24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS

[monkey44]

Why keep Non-L 20-35 ?? ... first, it's sharp as a tack. Very good lens, and the first lens I bought when I bought the original D30. So, sentimental rather than functional today maybe. And unlikely to get much value if I sell it.

I'd decided to keep the 24-105, skip the 24-70, and the trader wants too much extra cash for the 16-35 f4 IS ... and the 17-40 (and non-IS) makes little sense with what I have already. Only 3mm extra on the 20-35. So, looks like my trade is dead. I'm not "giving away" my stuff just to get another lens unless it really helps my kit. The 16-35 f4 will help it, the others won't.

 

[Sdiver2489]

I bought the 24-70 F4 IS for $650ish. I compared it to the 24-105mm that came with the kit. They were overall similar in my limited sharpness tests I performed...both more than good enough at all settings. However the CA on the 24-105 and distortion was the difference maker. The 24-70 F4 IS performed better because of this.

However, if you have the 24-105 and the CA and/or distortion isn't bothering you its probably not worth changing. However, the 24-70 is a great sub for my 17-55 after moving from crop to FF...the 24-70 is sharper corner to corner.

 

[monkey44]

My take on Kit lenses like the 24-105 -- identical to the "purchase alone" lenses -- so, the quality remains the same. The kit lenses more than likely arrive because of promotion of a new camera with a lens, and I'm guessing the lenses are either not selling well at the "lens alone" price, or Canon built a lot more and expected more sales and didn't get it. So, it becomes a kit ...

When Canon says: This lens cost $1150 new, but with a 5DM3 at $2750, we'll sell both for $3300, than everyone gets a deal, at least we think it's a deal, until the 24-105 starts selling alone for $675 or so. Maybe that's the price it should have sold at the beginning -- but with a reduced price kit, an overvalued lens gets more cameras sold. My thoughts anyway. Marketing, marketing, marketing!

 

[Houndog]

Never owned the 24-70. Jumped in with the 24-105. Seems to work fine. See attached. I plan to shoot again later this year to get fall foliage.

 

[sagittariansrock]

My take on Kit lenses like the 24-105 -- identical to the "purchase alone" lenses -- so, the quality remains the same. The kit lenses more than likely arrive because of promotion of a new camera with a lens, and I'm guessing the lenses are either not selling well at the "lens alone" price, or Canon built a lot more and expected more sales and didn't get it. So, it becomes a kit ...

When Canon says: This lens cost $1150 new, but with a 5DM3 at $2750, we'll sell both for $3300, than everyone gets a deal, at least we think it's a deal, until the 24-105 starts selling alone for $675 or so. Maybe that's the price it should have sold at the beginning -- but with a reduced price kit, an overvalued lens gets more cameras sold. My thoughts anyway. Marketing, marketing, marketing!

+1