24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L

[Zv]

Good points Zv.

Interesting, I went the other way. I had the 24-105 and 70-200 and found with the overlap I tended to use the 70-200 mainly at 200mm. So I sold it and got the 200 prime which is lighter, smaller and less conspicuous than the zoom. I have a two month trip through Europe (including northern Norway) and the Rockies coming up in a month. My travel kit is just the 24-105 and 200 prime (+1.4x). I expect to take 90% of the photos with the 24-105.

I would like a smaller 24-xx, but with the extra range of the 105, I can get by with just the 200.

Cheers

Wow, sounds like a great trip! Norway is on my list of places to see for sure! Yeah thanks for your input, I'm pretty sure that if I had the 24-105 it would stay on my camera all the time out of sheer laziness! That's what I want to avoid! My 70-200 f/4L IS might start collecting dust! I like the compression and bokeh at the 200mm end even at f/4, though I have the 135L and 7D to get me the 200mm f/2.8 equiv (or close enough) if needs be.

 

[tron]

And finally, the 24-70mmf4L is a much smaller lens than the 24-105mm f4L.

Earlier in this thread Jack noted:
"What drives me since getting back into photography after many years of absence is all the commentary based on personal attachment or brand bias".

I too value unbiased advice.

From Digital Picture:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens 21.2 oz (600g) 3.3 x 3.7" (83.4 x 93mm) 77mm 2012
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens 23.7 oz (670g) 3.3 x 4.2" (83.5 x 107mm) 77mm 2005

Frankly, 1 1/2 ounces and half an inch does not make it "much smaller". Its about 1/10th lighter and 1/8th shorter.

Yeah I've handled both lenses and "much" is a bit of an over statement! "Little bit" would be accurate. However that little bit makes some difference when carrying your backpack of gear around as well as around your neck. Always nicer to carry less weight. Length wise it's not that big of a difference, not really going to matter in real life shooting.

The main pros for the 24-70 right now for me are -
Sharper corners at 24mm.
Fluorite coating on front element.
4 stops of IS (biggie - I rely on IS as I travel without tripod).
It's newer (ok that one makes no sense really).
Macro (meh not bothered but sure, I'll take it).

The only con is range and price. Range is not that big a deal as I have the 70-200 and traveling with 2 lenses isn't so bad. And price is well within what I can afford.

Yet I still think the 24-105 might be more useful overall.

Seems I want a 24-105 f/4 v2!!

Difference in size and weight: indifferent, so little to be of any value. Others may disagree.

Sharper corners at 24mm: Yes but the advantage is only at 24mm. Nowhere else according to the-digital-picture

Fluorite coating on front element: No big deal at all. I use good quality UV filters (mostly Hoya HD UV).

4 stops of IS (biggie - I rely on IS as I travel without tripod): 24-105 has 3-stop I believe. No big deal either

It's newer (ok that one makes no sense really): Useless (I agree).

Macro (meh not bothered but sure, I'll take it): Indifferent. It's not real macro anyway.

The only con is range and price. Range is not that big a deal as I have the 70-200 and traveling with 2 lenses isn't so bad. And price is well within what I can afford:

Overlapping is nice unless you have to cameras with 24-70 and 70-200 all the time.
Price is serious. Why someone should pay more for something that is not worth it? It's not a 24-70 2.8 after all.

Yet I still think the 24-105 might be more useful overall.

YES! I do agree with you

P.S I want a 24-105 II too

 

[Haydn1971]

Just an observation... In the last year, my local independent camera shop has had just one 24-105 lens for sale second hand, yet in the last couple of months, they have had three 24-70 f4's - not scientific, but considering the considerable number of 24-105's out there vs the 24-70 f4, perhaps 50-100x the number, I'd expect more 24-105's being traded second hand.

I like the idea of the 24-70 f4, feels nice to handle, but can't help but think, the extra 35mm reach and lower price of the 24-105 is getting in the way of massive sales of 24-70 f4's

 

[Zv]

I just realized that slowly but surely I will end up with an entirely all L lens line up. Hmmm how'd that happen?

Anyway, I think I'll wait until I've sold my 17-55 before buying anything. Might just buy the 25-105 and keep my 5D2, seems like the smart choice.

 

[Sporgon]

Here are some comparisons of the new 24-70 f4 against a couple of well respected prime lenses.

The first picture shows the overall scene. Reduced in size for the web.

 

[Sporgon]

The next four crops at 100% show the 24-70 @ 50mm, mid frame and corner. The last two are 50mm f1.4. All at f6.3

There is no sharpening, they are all from RAW untouched.

 

[Sporgon]

The next four are a comparison with the 40mm STM, again at f6.3, mid frame and extreme corner.

Our only 24-105 is on a different location so I can't do a back to back comparison at the moment. Suffice to say the new 24-70 is very close to the primes.

I've revised my opinion at 50mm: it isn't so good mid frame at this focal length as other focal lengths, but still, it's pretty good.

 

[MLfan3]

MLfan3 - I didn't know you could "bargain" anything in Japan! I thought they were always very strict with their price. Is it different for lenses? Are talking about Yodobashi and BIC camera stores or smaller stores?

Not Yodobashi, it is the most expensive camera shop in Japan , if you go something like Fuji Camera or Map camera in Sinjuku, you can get better price.
And if possible , just bring a local person who can translate what they saying.
Yodobashi is actually foreigner price and I am not sure about Bic camera.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Does anyone have experience with these two lenses? In particular, the IS on both. I'm interested in buying a new 24-something lens for full frame purposes. Also how would these lenses compare with the 17-55 in terms of IQ? Anyone got sample images of the new 24-70 f/4L?

I've had a play about with both lenses. The 24-105L has the advantage of being almost half the price. But is it a mistake to go from a 17-55 to 24-105? Image stabilization is more important than wider apertures so for now the 24-70II is out.

Not a fan of Tamron so that's out too.

Even my old Tamron 28-75 had better edges on the wide side than the 24-105Ls I've tried on FF (and crisper in the center too, not that the 24-105 was soft in the center, just not quite as insanley crisp). So I actually tend to like Tamron. My 17-50 2.8 from them was also amazing. I sold my 17-40L.

Anyway I have not personally tried the 24-70 f/4 IS though.

I can say that the canon 17-55 IS delivers crisper edges and corners on APS-C on the wide end than the 24-105L does on FF. The 24-70 II manages to get you the same crisp edges though on FF.

Supposedly the 24-70 VC and 24-70 f/4 IS fall somewhere between the 24-105 and the 24-70 II, perhaps closer to the 24-70 II. But I've never personally tried the tamron 24-70 VC or canon 24-70 f/4 IS.

I was so excited when my 24-105L arrived.... and then I tried it. And then I tried another and another just to be sure. They just didn't do it for me on FF. It depends how much you are about the 24-30mm range and whether you demand edge to edge fine details for certain types of landscape work or not. Some people shoot mostly subjects falling mid frame even at the wide end and don't even know what all the complaints are about (that said my tamron was still a bit sharper even center frame, but as I said, the 24-105 was hardly soft there just not completely insanely sharp and it may have had a touch richer color). I always thought the 24-105 had some of the most avg IQ of any recent L lens.

Of course you can manage to nab the 24-105L for like $600-650 sometimes even now with so many kits being split or so many amazing body kit deals, at the old $1200 or $1000 or even $800 it seemed a bit steep for optics although very convenient, but at $650 that is quite the deal though. The 24-70 f/4 IS does seem to be arguably the most over-priced of the whole lot at this point, although the 24-70 II sure ain't cheap.

 

[Zv]

MLfan3 - I didn't know you could "bargain" anything in Japan! I thought they were always very strict with their price. Is it different for lenses? Are talking about Yodobashi and BIC camera stores or smaller stores?

Not Yodobashi, it is the most expensive camera shop in Japan , if you go something like Fuji Camera or Map camera in Sinjuku, you can get better price.
And if possible , just bring a local person who can translate what they saying.
Yodobashi is actually foreigner price and I am not sure about Bic camera.

Hmmm yeah thanks for that. I always buy online - prices are much cheaper than the stores plus there is no commuting cost. If I'm in Tokyo I'll check out those shops. Recently amazon.jp prices have been a bit high but they fluctuate a lot so it could just be temporary. I also use Rakuten when amazon lets me down!

 

[Zv]

Lettherightlensin - thanks for your input. I know the Tamron 24-70 VC has had good reviews but it took TDP three attempts to get a good copy. That's too shaky for me I need some relaibility and the 24-105 is arguably one of the most consistent lenses Canon makes. Sure the corners are a bit soft at 24mm but if I'm doing landscapes then I will be using my 17-40L. The 24-105 will be for general purpose use, like walkatound, travel, parties and small events. And applying some sharpening in post will sort some of the softness out.
Like I said I love my 17-55 but I'm limited to the 7D and so I'm not getting much use of my 5D2 as I should.

 

[Zv]

Thanks for all the advice, if anything I will at least be making a very informed decision! The 24-105L is best for me. I can easily stop it down to f/5.6 at 24mm to improve sharpness and CA. Not a big deal. That's the only real advantage for the 24-70/4 has that I can tell from looking at TDPs lens compare tool - better at 24mm f/4. At 24mm I'm likely taking pictures of a building or a landscape in which case I'll be stopping down anyway. At the 70mm end both lenses seem to perform about the same in my opinion. And at the long end is where I might use f/4 for a portrait. The 24-70/4 does seem overpriced now. User reviews remain mixed. Some love the new lens and some are quite dissapointed. I wonder if the ones who love it are just using it at the extremes?

I'm thinking I might even hang on to my 17-55 for now and run both lenses for a while and see how I get on.

Cheers and have a great weekend!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Thanks for all the advice, if anything I will at least be making a very informed decision! The 24-105L is best for me. I can easily stop it down to f/5.6 at 24mm to improve sharpness and CA. Not a big deal. That's the only real advantage for the 24-70/4 has that I can tell from looking at TDPs lens compare tool - better at 24mm f/4. At 24mm I'm likely taking pictures of a building or a landscape in which case I'll be stopping down anyway. At the 70mm end both lenses seem to perform about the same in my opinion. And at the long end is where I might use f/4 for a portrait. The 24-70/4 does seem overpriced now. User reviews remain mixed. Some love the new lens and some are quite dissapointed. I wonder if the ones who love it are just using it at the extremes?

I'm thinking I might even hang on to my 17-55 for now and run both lenses for a while and see how I get on.

Cheers and have a great weekend!

I will say none of the three 24-105 I tried had good edges or corners at 24mm even at f/8 or even f/10. From what I saw the 24-105 seemed to handle charts better than real life scenes with complex DOF, it depends what you shoot though. Only the 24-70 II and 24 1.4 II got that. My Tamron 28-75 2.8 had sharper corners and edges at 28mm f/8 than the 24-105L too. But the 24-105 can be had for a low price these days. I suppose you can worry about Tamron QC, but then you can worry about it for many lenses. My first copy Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 were good. My first 17-40L was bad and 24-70 II had . My Canon 70-200 f/4 IS was good. So it's luck of the draw all around I'd say.

 

[mwh1964]

No need to have both 17-40 and 24-105 with the arsenal you got already. If you are missing the standard range the 24-105 is a very capable lens for a budget price compared.

 

[Zv]

Thanks for all the advice, if anything I will at least be making a very informed decision! The 24-105L is best for me. I can easily stop it down to f/5.6 at 24mm to improve sharpness and CA. Not a big deal. That's the only real advantage for the 24-70/4 has that I can tell from looking at TDPs lens compare tool - better at 24mm f/4. At 24mm I'm likely taking pictures of a building or a landscape in which case I'll be stopping down anyway. At the 70mm end both lenses seem to perform about the same in my opinion. And at the long end is where I might use f/4 for a portrait. The 24-70/4 does seem overpriced now. User reviews remain mixed. Some love the new lens and some are quite dissapointed. I wonder if the ones who love it are just using it at the extremes?

I'm thinking I might even hang on to my 17-55 for now and run both lenses for a while and see how I get on.

Cheers and have a great weekend!

I will say none of the three 24-105 I tried had good edges or corners at 24mm even at f/8 or even f/10. From what I saw the 24-105 seemed to handle charts better than real life scenes with complex DOF, it depends what you shoot though. Only the 24-70 II and 24 1.4 II got that. My Tamron 28-75 2.8 had sharper corners and edges at 28mm f/8 than the 24-105L too. But the 24-105 can be had for a low price these days. I suppose you can worry about Tamron QC, but then you can worry about it for many lenses. My first copy Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 were good. My first 17-40L was bad and 24-70 II had . My Canon 70-200 f/4 IS was good. So it's luck of the draw all around I'd say.

True about the lens lottery thing. My 85 1.8 had way too much CA even up to f/4 yet people raved about that lens. As someone who likes backlit shots it was pretty useless. And I had a Canon 10-22 that was a bit soft though some say it is sharp and better than a 17-40L, I disagree. Even at 17mm it performs quite well and it's a great lens for the price. If I ever need ultimate sharpness in a WA I'll opt for a TS. I'm not earning much from photography to justify it yet.

I'm sure the Tamron is a great lens, I just don't like the way it zooms and I heard AF Servo is hit and miss. Plus they're a bit harder to sell. I'll take my chances with the Canon. And in any case I'm sure it'll be much better than the 17-55.

 

[Zv]

No need to have both 17-40 and 24-105 with the arsenal you got already. If you are missing the standard range the 24-105 is a very capable lens for a budget price compared.

I guess that's true but I want an Image Stabilized lens that can be used on FF or crop. It has enough overlap that I can just take one lens. I used to just take the 17-40 and 70-200 but I like to go wide to tele and back frequently and I would just be switching like crazy. Remember I just sold my 85 and 50 and have about $400 towards it (and some amazon gift credit from a refund). So really I'm just spending another $300ish and getting a pretty decent lens. Why would I not? Might come in handy (and complete my f/4 zoom trinity)! Was gonna buy the Sigma 35 1.4 but will hold off on that, not convinced I need that yet.

 

[duydaniel]

24-105
24mm f11

no correction applied

 

[Sporgon]

Warfleet Cove in Dartmouth, south coast of England, shot on the 24-105mm at the wider end. This is one of only two pictures we've ever done on APS format: we used a 650D. ( Didn't like it for our job ).

I've also added a higher magnification crop from the edge.

My advice to anyone looking at the two lenses is that if you either can't or don't want to afford the difference in price there's no need to fret about it.

 

[Zv]

Already ordered a second hand 241-105L, just under $700 with the amazon credit I had (66,000 Yen). The seller is one I used before for my 135L, which was in immaculate condition (though it came without a box!). They offer a 1 month guarantee with it. Should be here by Wednesday!

 

[bholliman]

The next four are a comparison with the 40mm STM, again at f6.3, mid frame and extreme corner.

Our only 24-105 is on a different location so I can't do a back to back comparison at the moment. Suffice to say the new 24-70 is very close to the primes.

I've revised my opinion at 50mm: it isn't so good mid frame at this focal length as other focal lengths, but still, it's pretty good.

I'd give the 40 2.8 a slight edge, but the 24-70 4.0 compares very well in these crops.

Thanks for posting the comparisons.