Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii

[Canon1]

Thank you everyone for your input. Much appreciated.

 

[Marsu42]

If they fixed them, okay, but they seem to be refusing repair and stating things are in spec when they clearly are not.

To what (public) spec are you referring to?

 

[lux]

I love my 24-70ii. I was going through the last year of photos to make a book for the grandparents and I can tell looking at the photos when I got the lens. Colors are richer with it than with the 24-105.

 

[skoobey]

If it's your only lens, than 24-105 is a far better choice.

If you use 70-105 range for portraits, or like to carry only one lens with you, 24-105 is a far better choice.

In any other case, 24-70 blows it out of the water.

 

[sagittariansrock]

there is more copy to copy variation than you'd like for a lens that price

Variation regarding what kind of issues? Sharpness or decentering? How does one go about testing for it?
Thanks for the advice, in advance.

 

[Invertalon]

I had a 24-105 for years and really enjoyed it... But the 24-70 II is significantly better. Quite a jump in IQ across the entire zoom range.

 

[dgatwood]

But, in addition to IQ, I wanted to add that the 24-70 II also has much faster AF, especially in low light, and I believe is focusing in much less light than the 24-105 on my 5DIII.

I'd like to stress the "5d3" part because only 1dx/5d3 are able to make use of the latest lenses (70-300L, 24-70ii) more precise af system, and the 24-70ii is designed in conjunction with the 5d3/1dx af system (lens groups) in mind... there are lensrentals articles on this.

Both means that if buying a 24-70ii for a 6d you're throwing part of your money away and it's a good idea to consider a Tamron as an alternative, I guess that's part of the reason why Canon bundles the 24-105 with the 6d and released a 24-70/4 which doesn't run into the 6d's af problems and at least has IS.

I don't think that's correct, for two reasons:

First, AFAIK, all cameras benefit from the extra light gathering when it comes to focusing in the dark. Cameras open the lenses up to their widest settings while focusing, and if the widest setting is wider, those AF sensors see more light, which means the camera is more likely to successfully focus when shooting in low light conditions.

Second, as I understand it, the 6D's center point has increased accuracy when used with f/2.8 and faster lenses, so there's a pretty significant benefit to the faster lens even in normal light, assuming you're using the center point.

With that said, YMMV.

 

[Arctic Photo]

I really like my 24-105. It's a great lens, but from all I've read the 24-70 is playing a different game. The only reason I don't have it yet is budget. Hopefully next year. After that, my collection will be complete for all the stuff I do today.

 

[twdi]

I'm a happy use of a 5DmkII + 24-105 too. I've just finished a photobook from a holiday in which the maximum print size was 30x45cm. The pictures look great.

Offcourse I think the 24-70II produces sharper images but I should you are allowed to expect that from a twice more expensive lens. Which Lightroom I can sharpen my images (or maybe with software like Nik) which gives me pictures I like. I would prefer the spend the saved money on an additional UWA lens or other stuff

 

[clicstudio]

There is simply no better lens than the 24-70 II.
It matches most primes in quality and in one package.
It's the ONLY lens I own. Coupled to my 1DX, I have to say I am seeing the best output ever.
The 24-105 has a little more range but I rented one for a week and was very very disappointed. Too many missed focus photos and not the sharpest.
I also rented a 50mm 1.2L, a 135 2.0L, a 35mm 1.8 and nothing could replace my 24-70.
The only other lens I would consider is the 70-200 F2.8L II which I used and absolutely loved. But I have no need for it.
My only complain about the 24-70 2.8L II vs the old 24-70 is the minimum focusing distance. It was shorter before.

 

[Marsu42]

There is simply no better lens than the 24-70 II.

... unless you try to shoot handhold with longer shutter times in which case you should get familiar with PS' blur reduction filter. What I'm trying to say: For walkaround photography in verying light, IS does make sense, so there's no linear "better" or "worse".

First, AFAIK, all cameras benefit from the extra light gathering when it comes to focusing in the dark. Cameras open the lenses up to their widest settings while focusing, and if the widest setting is wider, those AF sensors see more light, which means the camera is more likely to successfully focus when shooting in low light conditions.

Correct, your af capability will also drop one stop when using f4 vs f2.8 ... so in theory, there might be situations where you could shoot with the 24-105 using 3 stops of IS, but cannot focus anymore. However, I doubt this situation will occur very often as the newer 6d/5d3 are able to af in very dim light, it might be more of an issue with older af systems like 5d2 or 60d that only focus up to +0.5LV.

Second, as I understand it, the 6D's center point has increased accuracy when used with f/2.8 and faster lenses, so there's a pretty significant benefit to the faster lens even in normal light, assuming you're using the center point.

Afaik you've got that wrong: If you're shooting with slower lenses, you most likely don't profit from the f2.8 precision as your dof is deeper, but the enhanced precision slows down the af.

Last not least, speaking of the 6d (but not opening the can of worms again) @ f2.8 the af is more precise. but also more unreliable since it isn't a cross sensor anymore just like on the 5d2. Imho that's part of the reason why Canon issued the 24-70/4 which works much better with the af system of the 6d.

 

[Loswr]

Second, as I understand it, the 6D's center point has increased accuracy when used with f/2.8 and faster lenses, so there's a pretty significant benefit to the faster lens even in normal light, assuming you're using the center point.

Afaik you've got that wrong: If you're shooting with slower lenses, you most likely don't profit from the f2.8 precision as your dof is deeper, but the enhanced precision slows down the af.

Not really. With a lens slower than f/2.8, the high precision but slightly slower AF line(s) aren't active at all, so the less accurate and slightly faster f/5.6 line(s) are used.

 

[dgatwood]

Second, as I understand it, the 6D's center point has increased accuracy when used with f/2.8 and faster lenses, so there's a pretty significant benefit to the faster lens even in normal light, assuming you're using the center point.

Afaik you've got that wrong: If you're shooting with slower lenses, you most likely don't profit from the f2.8 precision as your dof is deeper, but the enhanced precision slows down the af.

Sure, with 2.8 being the edge condition, I'd expect it to have the least benefit from the added precision. That said, presumably, they chose f/2.8 for a reason, so if the added precision were only useful at f/1.8 and wider, they would have picked f/1.8 as the starting point. Either way, if a single f/2.8 precision focusing point has no benefit with that lens on the 6D, then I'd expect multiple f/2.8 precision focusing points to have no benefit on the 5Dmk3, so the argument that the 6D doesn't benefit from it is still wrong. Either they both benefit or they both don't. Perhaps the 6D might have more focus misses, but that's a separate argument, IMO.

Last not least, speaking of the 6d (but not opening the can of worms again) @ f2.8 the af is more precise. but also more unreliable since it isn't a cross sensor anymore just like on the 5d2. Imho that's part of the reason why Canon issued the 24-70/4 which works much better with the af system of the 6d.

That's certainly plausible, giving the timing, but if true, I would have to question the competence of the management of Canon's camera engineering team for not putting a single high-precision f/2.8 cross point instead of a single diagonal, and thus forcing the lens team to design a whole new lens to work around the camera's inadequacies. That's incredibly wasteful, resource-wise, and for a few extra cents per 6D unit sold, that time could have instead gone towards something more useful, like improving the focus speed of the 85 L II and adding IS to it.

That would be like Apple's laptop team forcing the iPad team to design a whole new model of iPad because of a hardware bug in the USB port on one model of MacBook Pro.... Their answer would almost certainly be "No. Fix your f**king laptop design," only without the self-censorship.

I think it's far more likely that the f/4 version of the lens was caused by someone trying to hit a price point so that they could have a reasonable alternative kit lens to the 24-105 for folks who cared more about image quality than reach. That's consistent with what they have historically done in the EF-S world, so it makes perfect sense that they would do the same thing for a prosumer full-frame body like the 6D. I'd be shocked if the lack of a cross-type f/2.8 high-precision point factored in significantly, because if it did, the lens team's response should have been, "No. Fix your f**king camera design."

Then again, the camera team's managers could just be @$$holes.

 

[Loswr]

Last not least, speaking of the 6d (but not opening the can of worms again) @ f2.8 the af is more precise. but also more unreliable since it isn't a cross sensor anymore just like on the 5d2. Imho that's part of the reason why Canon issued the 24-70/4 which works much better with the af system of the 6d.

I'm not sure how it makes any sense that an f/4 lens works much better with the 6D's AF, compared to an f/2.8 lens. It's not like, if the high precision AF line can't achieve AF, the system just gives up and fails to take the shot. With the f/2.8 lens, if you're using the center point and if there's a feature with contrast in the correct orientation for the single high precision line's necessary orientation, you get more accurate AF. If you're using an off center AF point or if the feature under the center AF point has contrast orthogonal to the high precision line's necessary orientation, the f/2.8 lens behaves like an f/4 lens, using the f/5.6 cross to achieve focus.

I suppose you could argue that there's a small time lag if the camera tries with the f/2.8 line, fails, then defaults to the f/5.6 cross and achieves AF, but 1) the lag is very short (probably imperceptible), and 2) the only time a lag that short might matter is with a fast-moving subject, which makes that argument rather specious from the 6D standpoint (particularly considering your past statements on the 6D's utility for action shooting).

So, while it could be said that the f/2.8 lens on a 6D offers an AF benefit only in certain circumstances (reasonably common ones for most shooters, actually), I don't see when an f/4 lens is any better for AF (certainly not much better).

 

[Marsu42]

So, while it could be said that the f/2.8 lens on a 6D offers an AF benefit only in certain circumstances (reasonably common ones for most shooters, actually), I don't see when an f/4 lens is any better for AF (certainly not much better).

You're correct that f2.8 doesn't pose a liability on the 6d if shot @f4+ vs. a native f4 lens, that's why I'd get the Tamron f2.8 over the Canon f4 any day. I still don't quite know how often the +1ev af capability of f2.8 vs. f4 is really necessary, I guess it very much depends on personal circumstances.

What I originally intended to say, but failed to do was that shooting with a f4 lens on the 6d gives you far less headaches and things to consider, and thus "works better" - that's from a naive usability, and not from a technical standpoint. So from Canon's point of view, packaging the 6d with a f4 lens or even designing one for it is a good business decision, avoiding "Um, 10/11 of my af points don't quite work as I'd expect" service inquiries.

 

[pensive tomato]

What I originally intended to say, but failed to do was that shooting with a f4 lens on the 6d gives you far less headaches and things to consider, and thus "works better" - that's from a naive usability, and not from a technical standpoint. So from Canon's point of view, packaging the 6d with a f4 lens or even designing one for it is a good business decision, avoiding "Um, 10/11 of my af points don't quite work as I'd expect" service inquiries.

I wonder if regional distribution decisions play a bigger role in deciding which f/4 to bundle with the 6D. In the U.S., the 6D is still bundled with the 24-105mm; whereas now we see the 5D3 being offered with either of the f/4 lenses. I would figure that as market and inventory conditions allow, we'll see the newer 24-70mm f/4 being the lens of choice for bundles in the U.S. as well.

FWIW, I tested my 6D with the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, the 24-70mm f/4, and the f/2.8 Tamron when I bought my current f/2.8 copy. In my limited testing at the store, the f/2.8 had faster and very accurate AF with the 6D. Of course, that was by no means a thorough evaluation. Other with significant experience using both lenses with the same camera can elaborate further in this direction.

 

[Loswr]

...avoiding "Um, 10/11 of my af points don't quite work as I'd expect" service inquiries.

Sorry, still not getting it...

Why would they get those complaints? 10/11 of the 6D's AF points are f/5.6 lines, which behave identically with every lens with a max aperture from f/1.0 to f/5.6. The only AF point on the 6D that behaves differently with an f/2.8 or faster vs. an f/4 or slower lens is the center point. Since that point defaults to the f/5.6 cross if the f/2.8 line can't achieve focus, I doubt anyone not well-versed in the technical details of AF systems would even notice.

 

[Marsu42]

Why would they get those complaints? 10/11 of the 6D's AF points are f/5.6 lines, which behave identically with every lens with a max aperture from f/1.0 to f/5.6.

... meaning you're getting worse results the faster your lens is. If you have a f4 lens, you won't notice the lack of precision say vs. the current Rebel/60d af systems, but with f2.8 you will. So I speculate that from Canon's point of view the ideal obfuscation of the mediocre af system is to let users shoot with f4 lenses, they even did the 6d samples with a 17-40L/4... the light loss is mostly compensated with the good iso capability of the 6d.

Since that point defaults to the f/5.6 cross if the f/2.8 line can't achieve focus, I doubt anyone not well-versed in the technical details of AF systems would even notice.

This is indeed the matter of discussion, and I have to admit reading a lot of users' posts you seem to be correct, people don't notice. On the other hand shooting with my 100L/2.8 I find it very hard not to notice that the 6d lacks af precision on low-contrast surfaces, but of course it's mostly noticeable at 100% crop and it very much depends on what you're shooting.

 

[Ruined]

There is simply no better lens than the 24-70 II.

... unless you try to shoot handhold with longer shutter times in which case you should get familiar with PS' blur reduction filter. What I'm trying to say: For walkaround photography in verying light, IS does make sense, so there's no linear "better" or "worse".

I agree IS is useful, though from my testing less so at wider angles. However, the gap between the 24-70 II and 24-105 IS is so huge... If they came out with a 24-70 II IS that would be a different story, but as of now you are better off with a 24-70 II and maybe a 35mm F/2 IS USM prime for the assignments that may call for IS. Plus the 35mm f/2 IS USM has a faster aperture than all three making it useful to have in general... Next year we will likely see the 50mm f/1.8 IS USM as well which would similarly compliment that 24-70 II depending if you prefer the 35 or 50 walkaround range.

One thing I noticed with IS that is interesting... Even with IS longer shutter speeds start to have a "mushy" look in my testing and often still end up blurry, even on the new 35mm w/ IS - a wide angle with latest generation IS. While it is true that without the IS it would likely be an unusable photo at slow shutter speeds, I seem to get better results with faster shutter speeds and pushing the levels up in POST. This may not apply to all situations, but seems to be something I run into a lot even with the latest implementations of IS.

So while 24-70 w/ IS would be ideal, I think 24-70 II is much better than the 24-105 despite lack of IS. The 105 focal length probably needs IS more because 1/60 would be tougher to handhold at that focal length without IS. (1/60 is generally as slow as I want to go if I want to be safe with an all around sharp picture due movement of tree leaves, people, etc.)

There is also the Tamron 24-70 VC, but I am not convinced with a pretty terrible QC issue lens rentals ran into with the 2nd lens element falling off. 24-70 II has its own issues with some experiencing a noisy zoom barrel, but having a lens element fall off is a pretty catastrophic failure. Also, the autofocus is not as snappy as on the Canon.

 

[Marsu42]

One thing I noticed with IS that is interesting... Even with IS longer shutter speeds start to have a "mushy" look in my testing and often still end up blurry, even on the new 35mm w/ IS - a wide angle with latest generation IS.

Indeed, this is exactly my experience - IS doesn't replace fast shutter speeds, if I want crisp images @100% crop from my 70-300L I shoot with 1/500+ ... but IS is nice to stabilize the frame and terrific for low light.

Also, the autofocus is not as snappy as on the Canon.

+1, this is the decisive difference and it's up to everyone to decide if this is "worth" double the price esp. on systems with a mediocre af like the 6d.

There is also the Tamron 24-70 VC, but I am not convinced with a pretty terrible QC issue lens rentals ran into with the 2nd lens element falling off. 24-70 II has its own issues with some experiencing a noisy zoom barrel, but having a lens element fall off is a pretty catastrophic failure.

I'm not a Tamron press spokesperson, but I cannot help but to quote what lensrentals actually writes:

First and foremost, this is just a point of information - something worth knowing about if you own this lens or are considering buying it. The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is an excellent lens, but as with so many new products, early adopters are always serving the role of beta testers. I wouldn’t be surprised if Tamron hasn’t already fixed the problem quietly, but just in case it happens to some of you, we thought it worth posting.