24-105 vs 24-70 2.8 ii

[gjones5252]

I have had the 24-105 for about 2 years now. I have never been pleased with the quality which is somewhat contradictory to what the general consensus is on this lens.
I recently just purchased the BH deal for the 24-70, and have been eagerly looking forward to this lens. Reviews have been showing this lens to resolve a great amount of detail.
At 1/200 f/4 100 i can get nearly identical results from these two lens. Now it is no where near what pro are testing with but i used tripod, multiple shots picked the sharpest from each lens, and had flash to provide pretty consistent lighting.
Does anyone have these two lens? or also make the upgrade? what are your thoughts?
I will say the color and in camera rendering on the 24-70 is amazing. i love that but worth $1800? i dont feel like its worth is at this point. To be honest i love my two other 2.8 zooms lens but i dont feel like this one stacks up the same.

after looking over the picture samples on the digital picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2) it seems as though i am only looking at the center and the really "upgrade" of this lens will be at the edges.

 

[jblake]

You are exactly right. I bought a Canon 24-70 2.8 L II from lens rental/lens authority a couple of months ago and it was a very sharp copy; it was tested to be 22/22 lines pair/mm. I did not have a 24-105 at that time, but, I did have a 17-40 L.

I compared both lens at 24mm and 35mm with apertures of f/4.0 and f/11.0. And like you, I used a tripod, live view, 10x magnification and wired shutter release. I thought that stopping down the new 24-70 II to f/4.0 would give it a huge advantage; not just in the corners but also in the central part of the image. Well, yes and no.

I could see no difference, at f/4.0 at either focal length, in the central say 60% of the images. Now into the borders and corners, as you noted, that is where the 24-70 II really shines.

When testing at f/11.0, the differences were not as noticeable in the borders and corners; two corners were close to a draw, slightest edge to the 24-70 II, and the other two, I would give the 24-70 II the clear/close win. Also, in the center at f/11.0, there was no difference between each lens in either scenario.

So, yes, you are correct, that the biggest difference is in the borders and corners; definitely enough so to certainly be worth/justify the extra cost to a pro/serious semi-pro for sure. The 24-70 II delivers at all focal lengths and apertures.For me, the border corner did not justify the cost/optical differences.

I would rather find and keep a good copy of a 24-105, which I now have, and buy a really good, used, fast prime in that same focal length to compliment my 24-105.

I paid $600 for the 24-105 and that leaves $1200-1300 for a prime. A more enjoyable and useful lens combo for an enthusiast like me, instead of having just one excellent 24-70 zoom.

 

[jdramirez]

Interesting. The way people rave... it sounds like the 24-70 is on par with primes... ugh.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I am not sure I understand the original post- you are in the best position to decide if you want to keep the 24-70 II, but I shall contribute my 2 c.
I purchased the 24-105 and the 24-70 II at the same time with my 5D III. This was my 2nd 24-105- I had purchased one long back to use with my 7D (at the same time as a 17-55 2.8 ) and ended up selling the L in favor of the brilliant f/2.8 zoom. This time the 24-105 suffered the same fate, and here's why. Both f/2.8 lenses were VERY sharp wide open (I am talking 17-55 vs 24-105 on the 7D and 24-70 II vs 24-105 on the 5DIII). That meant I didn't need a prime lens, and that's great for me. I have just the one camera and would prefer the flexibility of a zoom that is as good as a prime (for my use, anyway). And that's why, even though the 24-105 was a very good lens it had to go.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For the recent sale prices, the 24-105 L is a very good value. I finally sold mine after using it for several years, it was sharp with good color and accurate autofocus. Of course, at 24mm, there is a lot of distortion, but lens correction software eliminates that. I bought it new for $700 from a local person who got it as a kit lens with his new 5D MK I.

The reason I sold it was that after buying the 24-70mm MK II, the 24-105mmL did not get any use. I had five of the 24-70mm L MK I lenses, and they were all disappointing, the 24-105 was better, but the 24-70MK II does a very good job. Its rue that you pay a lot more to get a relatively small improvement.

If you are having problems with your 24-105mm L, it likely needs adjustment. I've heard lo0ts of complaints from recent buyers, so the quality might have slipped over what it was 6 or 7 years ago.

You might find this article interesting, it mentions a 24-105 that was believed to be very good, but it was actually poor and, when adjusted, it was a huge improvement.

Rogers writing is always a fun read.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/03/rogers-new-toy-needs-a-name


Here is a link to the imatest before and after plot, there is a world of difference.

 

[gjones5252]

Hmm That was an interesting read on the lensrentals blog. I wish i could just send them my lens! Ill have to contact canon about sending this lens to them, the biggest worry there is that it will come back with a "within Specs" ugh.
Although I would love to have the best 24-70 and never question it, i feel i can make better use of the 1800 dollars. And i already have with a polarizer and nd filter. And a preorder sigma but still no answer on that.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Hmm That was an interesting read on the lensrentals blog. I wish i could just send them my lens! Ill have to contact canon about sending this lens to them, the biggest worry there is that it will come back with a "within Specs" ugh.
Although I would love to have the best 24-70 and never question it, i feel i can make better use of the 1800 dollars. And i already have with a polarizer and nd filter. And a preorder sigma but still no answer on that.

You bought the 24-70II, right? You ended up keeping it? Is there some issue with it?
I bought my 24-70II and it performs amazingly with just a little AFMA. Best lens ever.

 

[mwh1964]

Both lenses are great. The 24-70 II is much better though at f2.8 and in the corners. Since I bought the 24-70 I haven't used my 24-105. Anyhow, I will keep both.

 

[MLfan3]

why not also consider the 24-70mm f4LIS lens , which is a better lens than the 24-105mm f4L and a lot smaller and cheaper than the f2.8 MK2.

 

[mackguyver]

Interesting. The way people rave... it sounds like the 24-70 is on par with primes... ugh.

Disclaimer: I have never used the 24-105 - I never bought one because I've always needed f/2.8 in this focal range.

JD, the 24-70 II is a huge upgrade over the original and is sharper than the 24L II, 35L, 50L, and has excellent color and contrast very much like primes. I always felt like the 24-70 I was somewhat flat in terms of contrast and lacked the pop of the primes, but the 24-70 II does away with that. The ergonomics are much better, too, ditching the oversized hood (yes, you lose some shading), and zooming in the expected direction. It's still no match for the shallow DOF using primes below f/2.8 (obviously), but my primes (other than the TS-Es) in this range no longer show their face during daylight hours since buying the Mk II.

In terms of the OP's post, the results aren't surprising. Take a look at SLRgear's graphs below - the results are very close:

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Interesting. The way people rave... it sounds like the 24-70 is on par with primes... ugh.

It is, but only an f2.8 prime. The benefit of a prime is that they are generally brighter by at least 2 stops (4 time brighter). The benefit of the zoom is versatilty and the lack of needing 4 primes to cover the same focal range (24/35/50/85).
Most lens tests usually test at either extream of the focal range (24 or 70) but often forget to collect data through the zoom range and at infinity, 10m and MFD. Most zoom lenses will crap out at some point, MFD, infinity or at some particular focal length. I think I remember reading that the new 24-70 LIS is weakest at 50mm for example.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Yeah, the f4 24-70, or at least the one I tried at the local store, is DEFINITELY weakest at 50mm. Dare I say that one was worse than my 24-105 is at 24, its weakest point (w/o the distortion)...there was NO sharp area of the image at 50mm f4. Anyway, I'd like to try another copy - maybe that was just a mediocre one.

Between the 24-105 and the 2.8 24-70 - unless you shoot a lot of indoor social events (and thus need the 2.8 / IS mattering less in those situations), or you have a big budget, then the 24-105 is still a good lens with decent sharpness and great value for price. Plus IS makes it more versatile, too.

 

[steliosk]

Depends on the kind of photography

if you need the 2.8 aperture i'm afraid the 24-70 II is the only way to go
if you don't, the 24-70 II is useless because the 24-105 at f/5 5.6 is sharp from edge to edge, has IS and its way way cheaper.

It would be interesting though to wait for Sigma's 24-70 2.8 OS,
I bet it gonna be sharper from edge to edge from Tamron 24-70 VC and that might push canon to drop the price on the 24-70 II
unless you need a lens right now.

 

[jdramirez]

Depends on the kind of photography

if you need the 2.8 aperture i'm afraid the 24-70 II is the only way to go
if you don't, the 24-70 II is useless because the 24-105 at f/5 5.6 is sharp from edge to edge, has IS and its way way cheaper.

It would be interesting though to wait for Sigma's 24-70 2.8 OS,
I bet it gonna be sharper from edge to edge from Tamron 24-70 VC and that might push canon to drop the price on the 24-70 II
unless you need a lens right now.

So the sigma isn't going to be f2?

 

[Fido]

I think comparing the 24-70ii and the 24-105, both at f4... doesn't tell the whole story.

Using DP Reviews' Lens Comparometer....

The 24-105 appears very near the sharpness (across the frame) of the 24-70ii....at 35 and 50mm...when the '105' is set at F4.5 and the '70' is at F4.0.

At 70 mm....the '105' needs to be at F5.6 to F8.0 to have similar sharpness across the frame with the '70' at F4.

So...the '105' appears to be a tool/lens that can approach or equal the sharpness of the '70' when stopped down. This may not be a huge issue if using a 6d or 5d mark 3.....as their resolution characteristics are strong out to some fairly high ISO settings.

 

[jd7]

Yeah, the f4 24-70, or at least the one I tried at the local store, is DEFINITELY weakest at 50mm. Dare I say that one was worse than my 24-105 is at 24, its weakest point (w/o the distortion)...there was NO sharp area of the image at 50mm f4. Anyway, I'd like to try another copy - maybe that was just a mediocre one.

Between the 24-105 and the 2.8 24-70 - unless you shoot a lot of indoor social events (and thus need the 2.8 / IS mattering less in those situations), or you have a big budget, then the 24-105 is still a good lens with decent sharpness and great value for price. Plus IS makes it more versatile, too.

My 24-70 f4 was definitely poor at 50mm, and weak at 35mm, when I first got it. I sent it back to Canon though, and it came back greatly improved. I'm pretty happy with it now, throughout the whole zoom range.

If you're interested in knowing more, see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21846.0