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

[1255]

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

 

[neuroanatomist]

Frankly, there isn't much to distinguish these two lenses in terms of IQ. The 24-70 has a little less barrel distortion at the wide end, but that's something which is pretty easy to correct in post. Mostly, it comes down to whether you would gain more benefit from f/2.8 or from IS. Personally, I find IS to be very useful in a walk around lens, and the 24-105 is my most-used lens.

 

[1255]

neuro, honored that my very first reply is from you. thanks for sharing your thoughts. very much appreciated

 

[briansquibb]

I love the 24-105L - used it now for 4 years and still love it.

When travelling light I take 2 lens - the 24-105L and the 70-300L. I choose the body to take on whether I am expect to shoot long or wide.

Here is an example from Saturday- larger version shows the level of detail

Camera Model: Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
Image Date: 2012-05-26 13:04:57 +0100
Focal Length: 88.0mm
Aperture: f/5.6
Exposure Time: 0.0013 s (1/800)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: -0.67 EV

http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/IMG_7955.JPG

 

[pwp]

Later builds of the 24-70 f/2.8L have a reasonable chance of being OK. I know there are fabulous copies out there but my own experience with three very disappointing copies, and surprisingly negative experiences from just about every photographer I know would make me urge caution. If you choose the 24-70 be sure to buy where you can test & return if it's not up to your expectations.

Most photographers who use the 24-105 f/4is, myself included find it a useful and adept piece of glass. Most are very sharp wide open. Get a new one. Heavily used copies can experience jammed apertures and/or self-destructing IS. This is confirmed by CPS. But don't let that put you off. It's a great lens for the money and justifies it's L ranking. Mine needed a $250 repair at the 3 year mark but I'm tough on my somewhat abused gear. Don't buy mine!

PW

 

[1255]

@squibb (hope it's ok if i call you that, somehow feels right) great shot and @pwp thanks for the input, very valuable. thanks all. much appreciated.

 

[jalbfb]

Like Neuro, the 24-105 is my main lens. I use it as my walk around lens and the vast majority of pictures I take come from this lens.

 

[Act444]

I faced this decision a couple of years ago when I was deciding on a replacement lens for the 18-55 that came with my T2i. I went with the 24-105 mainly due to IS and more versatile range (70-105 could- and has!- come in handy). the 24-70 was 2.8, sure, but the lack of IS killed it for me. If the object is still, you can get much sharper shots with the IS anyway than with 2.8.

 

[Rob]

I use the 24-105 as my lens of choice for 90% of all my Wedding and Portrait work, although I do use my 70-200 f2.8 and an occasional shot with my 17-40 & 85mm, the 24-105 covers nearly every scenario that I need, I'm actually thinking of getting another one as I wouldn't want to be without it for even one Wedding if it broke! I have thought about the 24-70 mk1 as well, but I think I would miss that extra bit of reach that the 105 gives. I find it a very versatile lens. Hope this helps.

 

[CowGummy]

24-105L get's my vote any day.

 

[DB]

Canon mostly use the 24-105 lens on new demo FF bodies as a general purpose lens, probably because of the IS, but last year when I had to decide between the 24-70 f/2.8 versus the 24-105 f/4L IS, I went with the 24-70 even though it was a bit more expensive.

Price, in fact, wasn't the clincher because where I am the f/2.8 was only 200 euros more, but what was the game changer (for me) was color and bokeh. You don't need IS if you're shooting a still subject/object just use some support (I've a manfrotto 055XPROB tripod and a 561BHDV monopod) or set the shutter speed to 1/60s or faster, or use a wall even.

I checked out literally thousands of photos on flickr (predominantly of 7D and 5D mkii shooters) using both lenses - thankfully flickr has threads for each lens as well as body type - imho the 24-70mm pics were way better.

Now I'e never used the 24-105mm IS lens, so I'm certainly no authority on it, so I listen to the opinion of others and accept that the IQ is similar between both standard zooms, and my 24-70 lens is a late copy (Nov 2011) and is extremely sharp, but the color just blows me away, both stills and video (using RGB Curves or 3-Way or Fast Color Corrector in Adobe Premiere Pro is now a waste of time, anything I add in effects is <CTRL-Z> straight away) cos' this lens does not require any color correction whatsoever.

Other features of the 24-70mm Mk I that I like are the AF speed (don't know if 24-105 is as fast) plus the really great lens hood which gives me a lot of comfort in the protection stakes (even though I have a clear Hoya HD filter on at all times as well).

Weight has never been an issue for me with this lens (on a gripped 7D feels really balanced actually) and it doesn't feel any worse than my 70-200mm f/4L IS which I guess is similar in weight to the 24-105mm. In terms of image quality, that means beautiful color representation and not just sharpness to me (although Brian's photo of the small plane cockpit is razor sharp using the 24-105mm handheld).

Finally, despite identical lens diameters of 77mm on both these lenses, the aesthetics and feel of the 24-70mm are amazing - a real brick of a lens that feels really nice in both focus and zoom rings (I cannot compare to the 24-105), really smooth and positive at the same time, which is important when you're staring down the viewfinder.

 

[TotoEC]

I used 24-70 f/2.8L exclussively during a tour of Europe and never once regretted it. The lens is sharp, color rendition is superb and AF is fast. Not even contemplating on replacing it with vII. I suggest to rent both glasses and check it yourself.

 

[pwp]

I used 24-70 f/2.8L exclusively during a tour of Europe and never once regretted it. The lens is sharp, colour rendition is superb and AF is fast. Not even contemplating on replacing it with vII. I suggest to rent both glasses and check it yourself.

That's great you've got one of the good copies of the 24-70 f/2.8. Stay with it! The good ones are like gold. Rare and desirable.

This is not every photographers experience with this often flawed lens. I'll say it again, buy a new or late build pre-owned 24-70 f/2.8 from an outlet that allows for test & return if it's not up to an adequate standard. Test it carefully being very aware of soft zones in the same plane of focus. This will show up in a group photo for example. Even if you're straight on to the group, one side will be be sharp but the other side may show image killing, client losing soft zones. It can be subtle, but you want expensive L glass to deliver. Your home mortgage may depend on it!

The 24-105 seems to be far more consistent from one copy to the next. A good copy of either lens should be completely satisfactory for a busy pro, an applied, focused hobbyist or even rampant pixel peepers.

PW

 

[FunPhotons]

I've owned both, albeit not contiguously. Sold the 24-75 I, will never sell the 24-105. My most used lens and go-to, takes beautiful shots and is versatile.

 

[Dylan777]

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.

I have v2 on pre-order. Will see

 

[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