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

[dw2013]

Hi,

I own a 6D, 70 - 200 F4 L IS, and have recently been using a borrowed 24 - 105 F4 L. Previously I was considering upgrading the 70 - 200 F4 L to the F2.8 II version, but ready responses and other threads I am happy with the F4 IS.

Now is the time to actually purchase a 'walkaround' lens, as I need to give the borrowed lens back...therefore I would like your thoughts. Portrait & Travel are probably the key requirements for me. Choices (plus any other you come up with):

- 24 - 105 F4 L
- 24 - 70 F4 L IS
- 24 - 70 F2.8 (non IS)

Where will I see the the best in terms of image quality? Is the F2.8 II worth the difference in price considering it is not IS? Will I (purely as a photographic enthuasiast) see a significant difference in image quality between the 3 lenses? I have a bonus due, so the F2.8 is financial viable...

Thanks for your help!

Dave

 

[luciolepri]

The 24-70/4, to me, is a completely pointless lens. It has a slightly better IQ than the 24-105/4 at 24mm, a shorter MFD and smaller and lighter body. If those things are not crucial for you, I wouldn't bother considering it.

The 24-70/2.8 II is obviously, as its price yells, the "best" lens of the group. but it lacks the IS and the extra reach of the 24-105/4, so, if those two things are essential for you, you have your answer.

Otherwise, the 24-70/2.8 II is definitely the lens to go for, if you can afford it. And probably you won't miss the 70-105 range of the 24-105, once you'll see what the 24-70/2,8 II is capable of, already WO.

BUT, if you already shot with the 24-105 and you were satisfied with its quality, you already found your "walkaround" lens for a very good price...

 

[YuengLinger]

I know, for many, this is a well worn topic, but, right now, it's a hot one for me. I've been waiting patiently, stubbornly for a new rebate on the 24-70mm 2.8 II, but the longer I've used my 24-105 in combination with a 70-200mm for events, or my 85mm 1.8 and 135mm 2.0 for portaits, the less I think I really need to spend so much on what I do believe to be a wonderful zoom lens.

See, I have a 9 year old 24-70mm which I no longer can depend on. Had it serviced, it was great, then my wife dropped it, had it serviced again, now it's sub-par. I don't want to spend more repairing it.

I guess if I have a string of low-light events, I'll start craving the 2.8 again, but for outdoor stuff, like tomorrow's big charity walk and celebration, my 24-105 is perfect for candids and informal portraits. For very large (60 people +) group shots, I usually switch to my old 16-35, not only to include everybody, but to avoid the distortion at 24mm on the 24-105mm (which makes people on the edges of the group look fat!).

(And on the other hand, in low light, I do have my nifty fifty 1.4.)

In a nutshell, what I don't like about the 24-105: 1) bad distortion for group shots or when vertical structures are included in my frame, 2) the bokeh can be granular, busy from f/4-f/5.6, especially when leafy branches are in the background. And 3), of course, f/4 can feel like a limitation too.

What I do love about the 24-105mm is the generally excellent sharpness and contrast. The IS is great on mine, which helps account for the sharpness. The range of focal length is fantastic for most situations at most events I do. And it works great for nature hikes too, as the quasi-macro is ok in a pinch, the range is right for good landscapes, and it's light. Bird photographer Arthur Morris says it's his go-to lens when he doesn't have something massive on his 1DX.

I don't know. For mostly people shots, am I really going to be needing the range of 24-70 now? In my opinion, for closer portaits and candids, anything 50mm or lower starts showing distortion on the 24-105, but I hear it is better controlled on the 24-70mm.

I've been assisting several great portrait photographers, top PPA award recipients, and they either use primes or go 24-105 and 70-200mm.

For those NOT weary of this discussion, any input would be great. Thanks, dw2013, for daring to bring this up again!

luciolepri: good insights, thanks!

 

[dw2013]

So, if this subject has already been talked to death I apologise.

A new member to these forums, so I will also look at previous threads.

luciolepri and YuengLinger thanks for your input!

 

[Loswr]

The IQ of the 24-70/2.8 II is substantially better than the f/4 lenses, and between the two f/4 lenses, the IQ is a wash (better for each at different parts of the zoom range). The 24-70/4 IS is the smallest/lightest of the bunch.

You mention portrait and travel as primary uses. For portraits, the wider aperture of the 24-70/2.8 II is a big advantage (harder to get good subject isolation at f/4, although the 24-105 is great for studio portraits where you have control over the background and lighting and are stopped down).

As for travel, it depends on what you shoot. Although IS does not really help in this focal range if people are your subjects, it is quite beneficial if you are shooting static scenes in low light without a tripod.

Personally, after getting the 24-70/2.8L II, I soon sold my 24-105/4L...I have no regrets about doing so.

 

[vanshyosaka]

I am also suffering from the same situation, I really need the IS (i am a coffee addict) and i also want to upgrade my camera for FF one. right now the 5d mark III with 24-105mm is my best choice.

if you really care about IS, I think you should drop the 24-70 2.8L II from your list since there is a rumor of a new version of it with IS.

for me if i did not get the 24-105mm from a camera kit (which is a lot cheaper) i dunno,,, i am not sure i am gonna buy it separately but this is my opinion.

since you have a 6D which is a new camera in the market, i guess your best choice is to get the 24-105mm.

good luck!

 

[Sporgon]

This side of the 24-70 f2.8 II the zoom with the best image quality is the 24-70 f4 IS. It is a stellar lens with one big problem: the price of the 24-105, and that lens prolific appearance used where it is cheap and still rapidly depreciating.

At Building Panoramics we have both lenses, so can compare them back-to-back. IMO the 24-70 f4 is better than the reviewers so far have given it credit for. I see this as a similar thing to when the 70-300 L was introduced. There were howls of derision from those looking at the specs and the MTF charts, saying it was little better than the non L, but now it is recognised for what it is; a truly great lens.

The 24-105 however does seem to suffer from massive copy variation, so if you decide to get one of those it is worth checking it critically upon receipt.

 

[dw2013]

This side of the 24-70 f2.8 II the zoom with the best image quality is the 24-70 f4 IS. It is a stellar lens with one big problem: the price of the 24-105, and that lens prolific appearance used where it is cheap and still rapidly depreciating.

At Building Panoramics we have both lenses, so can compare them back-to-back. IMO the 24-70 f4 is better than the reviewers so far have given it credit for. I see this as a similar thing to when the 70-300 L was introduced. There were howls of derision from those looking at the specs and the MTF charts, saying it was little better than the non L, but now it is recognised for what it is; a truly great lens.

The 24-105 however does seem to suffer from massive copy variation, so if you decide to get one of those it is worth checking it critically upon receipt.

How would you go about testing to check whether you have a good quality lens or not? The 24-105 I have borrowed does not at times seem to always give super sharp images. I thought this was probably due to user error, however maybe this is why they have offered to sell the lens to me at a favourable price....

 

[Loswr]

if you really care about IS, I think you should drop the 24-70 2.8L II from your list since there is a rumor of a new version of it with IS.

Yeah, right. There's been a rumor of that for at least 5 years, just like the rumored new version of the 100-400L. You can hold your breath waiting for the rumored lenses if you want, but I really don't recommend it.

 

[luciolepri]

if you really care about IS, I think you should drop the 24-70 2.8L II from your list since there is a rumor of a new version of it with IS.

Yeah, right. There's been a rumor of that for at least 5 years, just like the rumored new version of the 100-400L. You can hold your breath waiting for the rumored lenses if you want, but I really don't recommend it.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with neuroanatonomist on that.
And looking at the price of the 24-70/2.8 II, I'm quite afraid to discover how much would be a 24-70/2.8 IS, if they want to make it an "L" lens with the same IQ...

 

[Eldar]

The good motives are passing by today ... I am waiting for the megapixle, ultra DR, mega fps new body and the super sharp, no vignetting, no ... fault lens(es), but I will not let that get in the way of what i should do today.

This choice discussion has been debated to death ... several times. The 24-70 2.8L II is the superior lens. The 24-105 is still a great lens (if you stop it down just a little bit) and, if you are shooting dead things, you will benefit from IS. I have not missed IS on the 24-70 one single time. I thought I would miss the 70-105 range, but I havn´t. So IMHO, if you have the money, buy the 24-70, if not, you can live happily with the 24-105.

 

[Pi]

You mention portrait and travel as primary uses. For portraits, the wider aperture of the 24-70/2.8 II is a big advantage (harder to get good subject isolation at f/4, although the 24-105 is great for studio portraits where you have control over the background and lighting and are stopped down).

Actually, the physical aperture of the 24-105 is slightly larger than that of the 24-70/2.8, so with good framing, the 24-105 at 105mm would take (and does take) portraits with good isolation. With busy background very close, f/2.8 is better.

To the OP - I would only consider the 24-105 and the 24-70II. It is IS and slightly more reach vs. speed and slightly better IQ. The weakest spot of the 24-105 is at 24mm near the borders, where the 24-70II shines (well, aside from reported field curvature when focused far). The IS is very effective.

 

[ablearcher]

For "portraits and travel" I would simply change your lens setup by selling 70-200/4 and getting 70-200/2.8IS and adding to it 24-105 which can be found these days brand new for a crazy price since so many of them on the market being sold as kit lenses. In terms of $$ you will be in a better situation than just purchasing a new 24-70/2.8. In terms of travel you will have a better walkaround range 24-105 for travel and a great 70-200/2.8 portrait zoom lens which is the best zoom in this focal length (lets face it - 24-70 is not the most preferred portrait focal length out there). With time, for travel I would add a 35L or a Sigma to your travel kit and then you're golden. But if you do travel shooting as a pro and you are OK with spending almost 3 times more for 24-70 with a better IQ then yeah that might be a better option. I'm not sure how often you will be using 2.8 for travel though. I guess it depends on what exactly you're shooting while travelling.

 

[vanshyosaka]

Yeah, right. There's been a rumor of that for at least 5 years, just like the rumored new version of the 100-400L. You can hold your breath waiting for the rumored lenses if you want, but I really don't recommend it.

you are right, but i did not tell him to wait. The rumor could help him to choose that's it.

 

[Sporgon]

The 24-105 however does seem to suffer from massive copy variation, so if you decide to get one of those it is worth checking it critically upon receipt.

How would you go about testing to check whether you have a good quality lens or not? The 24-105 I have borrowed does not at times seem to always give super sharp images. I thought this was probably due to user error, however maybe this is why they have offered to sell the lens to me at a favourable price....

The most common fault seems to be de-centring, so check for uniformity on either side of the frame. However don't expect any 24-105 to be as sharp as your 70-200 f4 IS at 70-105 !

 

[YuengLinger]

"This choice discussion has been debated to death ... several times. "

Then why bother participating in this particular thread? There is a time to be shooting, and there is a time to be shopping.

Furthermore, even those who have expressed opinions in the past gain new insights after time passes. And I notice members with THOUSANDS of posts are not complaining about the topic...

Personally, I appreciate the topic and the generous, thoughtful replies.

 

[Eldar]

"This choice discussion has been debated to death ... several times. "

No worries. My only point was that there are lots of threads going over this subject, some of them quite new. You can read lots of interesting views on these two (excellent) lenses and also speculations on when a 24-70 f2.8L IS will come out.

My point on that was that instead of waiting, most likely, a long time for the next better and greater, you should look at what's available and enjoy that.

Have a good weekend, I still have some wine left

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Hi,

I own a 6D, 70 - 200 F4 L IS, and have recently been using a borrowed 24 - 105 F4 L. Previously I was considering upgrading the 70 - 200 F4 L to the F2.8 II version, but ready responses and other threads I am happy with the F4 IS.

Now is the time to actually purchase a 'walkaround' lens, as I need to give the borrowed lens back...therefore I would like your thoughts. Portrait & Travel are probably the key requirements for me. Choices (plus any other you come up with):

- 24 - 105 F4 L
- 24 - 70 F4 L IS
- 24 - 70 F2.8 (non IS)

Where will I see the the best in terms of image quality? Is the F2.8 II worth the difference in price considering it is not IS? Will I (purely as a photographic enthuasiast) see a significant difference in image quality between the 3 lenses? I have a bonus due, so the F2.8 is financial viable...

Thanks for your help!

Dave

24-70 II has the best IQ so long as you are not in a scenario where you need IS, it also has the best AF, it can legit take on primes such as the 24 1.4 II

24-105 has the worst image quality (other than the IS scenario), it can be had very (relatively) very little these days, I tried them a few times and got rid of each within a week, not bad IQ for a regular lens but a bit weak for an L, especially at the price it used to go for.

24-70 f/4 IS has much better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105L, it is very pricey unless you wait for one of the $1000 for it deals, it is the smallest and lightest of them all and also has some macro ability

haven't tried the tamron 24-70 vc but it might be good

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 24-70/4, to me, is a completely pointless lens. It has a slightly better IQ than the 24-105/4 at 24mm, a shorter MFD and smaller and lighter body. If those things are not crucial for you, I wouldn't bother considering it.

more like MUCH better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105, not just for sharpness but also in terms of fighting off nasty purple fringing
(but yeah the 24-70 II is even better still, other than for macro or when you need IS)

 

[Pi]

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

... and much worse at 50mm.