24-105L or 24-70L (F4 or F2.8)?

[LetTheRightLensIn]

24-70 f/4 IS has much better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105L [...]

... and much worse at 50mm.

but only right near 50mm which isn't much of the range (and, IMO, 50mm is just about the most boring part of the range on FF anyway) and even then it's not really worse in the center and you can always get amazing 50mm from a $100, light little 50mm 1.8 if you need it and a zoom doing well at 50mm isn't that much of a revelation, while ones doing that at the wider end on FF are.

 

[Sporgon]

24-70 f/4 IS has much better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105L [...]

... and much worse at 50mm.

You clearly do not own or use a 24-70 f4 IS, and are making that statement from one on line review of the lens. At Building Panoramics we now have two of them, and I can assure you that it's 'IQ' is superior to the 24-105 across the range.

Whether that improvement is worth the much higher price that you have to pay is up to the individual who has to stump up the cash.

 

[Pi]

24-70 f/4 IS has much better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105L [...]

... and much worse at 50mm.

You clearly do not own or use a 24-70 f4 IS, and are making that statement from one on line review of the lens. At Building Panoramics we now have two of them, and I can assure you that it's 'IQ' is superior to the 24-105 across the range.

Too be more precise, 4 online tests: 3 copies on TDP and one on DXOmark.

 

[Loswr]

24-70 f/4 IS has much better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105L [...]

... and much worse at 50mm.

You clearly do not own or use a 24-70 f4 IS, and are making that statement from one on line review of the lens. At Building Panoramics we now have two of them, and I can assure you that it's 'IQ' is superior to the 24-105 across the range.

Whether that improvement is worth the much higher price that you have to pay is up to the individual who has to stump up the cash.

The 24-70/4L IS does seem to have a blip in its sharpness performance right at 50mm, based on online tests of multiple copies. But it's right at 50mm. The 24-70/4 tests better than the 24-105 at 40mm (PZ) and 70mm. It's worth noting that the 24-105L has a similar 'blip' at ~85mm.

Regardless, most shots with zooms are at the ends (whatever FL they are) for typical users, the 24-70/4 would deliver generally better IQ for most.

 

[Pi]

The 24-70/4L IS does seem to have a blip in its sharpness performance right at 50mm, based on online tests of multiple copies. But it's right at 50mm. The 24-70/4 tests better than the 24-105 at 40mm (PZ) and 70mm.

TDP shows slightly worse performance at 35mm as well, on all of the three copies tested, but not as bad as at 50mm. I am too lazy to go to DXO right now but I think they did not show much of a difference. I consider the 35-50mm range to be quite a "blip" for a zoom which is newer, costs more, has a smaller range, and is supposed to have "much better IQ" than the 24-105.

BTW, PZ also found a significant focus shift on the two copies they tested.

 

[Eldar]

And summing up, all three lenses, plus the not released 2.8 IS, have their supporters. The 2.8L has the best IQ, but no IS. The 24-105 is very versatile, some sharpness issues ++ and the 24-70 f4IS is compact, good macro etc. The point is, which has been extencivly debated, is that, provided you learn the weak spots of these three lenses, you can live happily with all three.
Now I'm going back to my Brunello. Have a good one

 

[Sporgon]

24-70 f/4 IS has much better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105L [...]

... and much worse at 50mm.

You clearly do not own or use a 24-70 f4 IS, and are making that statement from one on line review of the lens. At Building Panoramics we now have two of them, and I can assure you that it's 'IQ' is superior to the 24-105 across the range.

Whether that improvement is worth the much higher price that you have to pay is up to the individual who has to stump up the cash.

The 24-70/4L IS does seem to have a blip in its sharpness performance right at 50mm, based on online tests of multiple copies. But it's right at 50mm. The 24-70/4 tests better than the 24-105 at 40mm (PZ) and 70mm. It's worth noting that the 24-105L has a similar 'blip' at ~85mm.

Regardless, most shots with zooms are at the ends (whatever FL they are) for typical users, the 24-70/4 would deliver generally better IQ for most.

With the odd exception, all our panos are shot in portrait format with a focal length between 35mm and 60mm, so we don't fit into that trend. Some time ago in another thread I did post some 100% crop samples of the 24-70 f4 @50mm against the 50mm f1.4, but I can't find the thread to post a link.

However here is a link form Lens Rentals where Roger tests the 24-70 f4, at 24 & 70 mm and then later at 50mm after suggestions that is was poorer at this focal length.


http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

He found that it was indeed lower than its optimum, but the figures he produced showed it to be still slightly better ( splitting hairs ) than the 24-105 @70mm - which he stated was the 'sweet spot' of the 24-105 - which is also reflected in some of TDP tests, and therefore better than the 24-105 @50mm.

When the 70-300L was introduced TDP's resolution crops showed it to be clearly inferior to the 70-200 f4 IS @ 70mm, and it has taken 3 years before enough people have used the lens and can report it is just as good as the 70-200 f4 IS at that focal length. I have not heard one report from someone who has both lenses saying that the 70-300 is inferior.

I think that TDP is a very useful resource but those early tests were misleading. It may be down to the sheer amount of copy variation, something that is unacceptable, and I can only assume that Canon have found that most people don't notice, so they don't alter the QC in the production of these units due to the very high cost of reducing tolerances.

We may be seeing a similar thing with the 24-70 f4. When Lens Rentals took one to pieces they said something along the lines of ' being alarmed at the amount of adjustments on elements compared to other lenses'. The link is below:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f4-is

All I can say is that at Building Panoramics we were pleased enough with the first 24-70 f4 to get another one to replace our last 24-105. Our man in the States has replaced his Tamron 24-70 f2.8 vs tdi what-ever with the Canon 24-70 f4 too.

 

[Pi]

[...] the 24-105 @70mm - which he stated was the 'sweet spot' of the 24-105 - which is also reflected in some of TDP tests, [...]

Not in this one:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

nor in this one:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

... and those are the only two tests of the 24-105 on TDP. In fact, 70mm there takes the 5rd place (in the center) among the six tested FLs, not so sweet.

 

[Sporgon]

[...] the 24-105 @70mm - which he stated was the 'sweet spot' of the 24-105 - which is also reflected in some of TDP tests, [...]

Not in this one:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

nor in this one:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

... and those are the only two tests of the 24-105 on TDP. In fact, 70mm there takes the 5rd place (in the center) among the six tested FLs, not so sweet.

Better tell Roger. I'd like to say you keep basing your argument on internet resolution charts and I'll base mine on practical use of the product. However in quoting TDP you are being selective with the information. For instance lens '1' of the 24-70 L IS is clearly better mid frame than the 24-105 @ 50mm f5.6 and f8. Lens '2' is better in the corners at f5.6. Once you move from f4 they are similar in the centre, but the 3 copies do show obvious differences between each other in different parts of the frame. As I have said before I think this is really unacceptable for a lens that is supposed to be high quality.

I have to say that all three copies of the 24-105 that I have used over the years have never been as good in the centre wide open @50mm as the TDP crop, based on TDP crop of the 50mm f1.4 @f4 as a yardstick. The 50mms that I have used have always been clearly better than the 24-105 both at f4, so TDP seems to have had a very good copy there.

The fact is your comment: ' and much worse at 50mm' is misleading and not fully accurate, even based on the TDP crops. You should consider a career in politics.

Anyway here's a picture I shot yesterday evening. The symbolic finger of the power station chimney is not an accident.

 

[Pi]

Better tell Roger. I'd like to say you keep basing your argument on internet resolution charts and I'll base mine on practical use of the product.

Huh? I do own the 24-105. Its sweet spot is not at 70mm.

However in quoting TDP you are being selective with the information. For instance lens '1' of the 24-70 L IS is clearly better mid frame than the 24-105 @ 50mm f5.6 and f8.

No, it is not: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

It is worse even at f/11, which is quite an achievement:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=4&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

The fact is your comment: ' and much worse at 50mm' is misleading and not fully accurate, even based on the TDP crops. You should consider a career in politics.

Tell me how it worked for you.

Anyway here's a picture I shot yesterday evening. The symbolic finger of the power station chimney is not an accident.

That made you a winner.

 

[Holly]

Ah, I've been in this very conundrum. I also own a 6D. I needed a general zoom for weddings, and both these lenses would have done the job. But what made the decision for me was the 2.8. If you'll be using your zoom in low light, then I'd assume you'd want the extra speed. If not, then by all means go for the 4. It'll save you some money!

 

[eml58]

Anyway here's a picture I shot yesterday evening. The symbolic finger of the power station chimney is not an accident.

I spent 16 Years in the Australian SAS (a looooong time ago), 10% of our Guys were Scotsmen on loan from the British SAS, I learnt very early on they always have the last say and were impossible to beat in an argument, about anything, but especially about drinking and fighting.

I'm still laughing about the "Symbolic Finger" thing.

 

[YuengLinger]

Real world. Earlier I posted in this thread, praising the 24-105mm's use in daytime event photography. I stand by that--for sunny weather.

We've had such a long, sunny summer that I'd forgotten about the 24-105's problems in cloudy weather, especially heavy overcast. My copy consistently struggles with harsh contrast and color temp issues in cloudy weather. I am using the lens hood.

The best I can describe the problem is by comparing it to using slightly too much "Clarity" in Lightroom. The problem adds lots of time to editing big sets of event photos, because the effect varies from shot to shot just enough where applying a batch correction doesn't quite work.

In the same exact weather, same exact spot and shooting angles, same f/stop, etc, etc, my old 24-70mm still has great color and contrast, as does my 70-200mm f/2.8, so I know it is the 24-105mm.

 

[John]

i love my 24-105, but i would want the 24-70 2.8 for wedding photography. the 24-70 and the 70-200 are a great combo.

 

[skoobey]

I can't read all the above, but I can give you my opinion.

Honestly, they all are very similar, but 24-70 2.8 is my favorite. It just gives more "natural" look, even thought it has a lot of distortion present across the range(no distortion at 30mm), it is still better in that regard than 24-104, and pretty much the same as 24-70 4.

You have the 70-200, so you need not worry about the range, but if you do like to have that bit of range, 24-105 will give you that, as well as pretty good IS. It is also the cheapest by far, especially now with the price drop, it is a bargain of the century.

24-70 f4 is somewhat of a combo of those two, it is a successor to the 24-105, is sharper than 24-105, but not dramatically, and you loose that range. Also, it has annoying thing where it zooms in and out a bit as you focus, which would just make me go insane(it's not dramatic, but by 5% of the frame for example).

None of these lenses will give you that "wow" effect, but they will give you very very very good results if you get to know their weaknesses and strengths.

So, if you care about the price: 24-105, and you still get a great lens.
If you want the best IQ: 24-70 2.8. It is a great tested lens, I just love it, and version II is even better, but extremely pricey.
If you want the 24-70 2.8, and need the IS more than a stop of aperture, only then would I say go for the 24-70 4 IS.

I wanted to buy 24-70 2.8 myself, but in the end I found a great deal on 24-105 (600$), so I went with it, and have no regrets, but 24-70 2.8 is a superior lens, have no doubt.

 

[duydaniel]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=355&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

According to the link above
both at 24mm f4.

The 24-105 is sharper than the 24-70

 

[Xarathion]

I found a decent review online of all three lenses:

http://digital.photorecommendations.com/recs/2013/01/canon-24-70-f2-8-mark-ii-vs-canon-24-70-f4-is-vs-canon-24-105-f4-is/

Essentially, the 24-70 2.8 is unquestionably the king. But it costs a lot, and may not be worth the price for what you need your lens to do.

The 24-70 f4 is much cleaner across the frame than the 24-105. For me, if you're shooting wide, and not framing your subjects in the center of the frame, then you'll benefit more from the 24-70 f4 in this regard as well. Same for group shots.

I currently have a 24-105 I got in a kit with my 6D. It has worked fine for most of my uses, but I have noticed it suffer a bit on group shots or other special situations. I recently damaged the focus barrel on it (AF still works), so I'm going to try and sell it as-is and upgrade to the 24-70 f4. Both because of the quality improvements, but also because I like having a lighter kit for traveling that the 2.8 definitely won't deliver. I have several primes like the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 if I need low-light shooting, so I don't need an extra stop of light in my general purpose zoom.

With the money saved between the 4 and 2.8, you could buy a few of those primes and still pay less than you would for the more expensive zoom.

 

[Pi]

I found a decent review online of all three lenses:

http://digital.photorecommendations.com/recs/2013/01/canon-24-70-f2-8-mark-ii-vs-canon-24-70-f4-is-vs-canon-24-105-f4-is/

Hard to draw any conclusions from downsized images.

 

[Xarathion]

Hard to draw any conclusions from downsized images.

It's a little clearer on the Part 2 YouTube video if you watch in 1080p. He does a zoomed in side-by-side image comparison in Lightroom, moving around to different parts of the frame.