Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii

[Canon1]

Who here has upgraded from the 24-105 to the 24-70 ii? What are your thoughts and was it worth the change?

I have extensive experience with my 24-105. It's my favorite landscape lens and have shot with it for years. Always been a touch soft in my opinion, but nothing I could not get past in post.

I don't care about IS. This is a pretty short lens and most of my shooting with it is tripod mount.

 

[Loswr]

There's at least one other long thread on this. The consensus was that most (myself included) who bought the 24-70 II subsequently sold their 24-105.

 

[Ruined]

Who here has upgraded from the 24-105 to the 24-70 ii? What are your thoughts and was it worth the change?

I have extensive experience with my 24-105. It's my favorite landscape lens and have shot with it for years. Always been a touch soft in my opinion, but nothing I could not get past in post.

I don't care about IS. This is a pretty short lens and most of my shooting with it is tripod mount.

If you don't care about IS...

24-105 PROs
-Goes from wide to portrait range vs 24-70II that doesn't quite make it to portrait range.
-Only ~$700 new, thus if you are travelling or want to bring less expensive gear, it is desirable
-Lighter than 24-70 II
-Can use your existing 77mm filters

24-105 CONs
-Significantly softer than the 24-70 II, especially in corners
-More distortion than 24-70 II, especially at 24mm
-Slower lens


So, optically the 24-70 II is much better. Since you are using tripod, IS is not of use. But, if you are in a case where you only want to bring one lens and you will have both landscape & portrait shots the 24-105 is superior - the 24-70 II simply cannot cover that extra range. Also, the 24-105 is best when you want a lighter, less valuable lens that still takes great photos.

 

[Canon1]

There's at least one other long thread on this. The consensus was that most (myself included) who bought the 24-70 II subsequently sold their 24-105.

Yeah, but most of the other threads are about people not wanting to sell their 24-105 for the low price it is fetching. I was hoping for a little more input on IQ. Are people happy b/c they are getting better images? Is it noticeably sharper for those who print bigger? IQ discussion anyone?

 

[R1-7D]

There's at least one other long thread on this. The consensus was that most (myself included) who bought the 24-70 II subsequently sold their 24-105.

Yeah, but most of the other threads are about people not wanting to sell their 24-105 for the low price it is fetching. I was hoping for a little more input on IQ. Are people happy b/c they are getting better images? Is it noticeably sharper for those who print bigger? IQ discussion anyone?

If you can get a good copy of the lens it's much sharper, and the images will be much more contrasty. I, myself, had to get four copies of the lens to finally be satisfied, and even then this copy I have now is not perfect.

The one thing I will say for the 24–105mm is that it is a robust lens that has been around for a long time and has very few problems.

I do regret selling mine, only because I almost completely stopped taking pictures while my 24-70 mm was in for repair at Canon. Unfortunately I had to use the money from it to pay for the new lens.

 

[bdunbar79]

It's noticeably better, much better, at all the apertures I used, in sharpness, clarity, color rendition, contrast, etc. I promptly sold my 24L, 24-105L, 35L, and 50L when I got it, because it produces images that were much better than those lenses could produce, f/2.8 and narrower. It's such an amazing lens, and it really does have the "Wow" factor for me. Try it out and you'll see exactly what I mean.

 

[Loswr]

There's at least one other long thread on this. The consensus was that most (myself included) who bought the 24-70 II subsequently sold their 24-105.

Yeah, but most of the other threads are about people not wanting to sell their 24-105 for the low price it is fetching. I was hoping for a little more input on IQ. Are people happy b/c they are getting better images? Is it noticeably sharper for those who print bigger? IQ discussion anyone?

I sold the 24-105 because the IQ of the 24-70 II was significantly better - enough that I couldn't see reaching for the 24-105 anymore. That also led to me selling the 28-300L - the IQ of that lens is similar to the 24-105, and the combo of the 24-70 II + 70-300L gives me better IQ across the range.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There's at least one other long thread on this. The consensus was that most (myself included) who bought the 24-70 II subsequently sold their 24-105.

Mine was sold (Craigslist) Yesterday. I hated to see it go, it was a excellent lens, just not getting any use since I got the new 24-70 last Spring.

 

[BoneDoc]

Even if you can't cover the 70-105 portrait range, you can frame with cropping in mind, and you'll likely still get better IQ

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Who here has upgraded from the 24-105 to the 24-70 ii? What are your thoughts and was it worth the change?

I have extensive experience with my 24-105. It's my favorite landscape lens and have shot with it for years. Always been a touch soft in my opinion, but nothing I could not get past in post.

I don't care about IS. This is a pretty short lens and most of my shooting with it is tripod mount.

If you shoot on a tripod then hands down the 24-70 II! I tried the 24-105 a few times and sold or returned each on within a week, never liked 'em. Not so hot near the wide end on FF (not even as sharp as my, back then, FAR less expensive Tamron 28-75). The 24-70 II also has more precise AF for one shot mode if used with a 5D3 or 1DX, although for tripod work that doesn't matter.

Let me put it this way I got the 24 1.4 II because I couldn't find anything else that gave a decent 24mm on FF (back then). That was way better than the 24-105L at 24mm. But my 24-70 II is so close to the 24 1.4 II! It actually even has LESS longitudinal CA and thus less purple fringing and stuff of branches against clouds and such than the 24 1.4 II, never mind compared to the 24-105. I sold my 24 1.4 II!

24-70 II is way sharper and has less longitudinal CA and better AF and less distortion and even better contrast and it's not even really any larger (although I guess a bit heavier). The price is a bit fierce though and there is more copy to copy variation than you'd like for a lens that price (even a below average one is still easily way better than the best 24-105 though).

If you can handle the price and don't mind spending that much money and have no need for IS then yeah heck yeah it's way worth the upgrade. Nobody makes a better 24-70, certainly the Nikon doesn't keep up.

24-70 II + 70-300L makes a totally killer landscape pairing (the 70-300L is another lens that nobody else does better) and add in a 24 T&S II if you really want the ultimate landscape trio (and the 17 T&S and samyang 14mm to go totally crazy ;D). I have the 24-70 II, 70-300L, samyang 14mm. One day I wouldn't mind adding the 24 T&S II.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

the 24-70 f/4 IS is pretty good too, definitely better than the 24-105 near 24mm and near 70mm, with some macro, better IS, smaller size, less weight, less logitudinal CA, it's not quite as good as the 24-70 II overall though (it also suffers from copy variation, although it's much easier to get one with all four corners set to the same focal plane than the 24-70 II, my second copy was noticeably sharper across the entire frame, especially near all the edges than the first copy)

in your case for the ultimate upgrade the 24-70 II is probably the way to go

the one place the 24-70 f/4 IS does better is FF edges right near 70mm where it actually does better than the 24-70 II, otherwise the 24-70 II is better

 

[Dylan777]

There is no comparision between these two. The 24-70 II IQ is not same league as 24-105 - MUCH BETTER of course.

If you plan to shoot f8 to f11, then stay with 24-105. Otherwise, the 24-70 II is wonderful lens from wide open to f8 - at least on my copy.

 

[Zv]

With the current rebate program on the 24-70II it's the best time to upgrade your 24-105L. Seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[pwp]

I really thought I'd be keeping my excellent 24-105 when I got the 24-70 f/2.8II figuring it would be useful for some event work where the extra reach and IS would be handy, or as a flexible, high quality vacation lens. The fact is it's probably been used once in the past six months. The new zoom is like having a great set of primes all in the one lens.

How many times have you heard the word "awesome" when describing the use of and output from the new 24-70? It's no exaggeration. Expensive? Yes it is, but worth every penny.

Thanks for your post on the subject, it's a reminder to get the 24-105 onto eBay/Gumtree/Craigslist this side of Christmas.

-pw

 

[R1-7D]

Forgive me for bringing this up again, but after being burned and frustrated by the 24-70 II, let me voice my opinion once more:

Just be careful when you purchase the lens, and make sure that you test it thoroughly to make sure it is working properly. It is my feeling, and I am sure some would back me up on this forum, that Canon is suffering from some serious quality control issues with this particular lens.

I, myself, experienced a severely decentered element on my first copy, clicking sounds from the zoom on my second copy, and another decentered element as well as squeaking on my third copy. It wasn't until my fourth attempt that I finally managed to get an acceptable lens.

I also want to mention that I ended up purchasing the lens twice. My first copy was sent into Canon after less than a month's use (unfortunately I passed the return date for the lens at the store) for the decentered element. Canon kept it for six weeks, twice as long as I had actually had it in my possession, only to return it to me and saying everything was in spec when it clearly was not. I called up Canon's Canada CPS and explained why I was not satisfied with the repair and the lady I spoke with told me Reikan FoCal could not be trusted and that my lens was properly looked at and adjusted by their technician. I told her she was wrong and she replied by telling me (her words) that I could "waste time sending it back in, but chances are the techs wouldn't do anything to it."

At this point I lost my nerve and went up one side of her and down the other about how awful her service and response was, and that this whole ordeal is unacceptable for such an expensive and brand new piece of equipment. Obviously, coming from her previous response, she still did not care and just said "send it in."


Having sold my trusty 24-105mm to pay for this first 24-70 I was kind of at a loss for having a decent walk-around lens. I was also determined to find a good copy of this lens so I went and bought my second copy from another retailer here in town. Thankfully this time I was cognizant of the problems too look for and returned it as many times possible until I was satisfied.

Unfortunately I managed to wrack up quite the nice credit card bill purchasing the lens a second time. I still own my first copy and am considering selling it at a massive loss, or sending back to Canon for repair and then trying to sell it. Either way, I've never been more frustrated with a product or the customer service of a company before.


As far as my working copy goes: the images are fantastic and incredibly sharp. It runs circles around the 24-105.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

There is no comparision between these two. The 24-70 II IQ is not same league as 24-105 - MUCH BETTER of course.

If you plan to shoot f8 to f11, then stay with 24-105. Otherwise, the 24-70 II is wonderful lens from wide open to f8 - at least on my copy.

Even if you shoot f/8-f/11 as I often did for landscapes. Both the 24 1.4 II and 24-70 II do hugely better even f/8-f//11 at 24mm than the 24-105mm on FF from what I've personally seen.

 

[docsmith]

I am a recent convert to the 24-70 II. Actually, I am still looking for my "good copy." So I'd agree with the QA/QC issues. But, in addition to IQ, I wanted to add that the 24-70 II also has much faster AF, especially in low light, and I believe is focusing in much less light than the 24-105 on my 5DIII. Both of these are likely to be expected as the 24-70 II enables the f/2.8 AF points, but it is a noticeable improvement.

So, in addition to IQ, I am seeing improvements in AF.

 

[Marsu42]

But, in addition to IQ, I wanted to add that the 24-70 II also has much faster AF, especially in low light, and I believe is focusing in much less light than the 24-105 on my 5DIII.

I'd like to stress the "5d3" part because only 1dx/5d3 are able to make use of the latest lenses (70-300L, 24-70ii) more precise af system, and the 24-70ii is designed in conjunction with the 5d3/1dx af system (lens groups) in mind... there are lensrentals articles on this.

Both means that if buying a 24-70ii for a 6d you're throwing part of your money away and it's a good idea to consider a Tamron as an alternative, I guess that's part of the reason why Canon bundles the 24-105 with the 6d and released a 24-70/4 which doesn't run into the 6d's af problems and at least has IS.

 

[7enderbender]

This question keeps crossing my mind as well. And I keep watching the price of the 24-70. I think it's still too pricy for what it is. Yes, optically it's great but I don't like the plastic build quality.

But once it reaches the original price of the version one - maybe. I have the 24-105 and it is a really good lens. My only issue with it that it's f/4 which for what I often do limits its usefulness. IS is pointless in my book.

So the best use for it is landscape stuff (which I rarely do) and standard studio type portraits.

For that it is actually very good believe it or not. Maybe I lucked out with a sharper copy but there are are really no issues. Excellent value lens.

Still thinking to add a good version 1 24-70 at some point.

 

[Ruined]

If one can wait, it probably is best to wait on the 24-70 II... I personally am not buying one because of the plethora of QA issues Canon apparently refuses to fix. If they fixed them, okay, but they seem to be refusing repair and stating things are in spec when they clearly are not.

That being said, if you can actually get a good copy that does not squeak, click, is not decentered and does not have a bubble in the element - then you have arguably the best standard zoom out there by far.

Myself, I am going to stick with the 24-105 for now and wait well into 2014 until these QA issues are sorted. Maybe I'll even see a price drop or IS version while I wait.