Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM vs Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM

[Isaac]

Which lens do you prefer and why?

Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM OR Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM

[JR]

I am not a big fan of zooms at thos focal lenght but would go for the 24-70 2.8 because of low light application - IS does nothing to stop subject motion  ).  If however your need are for travel and plan to make mostly outside picture the 24-105 might be better suited (lighter and longer focal lenght).

[lukaszb]

Which lens do you prefer and why?

Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM OR Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM

Canon had QC issues with 24-70mm...  My copy had that problem and ended up returning it and getting the 24-105.  True that 24-105 is soft in the corners but this isn't an issue when you're doing small/medium prints.  Maybe I had a bad copy of 24-70, but I didn't like what I saw so I changed lenses completely. 

[xiff]

I had 24-70 before and bought 5d2 + 24-105 as kit lens, what I found most interresting is that 24-105 is wider at 24 than the 24-70. For video I prefer 24-105 for the IS, but since I take pictures most of the time I ended up selling the 24-105. I really liked the 24-70 alot better and lucky me I got a good copy of the lens and not some crapola.

[smirkypants]

This is just a terrible conundrum... you are faced with either f4 and stabilization or one stop better and none. Don't let the macho "I don't need stabilization" types kid you, in low light it helps a lot, and if you swing it around to get a quick shot, it helps tons. On my 7D I use the 2.8 17-55 with IS and I love it, but it won't fit on my 5D2.

Right now Canon forces us to choose amongst the lesser of evils.

[zhap03]

I have both of these lenses.  Both are super amazing and tack sharp.  My F2.8 needed calibration from Canon Canada but returned to me tack sharp.  My F4 was incredibly sharp out of the box.

In short, for me:

F4 for travel and fun because it's relatively compact and light weight.  IS is amazing too.

F2.8 for serious event work where portraits are required in low light.

[niccyboy]

I have both.

24-105
I've had two 24-105's as I returned one, one was very soft, and the replacement is still pretty soft in the focus. But i know some people that have had razor sharp copies. I'm sure if i was patient enough to microadjust it It would be perfect. But I have been lazy and busy so i bought a 24-70 instead.

The IS is a big plus, the side by side comparisons in video of with and without IS on Digital Rev's site are pretty interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ARFgNCeAo
	Small | Large

The reach of the 24-105 is also excellent, I really miss it when I'm shooting with the 24-70.

24-70
MY VERSION is razor sharp compared to my version of the 24-105.

The extra full stop of light really comes in handy. What you can do with a 2.8 compared with a 4 is great.

It doesn't have IS though and the zoom reach!


It is a tough call! I definitely recommend mounting the actual lens you are buying ON the camera you are shooting on. Just to make sure your version is tack sharp. I didn't and i regret it!

[thejoyofsobe]

if i did much low-light event photography the 24-70mm would be it. but as I don't and have a 50mm f/1.4 for those rare occasions when i need something like that, the 24-105mm wins it for me with its versatility. it is lighter, more compact, reaches further, is sharper and has IS for handheld video and dragging the shutter. it's even decent for close-up portraits as i can get more background blur at f/4 on its long end than I can with the 24-70mm at any focal length.

[neuroanatomist]

i can get more background blur at f/4 on its long end than I can with the 24-70mm at any focal length.

Then you need to get closer with the 24-70mm.  From a practical standpoint, aperture determines DoF.  While you certainly can get decent OOF blur with the 24-105mm, if you frame shots with both lenses the same, you'll have more background blur with the f/2.8 lens.

[CHL]

I bought the 24-70 for my 40D but I have just recently in addition also bought a 5DMK2 kit with the 24-105. I am now trying to find out for myself which of the two lenses to keep (no - I will not keep both. There are other lenses on the wish-list) and both are sharp. I am leaning towards keeping the 24-105 for it's IMO greater versatility and it is great on the 5D. The 24-70 is also a bit heavy and I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS so I think I carry enough  anyway

[smithy]

I bought the 24-70 for my 40D but I have just recently in addition also bought a 5DMK2 kit with the 24-105. I am now trying to find out for myself which of the two lenses to keep (no - I will not keep both. There are other lenses on the wish-list) and both are sharp. I am leaning towards keeping the 24-105 for it's IMO greater versatility and it is great on the 5D. The 24-70 is also a bit heavy and I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS so I think I carry enough  anyway

...And with the 5D's great low light performance, you can just change the ISO up a couple of stops and then F4 doesn't matter any more.  Except for bokeh of course.

The 24-70mm is indeed a very heavy lens.  Most of the time I use mine on a 1V body, which in itself is extremely heavy, so the combination is a real neck breaker.  Because of this I generally carry the combo in my hand.  For me, the weight is worth it, especially once I start developing the film and see the results!

[7enderbender]

Which lens do you prefer and why?

Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM OR Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM

Oh well. I actually voted for the 24-70 though I actually own the 24-105. I have it because it was a great deal with my 5DII. It's very good. It's versatile. It makes for a great lens when traveling. I like the long end of it. I think the 24-70 is better for two reasons: f/2.8 for shallower DOF and the fact that it does NOT have IS. IS is a useless gadget and turned off 99% of the time because I don't trust anything that moves around things in the optical axis. It'll break one day and things will be out of whack. On the other hand zooms and AF lenses don't last forever anyway. So maybe it's a mute point. And zooms have always been the weakest link even before AF and IS and all that.

I'm still torn if it's worth adding the 24-70 one day, trading in the 24-105 or if I should rather invest that money into other primes first.

[neuroanatomist]

Wow, I didn't know IS was useless. Thanks for telling me, I'll be sure to leave it turned off from now on. Gee, I guess I was a fool for paying extra for the IS versions of the 100mm Macro and the 70-200mm f/2.8. 

[briansquibb]

If background blur is needed the the 135F2 is a good way to go ....

[pwp]

I had three 24-70's and they all had QC issues that made them unusable for serious professional work. All eBay'ed or traded in. Out of desperation I bought a pre-owned 24-105 just to see me through until the 24-70 MkII eventually gets released.

But guess what? The 24-105 is a cracker of a lens. My copy is pin sharp wide open. My main gripe is the very shallow hood. It's the same hood as the 17-40 f/4.

I shoot with 1D MkIV bodies and with the amazingly clean files I'm getting at higher ISO's, having an f/4 lens is definitely not the issue it once was. This factor will gain even more traction when the X body ships. Not only will it deliver even cleaner at high ISO's, the AF at f/4 will be more efficient than with the MkIV.

All the same, when the new 24-70 f/2.8 ships, I'll probably get one, but the 24-105 is a keeper.

Conversations with other photographers point to a general dislike of the QC of the 24-70 f/2.8, though there are indications that the later builds have overcome the QC issues. So if you do go for a 24-70 f/2.8, don't get a second hand one that may be offloaded because of QC issues or may be an early build, get a brand new one.

Paul Wright