24-70 f4 IS vs. 24-105 IS

[monkey44]

I own a very sharp and clean copy of 24-105 ... and have the opportunity to trade some other gear for a brand new 24-70 f4 IS lens.

I'm pretty happy with the 24-105, and my next length 70-200 f4 IS complements that lens well as far as overlap because I shoot with a FF and CF ... and can interchange easily when needed.

But, have never shot with a 24-70 f4, and hear such great things about it. If I trade for the 24-70, I will keep the 24-105 more than likely, or maybe sell it or trade it later. But it's not part of this trade.

Because the 24-105 and 24-70 will create a direct overlap, but lose the 70-105 range, can anyone who has field experience with both explain what gain comes with the 24-70 over that end of the 24-105 ... But a good trade comes along infrequently, and this one is good because the gear I'm exchanging I no longer use -- I could sell the gear for a bit less cash than the 24-70 cost -- so will actually gain a tiny bit in value if I trade ...

Will appreciate anyone with experience using both give some input here ... thanks

BTW: I shoot mostly sports / wildlife / action, but shoot enough wide images to justify having the 24-70, but the 24-105 covers it.

My dilemma: Will the 24-70 give me enough IQ improvement at that end to justify both in my bag?

If not, I'll pass and trade / sell my gear for something else -- altho, at the moment, I'm OK with gear - this kind of trade opportunity comes less often so, want not to miss if it's worth it.

I'm a bit puzzled on this one ... and don't want to 'rent' 24-70 just to see. Invalidates the value of the trade a bit if I rent one. <scratching head>

 

[sagittariansrock]

IMO, the 24-70 is nothing special.
I had it for a while, and it's just ok. The macro is pretty unusable for the close subject distance you will have to use.
The wider end is probably a lot better than the 24-105, though.
However, in your case it doesn't seem like you have anything to lose by getting the 24-70, and actually a bit to gain. So why not try it out? If you don't like it then you can always sell it...

 

[Dylan777]

Real upgrade would be 24-70 f2.8 II. Keep your 24-105 until you ready.

 

[Sporgon]

I have both. The 24-70 is much better than the 24-105 at 24 mil. Sharper centre, mid frame and better corners. Less distortion. With my copies the 24-105 is a tad better at 30-35 mil. Of course it is significantly better at 71 to 105 too.

If you are using mainly 24 to 28 and want a small, compact lens the 24-70 is the one to go for. As I am shooting at the longer end I tend to stick with the 24-105 now, and for critical work I use primes.

 

[jd7]

I've come to quite like my 24-70 f/4L. I have never owned the 24-105 f/4L, though, so my experience with it is very limited (occasional use of one which belongs to my sister). In the very limited comparison testing I've done, the 24-70 f/4L is a little sharper (throughout the whole 24-70 range) and it retains colour and contrast a little better when shooting into bright light. I also like the fact it is a bit more compact and it has a zoom lock - nice features if you use the lens when hiking (as I sometimes do), although neither is a big deal really. I still sometimes wonder about trading my 24-70 for a 24-105 for the convenience of the extra range, but I'm inclined to stick with what I have.

If you decide to give the 24-70 f/4L a go, I will be interested to hear how you think it compares to the 24-105 f/4L.

 

[monkey44]

Interesting comments --

My gut reaction is, stay with the 24-105 as it likes that extra range, and it's shooting very clean images. I guess 24-70 was tugging at my brain after hearing all the good reviews, and hearing some not so good reviews about the 24-105 (which I happen not to agree with as much) ... so, will probably continue the 24-105 and maybe put a few more bucks into this trade and pick up the 16-35 f4 IS lens instead -- (that 'might' be an option). I do have a tendency to shoot at the long end of whatever lens is on the camera for some reason.

I shoot very little real wide work tho, and limited indoors work as well, but maybe that will change if the 16-35 f4 hits my bag. I do have a 20-35 lens, so it would benefit me 16-20, altho the 20-35 is not an "L" lens, it is quite sharp and give great color performance -- an old lens, not available anymore. Great lens tho ... I'd never sell it.

Guess I'll lean toward the 16-35 f4 and see what happens ... at least it's not a duplicate range. Any comments on that lens - it compares to the 17-40 f4, but reviews on the 16-35 f4 seem better. <still puzzled> But have probably answered my own Q here. Always helps to listen tho, makes one think in a positive direction.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Interesting comments --

My gut reaction is, stay with the 24-105 as it likes that extra range, and it's shooting very clean images. I guess 24-70 was tugging at my brain after hearing all the good reviews, and hearing some not so good reviews about the 24-105 (which I happen not to agree with as much) ... so, will probably continue the 24-105 and maybe put a few more bucks into this trade and pick up the 16-35 f4 IS lens instead -- (that 'might' be an option). I do have a tendency to shoot at the long end of whatever lens is on the camera for some reason.

I shoot very little real wide work tho, and limited indoors work as well, but maybe that will change if the 16-35 f4 hits my bag. I do have a 20-35 lens, so it would benefit me 16-20, altho the 20-35 is not an "L" lens, it is quite sharp and give great color performance -- an old lens, not available anymore. Great lens tho ... I'd never sell it.

Guess I'll lean toward the 16-35 f4 and see what happens ... at least it's not a duplicate range. Any comments on that lens - it compares to the 17-40 f4, but reviews on the 16-35 f4 seem better. <still puzzled> But have probably answered my own Q here. Always helps to listen tho, makes one think in a positive direction.

There's going to be only one type of comment in response to the 16-35, and you can guess what that is.
Mediocre zoom with overlapping FL vs tack sharp ultrawide with IS? It's a no-brainer, in other words.

 

[monkey44]

Well, yes of course -- there is that difference. The problem becomes whether I want to trade or not, and what I can trade for is limited. It began as a trade for the 24-70 f4 IS, but then decided the 24-105 will stay in the bag instead because I don't gain enough with the 24-70 f4. So, now the options fall at 16-35 f4 IS, but I have to put some cash with it for that lens, which I didn't want to do if possible.

Now, as I work thru it all and look at the options (duplicate FL, and other factors) it seems the only option that remains realistic = 16-35 f4 IS ... sometimes it takes writing it down, listening to others, and then making the obvious choice that should have popped out in my brain immediately. So, looks like I'll be testing that new 16-35 soon enough if I can 'taper down the cash part" a bit ... thanks for the responses -

 

[sagittariansrock]

Well, yes of course -- there is that difference. The problem becomes whether I want to trade or not, and what I can trade for is limited. It began as a trade for the 24-70 f4 IS, but then decided the 24-105 will stay in the bag instead because I don't gain enough with the 24-70 f4. So, now the options fall at 16-35 f4 IS, but I have to put some cash with it for that lens, which I didn't want to do if possible.

Now, as I work thru it all and look at the options (duplicate FL, and other factors) it seems the only option that remains realistic = 16-35 f4 IS ... sometimes it takes writing it down, listening to others, and then making the obvious choice that should have popped out in my brain immediately. So, looks like I'll be testing that new 16-35 soon enough if I can 'taper down the cash part" a bit ... thanks for the responses -

Too soon to start congratulating you?

 

[monkey44]

Yeah -- too soon. ... gotta see what the cash part requires. But we'll know probably tomorrow.

Will be a new experience for me with a lens this size. My widest is 20-35 and it's OLD, but a very nice one -- Canon only built it for a short time, then updated to different lens. Don't know why -- but 16mm, pretty wide, and will be fun figuring out how to best use it. Would like to see this work out ... will take me from 16mm to 896mm all "L" and no primes. ARGHHHH, hehehe ... nothing will escape my glass !!!!

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Real upgrade would be 24-70 f2.8 II. Keep your 24-105 until you ready.

+1, I fully agree Dylan. The only real improvement is when you move to a truely better lens in all aspects.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

24-70 f/4 IS is better

I tried the 24-105L a few different times and never got one more than a week. They just seemed very pricey (this was before the current $600-650 price range) for the IQ and they performed worse than any other L I'd ever tried.

I paid particular attention to near 24mm performance, stopped down, on FF and it just was ugly as the edges and it would be prone to put too much CA on branches against tough sky conditions, etc.

The 24-70 f/4 IS was another story entirely. It actually delivered a nice edge to edge 24mm on FF for critical landscape work. It was also better at the edges at 70mm for landscapes.

Plus it's smaller.

It's not quite as impressive as the 24-70 II (although the best 24-70 f/4 IS I tried actually has better 70mm landscape edges than all 24-70 II I tried), but for finely detailed, edge to edge, FF landscape work I'd say it's quite a good deal better than the 24-105.

Oh and the 24-70 f/4 IS does have a lot less distortion at 24mm (the least of any 24-something type zoom) and it fights longitudinal CA pretty well, getting close to the 24-70 II (this is the type that makes purple in front and green behind the focal plane, not side to side lateral).

My second 24-70 f/4 IS had crisper mid-frame to edges than the first so copy variation can hit you with this lens, it seems to vary in mid-frame to edge sharpness. The 24-70 II tends to vary by which way the focal plane is tilted and little bit as to whether f/2.8 is merely very, very good or beyond, beyond belief good.

For how I used them and per money etc. the 24-105L was also disappointing but the 24-70 f/4 IS was pretty good.

 

[jd7]

Monkey44 you may have seen this already but if not you might want to have a glance at http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests and at http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison.
Resolution testing doesn't tell you everything you might want to know about a lens but something to consider.

 

[monkey44]

Went and peeked at my 24-105 images again -- and find it as I believed earlier -- a good copy and a versatile lens with the extra 70-105mm over the 24-70 ... And that appeals to me ... So, after a bit of discussion today, made the decision to abandon the 24-70 f4 IS trade, and keep the 24-105 alive and well in the kit bag ... All my lenses end up with a bit of overlap between each FL, but that makes it easier in the field with a bit less lens changing as well.

That leaves me now with the other option, and that's to acquire the 16-35 f4 IS lens that adds 8mm wider to my kit, and from what reviews say, a very fine and sharp lens. So, the choice = trade for the 16-35 lens and see what it adds to my wide side images. Unfortunately, I have to add a few bucks cash to the trade to make this one happen -- but, the lens cost is higher anyway, so not really a "loss" in that sense.

Will surely put it to the test in the Rockies next month, and Utah. Both very nice areas to test the ability of a wide and sharp lens of this caliber ... So, appreciate all the feedback -- I believe this 16-35 lens will add a bit more diversity to my image collection. I've not done a lot of 'wide landscapes' in the past, and not much portrait style images indoors or out -- and this seems like a good one for that too. But, 16-35 f4 feels like it may set a nice new challenge out there. Looking forward to it, suddenly -- ;D

BTW: My lens kit contains none faster than f4, so it will feel right at home with its brothers. I work almost exclusively outdoors (except basketball) - so the issue with f2.8 almost never emerges as a roadblock.

 

[Aichbus]

I own the 24-105 L and tested the 24-70 f/4 L because I was unhappy with the distortion of my lens at 24 mm. The 24-70 is clearly better at 24 mm and features a macro mode that can be useful but is not sooooo great. Unfortunately the 24-70 was significantly worse than my 24-105 from 50 to 70 mm. And I missed the 105 mm too. So I decided to keep my 24-105 and now treasure it even more. Optically it is good for many things and if I need top notch quality I use primes. Those who say the 24-70 is better optically throughout its entire range either have a bad copy of the 24-105 or an exceptionally good copy of the 24-70. I am disappointed with the 24-70 being the newer lens design, yet partly performing worse than the older design.

By the way: The 24-70 2.8 II L is NOT "truely better lens in all aspects." vs the 24-105 it has less reach and vs the 4/24-70 is lacks IS and the Macro mode.

 

[jd7]

I own the 24-105 L and tested the 24-70 f/4 L because I was unhappy with the distortion of my lens at 24 mm. The 24-70 is clearly better at 24 mm and features a macro mode that can be useful but is not sooooo great. Unfortunately the 24-70 was significantly worse than my 24-105 from 50 to 70 mm. And I missed the 105 mm too.

For what it is worth, my belief is you had a poor 24-70 f/4L. My experience is different from yours (after getting my 24-70 f/4L calibrated by Canon). Of course, my sample is n=1 so you may question the reliability of my evidence! Still, my experience is in line with what LensRentals resolution tests suggest, and in line with what I've seen on some of the review sites (SLR Lounge is one I recall off-hand).

The 24-105 f/4L is definitely better from 71 to 105 though

 

[Aichbus]

... my belief is you had a poor 24-70 f/4L.

That's possible, but the comparison at "the digital picture" reflects my experience pretty well:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Here as well, the 24-70 @ 50 mm looks bad in comparison. But of course, the 24-70 is not "crap". It's just that for me it is not the improvement I had hoped for.

I will try the Tamron 24-70 next. @4 it looks sooo much better than the Canon 4/24-70 and at 2.8 it looks about equal.

 

[jd7]

... my belief is you had a poor 24-70 f/4L.

That's possible, but the comparison at "the digital picture" reflects my experience pretty well:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Here as well, the 24-70 @ 50 mm looks bad in comparison. But of course, the 24-70 is not "crap". It's just that for me it is not the improvement I had hoped for.

I will try the Tamron 24-70 next. @4 it looks sooo much better than the Canon 4/24-70 and at 2.8 it looks about equal.

There do seem to be substantially varying experiences and opinions about the 25-70 f/4L. Perhaps explained by substantial variation between copies? As was pointed out to me a while Iago by Sporgon, Roger Cicala opened one up and commented it has a lot of parts which can be adjusted.

Good luck with the Tamron. I have seen a few people around here who certainly sing its praises.

PS something I've mentioned in other threads is that my 24-70 4L was very poor out of the box. It improved a lot after a trip to Canon.

 

[Aichbus]

PS something I've mentioned in other threads is that my 24-70 4L was very poor out of the box. It improved a lot after a trip to Canon.

You have been lucky then, but I don't trust Canon anymore on aligning zoom lenses. I had 2 misaligned lenses that after sending them in came back much worse than before. One was my 16-35 2.8 L II, the other my 70-300 L. The latter had to be sent in 4 x until Canon finally gave up and sent me a new one.

Therefore, I prefer sending back new zoom lenses that are not good right out of the box.

For the 16-35, they wanted to charge 480 € for alignment (replacing some parts) which I was not willing to pay at that point in time.

 

[JonAustin]

I'm currently on my 2nd 24-105L; I bought the first in 2005, and was satisfied with it, other than excessive zoom creep. I considered replacing it with the 24-70/4 on numerous occasions, but I like having the extra reach, as well as the complementary ranges of 24-105 + 100-400 when hiking. So I bought the 2nd -105 out of a kit off Craigslist in 2013 (which is at least as good optically as the original) and sold the first one; the exchange cost me $200.

When I find myself "spending all my time" on the wide end of the 24-105, I replace it with the 16-35/4. Since you're considering the 16-35/4, I don't understand why you would keep your non-L 20-35, unless you've already shopped it and just can't get anything for it.

Good luck with your decision; let us know what you do decide, and how it works out for you.