24-70 f/2.8L mk 1 or 24-105 f/4L

[pwp]

Kinda hard to find a good copy of 24-70 v1. I went through 3 copies, none of them gave me the sharpness i'm looking for.

Hah! You'd think we'd learn. I did three of them as well. Still got the last one which gets very little use, only when I have to have f/2.8.
The surprise lens of the past few years for me has been the 24-105 f/4L which I bought to see me through to the 24-70 MkII release, and it's fabulous. A definite keeper. But I'll pick up a MkII as well provided early reviews give it the expected 10/10.

PW

[Kumakun]

I've got both.  Like many of the other posters, I generally prefer the 24-105 f/4L because of the versatility and IS.  I don't think my copy of the 24-70 is particularly bad, but I don't plan to upgrade the vII any time soon.

[scottkinfw]

I got the 24-105 with the 5DIII kit.  I have only taken a few pics, but they look great so far.  That to me is remarkable, because I am only to page 75 of the manual. 

sek

hi all.

long time reader, but i'm new to posting, so please forgive me if i'm off a bit on etiquette. 

i'm rebuilding my glass kit more or less from scratch. i need what i'd consider to be a mid-range zoom, and i'm considering both the 24-70 f/2.8L mk I or 24-105 f/4L (i've pretty much convinced myself that i can't afford the 24-70 mk II given all the rebuilding i need to do across the board).

looking for thoughts on which lens you all prefer and might suggest. or also thoughts on alternatives.

i shoot with both full frame and crop bodies. i don't consider myself a professional, though i do sell prints, but most of the prints i sell are derived from studio work, and neither of these lenses would come into play.

i suppose i'm looking for a good, general walkabout lens. i'm not concerned about weight. and i'm not really concerned about the extra reach between the two. i'm really more concerned about quality of image. 

very general, i know, but any thoughts would be appreciated.

thanks much, for thoughts on this topic and for everything i've learned from all of you in the past. looking forward to contributing more directly in the future     

[smithy]

I'm very surprised to read all the negativity about the 24-70mm (although it's really only coming from a couple of you), considering its reputation as a great lens.  I don't know how good my copy of this lens is, but it seems fine to me - I bought mine from Adorama in 2007.  The AF speed on it is blistering and it's built like a tank!

[pwp]

I'm very surprised to read all the negativity about the 24-70mm (although it's really only coming from a couple of you), considering its reputation as a great lens.  I don't know how good my copy of this lens is, but it seems fine to me - I bought mine from Adorama in 2007.  The AF speed on it is blistering and it's built like a tank!

There definitely are good copies out there, hopefully and very likely more good than bad. There has never been any question over the build quality and the AF speed...it's the dodgy optics that have traumatized far too many photographers. The negative experience is not just coming from a couple of people on this thread, it's been in the spotlight on this and various other forums/lists/professional associations etc for years.

The 24-70 f/2.8 really was the hot candidate for a major refresh, and the MkII sounds like a cracker.

PW

[wallybarthman]

As another poster said - it's mainly about IS or f2.8 and whether the 70-105 range is important to you. Both lenses are great - but which one fits your needs.

The other lens to consider is the new Tamron SP 24-70 f2.8 VC USD lens that includes f2.8 and VC. I've used it on my 5D II and 7D and it's quickly becoming my favorite walk around lens (and I own the 24-105)

[smithy]

The 24-70 f/2.8 really was the hot candidate for a major refresh, and the MkII sounds like a cracker.

I'm glad to see that they've figured out how to make the lens extend at 70mm rather than 24mm.  That is my only real complaint about the Mk1 version.

In terms of good copies of things, how far 'out of focus' does a lens have to be to deem it poor?  I'd be keen to see a sample so I could compare my own copy.

The only Canon item I've ever returned due to 'obviously' being a bad copy was my most recent and most expensive - the 5D Mark III.

[neuroanatomist]

I'm glad to see that they've figured out how to make the lens extend at 70mm rather than 24mm.  That is my only real complaint about the Mk1 version.

In terms of good copies of things, how far 'out of focus' does a lens have to be to deem it poor?  I'd be keen to see a sample so I could compare my own copy.

Actually, the reverse zoom design was one of the nice features of the 24-70, IMO - it means the lens hood is effective throughout the focal range, instead of at the wide end only.

One of the optical issues with the original is field curvature, hopefully not present in the MkII design.