want to get off a bunch of shots before the sun changes) or if you are doing some late evening shots and find yourself without a tripod or don't want to use one for one reason or another (too much of a pain to carry around walking around as a tourist, don't want to be so slowed down, etc.).

Of course the 24-70 II can produce reasonable FF edges on the wide end much closer to wide open than the 24-105 (which IMO actually still doesn't even at f/10) so that can make up for some lack of IS at times, depending, sometimes you need the full DOF front to back to a huge degree though and since the 24-70 II makes crisper images overall there is the fact that you can go to a bit higher ISO and still end up with same detail as from the 24-105 too (at the loss of some DR of course though, although in some cases where you'd need IS the light is flat and the DR low, although not always).

Anwyay I never found the 24-105 satisfying. The two new ones I do. The 24-70 II is most used, but if I don't want to bog down and want to run and gun shoot while walking in dark forests and such the 24-70 is better or if are hitting a park late and have limited time and such or going to museum type scenarios and such. And I use it at the ocean, especially on the east coast where the salt is often heavy in the air and coating everything it makes me too paranoid it will eat into my 24-70 II hah. It is a bit pricey to own in addition though so it might get sold though, although it has been useful.