6D W/ 24-70MM F2.8L II VS 5D III W/ EF 24-105 IS

[Sporgon]

There is a way to make the 24-105L as good as the 24-70II for your landscape pictures: shoot in portrait and stitch. You'll be using a longer focal length so no need to worry about the rather 'added afterthought' results of the 24mm end.

If I was looking to use the lens for shallow dof portrait style images instead of primes I would go for the 24-70II if affordable. Test charts don't give the full picture.

No way. The sharpness, distortion and CA get worse and worse as you move to the corners on the 24-105. The 24-70f2.8ii is a dream all the way to the corners even wide open. You can stitch all the soft (relatively) images together you want to and it still makes a relatively soft panorama. The 24-105 was my go to landscape lens for 5 years. I have made thousands of images and hundreds of panoramas with it and used all focal lengths from 24-105 to do it. Panos with the 24-70ii are simply stunning.

Depends on the focal length and overlap that you are using. I avoid 24 mil on the 24-105L, and my panos are generally shot between 35 and 60 mil, most of the time f8, always portrait orientation. With a generous overlap I cannot, in the (large) print see a practical difference between the 24-105L and lenses such as the 35L and 50/1.4.

For single frame shots the 24-105L would not be my lens of choice for critical landscape work.

 

[meywd]

There is a way to make the 24-105L as good as the 24-70II for your landscape pictures: shoot in portrait and stitch. You'll be using a longer focal length so no need to worry about the rather 'added afterthought' results of the 24mm end.

If I was looking to use the lens for shallow dof portrait style images instead of primes I would go for the 24-70II if affordable. Test charts don't give the full picture.

Yeah that's a good idea, portraits and group shots are the main reason to get the 24-70 II, but i will also be using either the 50 f1.8, 100 f2.8, or the 70-200 f4.

 

[meywd]

While i've no doubt both the Canon 24-70's are better than the 24-105, for my shooting needs the 6D + 24-105 are perfect as an everyday combo. Its light enough, easy to use and the combo of 105mm and effective IS allows for some nice family portrait work. I'm sure i'll buy a better body at some point (5DIV) but i'm much more interested in getting some better primes than I am in replacing the 24-105.

That's a great photo milkrocks, tbh there are many lenses on the wish list, 50 f1.4 Art, 600 f4, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 16-35 f4 IS, and the 24-70 f2.8 II is one of them, f2.8 might not be too bright or have a very shallow DOF, but its a zoom, and so i wouldn't need to change lens every time i want to shoot a group in an event, the 6D or 5D III will solve half the issues i face using the 600D in low light, so i think the 24-105 will still perform well enough.

 

[slclick]

5D3 w/Sigma 24-105 Art

 

[milkrocks]

While i've no doubt both the Canon 24-70's are better than the 24-105, for my shooting needs the 6D + 24-105 are perfect as an everyday combo. Its light enough, easy to use and the combo of 105mm and effective IS allows for some nice family portrait work. I'm sure i'll buy a better body at some point (5DIV) but i'm much more interested in getting some better primes than I am in replacing the 24-105.

That's a great photo milkrocks, tbh there are many lenses on the wish list, 50 f1.4 Art, 600 f4, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 16-35 f4 IS, and the 24-70 f2.8 II is one of them, f2.8 might not be too bright or have a very shallow DOF, but its a zoom, and so i wouldn't need to change lens every time i want to shoot a group in an event, the 6D or 5D III will solve half the issues i face using the 600D in low light, so i think the 24-105 will still perform well enough.

Thanks for the photo compliment. While i'd really like to get a 85 1.2L, i've had decent results with the 85 1.8. My next lens will most likely be either a 35 f2IS or 50 1.2L (hopefully the later). I would not trade the 24-105L, 85 1.8 and 50 1.2L for a 24-70 2.8II for my purposes (and they are similar in price if you get the 50 on a refurb deal). Also know that if you buy a 24-105 (especially the kit) you probably won't lose much money on a future sale if you decide to upgrade. See below for a 6D + 85 1.8 shot of the little guy.

 

[jepabst]

If you get the 6D, you'll always be mentally berating yourself about not getting the 5D3.

You'll find the 24-105 to be a great lens. Sure, the 24-70 is better, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference unless you really pixel-peep, and the extra reach is very, very handy too.

Yeah, I disagree with pretty much all of this. The 6D is fantastic, and unless you are shooting sports, in my opinion, you don't to go to the 5DIII. The gains are in the focus points, shutter sp, dual slots. IQ is pretty much identical. And the 24-105 is fine, but it's sloppy - barrel distortion and vignetting and I'd take the extra stop of light long before I'd take the difference between 3x to 4x zoom. I would also definitely consider the Tamron if I was shooting low light events - because that IS is fantastic and some serious money savings. You could pretty much buy that lens by getting the 6D instead of the 5DIII. Very wise.

 

[meywd]

well, thanks everyone for your input, the suffering is over, the wallet is thinner and the grinning wont stop - even as i write this , i got the 5D III w/ 24-105 f/4, i will state the obvious known decade long fact, FF is amazing, i didn't get to shoot much with it, since i got it after sunset, but even the nifty fifty is looking great with FF.

Here is one with the 5D III w/ 50 f/1.8 II