Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
- Thread starter Canon1
- Start date
Likewise, not long after the 70-200 came out, they did similar rebates (got it down in the $1800 range), and then when Feb/March hit they went away. You had to wait a full year for those to come back. Waiting around for another $100 drop or so is likely gonna backfire. Cheapest prices are almost always Nov-FebDaveMiko said:
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/02968/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f2.8L-IS-USM-II-price.html
Upvote
0
I have both lenses and find the 24-105 far more practical because of the zoom range and IS. If I had to pick one of the other I would have the 24-105 for sure.
This is based on my thoughts that getting the picture is more important and the sharpness difference is not that much between the two lenses when it comes to real life photography. IMHO.
This is based on my thoughts that getting the picture is more important and the sharpness difference is not that much between the two lenses when it comes to real life photography. IMHO.
Upvote
0
I have both and the 24-105 is the one I use the most. That extra reach comes in handy sometimes.
Upvote
0
I owned both and sold the 24-105 because the quality gap was too far. I like to shoot without flash when possible and the f/4 of the 24-105 made it more difficult to get good pics. While the 24-105 is a great lens, since it was so similar to the 24-70 II that I liked better I sold it. While it is good to have backups, I generally use primes as my backup lenses. For zooms I have 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200.
And, I know this is subjective, but there is just something about the "look" of the 24-105 I did not like. I can't pinpoint what, but similar to the 17-55 IS I used to have on crop the pics coming out of the camera just did not quite look as natural as with other lenses I have.
And, I know this is subjective, but there is just something about the "look" of the 24-105 I did not like. I can't pinpoint what, but similar to the 17-55 IS I used to have on crop the pics coming out of the camera just did not quite look as natural as with other lenses I have.
Upvote
0
I just got the 24-70mkii and sold my 24-105. Never really have a use for it. I like using prime and got the 24-70mk2. Thinking I would not need to use my prime lenses any more. I was right I havent use any of my primes. The 24-70 never leaves my camera, but lately Ive been disappointed on the AF on my 6D. While it was good using the center AF only and just started using the outer af as my baby starts to walk. I also get inconsistent focus on the center unless my subject is completely still. So I end up ordering the 5D mk3 and will be getting rid of the 6D. Hope its all worth it.
Upvote
0
Sanaraken said:
I haven't used the 6D in the field, but coming from the 60D to the 5Diii I can tell you the difference is night and day. All of my autofocus complaints disappeared when I made the upgrade.
As far as the 24-70ii versus the 24-105, there's no comparison. I've owned several copies of the 24-105, one of which was very sharp. But I just got the 24-70ii and it's the clear winner in IQ and AF speed.
Upvote
0
I owned a 24-105 for 18 months before buying a 24-70 II in July. I kept both lenses for several months and ended up selling my 24-105 in the fall. I found I always reached for the 24-70 for its sharpness and "look" of the pictures. The IQ of the 24-70 II is just much, much better.
I don't agree. Auto focus with my 24-70 II on my 6D is super fast and accurate, even in very low light. I did some unscientific side-by-side IQ and auto focus comparisons with both lenses and felt the 24-70 II AF performed better.
Marsu42 said:
I don't agree. Auto focus with my 24-70 II on my 6D is super fast and accurate, even in very low light. I did some unscientific side-by-side IQ and auto focus comparisons with both lenses and felt the 24-70 II AF performed better.
Upvote
0
Sanaraken said:
I find the outer AF points to be usable in decent light. It's not a great AF system, but certainly good enough for my purposes and many others. If you need a better AF system than the 6D, Canon has some good options (1D series, 5D3, 70D).
Upvote
0
Sanaraken said:
I used to recompose my shots with 5D II(on/off focus results). Now with 5D III, I only use 41 combination of dual and cross AF points. Recompose shot is almost down to none. Nail it every times.
Once you shoot with 5D III, I don't think you want to shoot anything else - except 1D x ;D
To me, putting extra $1000ish to get much better AF system is worth every penny.
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
Interesting how experiences can vary. I sent the 5diii back with the feeling that there was no real life difference over my 5dii. After reviewing the results from an event I shot with both cameras I had no desire to upgrade at all.
Yes, the focus of course is faster. But especially having all these extra AF points in the same confined area around the center provided no benefit in my book. If anything it slowed emu down having to scroll through too many of them.
I'd like to see fewer AF points but further spread out across the screen.
But then again I have a feeling that future models will have even more "features" that I have no use for.
Upvote
0
7enderbender said:
Yes, they will, and perhaps include sensors so overloaded with pixels as to be of little practical use for most people. And I agree with you about AF points. I added a 6D to my 5DII for the better image quality and then replaced my 5DII with a 5DIII mainly to be better able to avoid focus/recompose and there seems little doubt that, as dslr focusing experiences go, the 5DIII/1Dx are still the best (better, anyway, than the Nikon equivalents in my limited - rental - experience). But the focus points still take up a small portion of the screen. I've also bought an Olympus OM-D, whose focus points are almost edge-to-edge and which focuses very fast and accurately and, as I have little interest in photographing things that move, must say that from that point of view it beats any dslr I've used. (Such coverage may require the camera to be mirrorless, but it's obviously the case that not all mirrorless cameras are good at it; I've recently been trying a Fuji X-e1 which has worse coverage and shockingly inaccurate autofocus - except for fairly large things close-up I've given up and resorted to manual focusing instead.)
As for the two lenses, I'm sure the new 24-70 is sharper, and for all I know it does windows too. It's not for me, though, and I don't think it would be if it were half the price. Perhaps I'm weird, but I find the range limiting at both ends, prefer to have IS and while there are obviously types of photography where maximum sharpness is important, I seldom take photos myself where minor differences in sharpness matter (sure, I often look at photos I've taken with some lenses and say to myself "wow, that's sharp", but the nagging question "so what?" is never that far away). Maybe I have an unusually good copy of the 24-105, but on all three FF Canons I've owned the images it makes are sharp enough that I'm disinclined to complain and I've had no problems at all with either speed or accuracy focusing in very low light; even though I have much faster lenses, and even though it's certainly not my favorite lens, it's probably my go-to lens for wandering around town at night - like the Energizer Bunny it just works....
Upvote
0
24 70 II are too goodRuined said:
i have 5D3 kit come with 24 105 and it not always sharp , i usually doing at F8 / F5.6 . for narrower DOF i have sigma 35 , sigma 50 ,canon 85L prime and a 70 200 2.8II . it is sad that my 24 105 was like T stop 5.6 , darker than i expected , overall going with F5.6 are quite good . also i have decent DOF by 105 @F4 which aperature was like 25mm same as 24 70 2.8 @70 2.8 . btw 105 i will have different view angle and for macro shot ,older 24 70 2.8 I blew me away while we both using F8
24 105 are cheap now , get one and it is a good lens (only without fast aperture , muti-purpose lens )
Upvote
0
I just bought Canon 24-70 f2.8 II - and it's super sharp! Almost like my 70-200 L II.
_________________________________________________________________
Foto Nunta Brasov | Fotograf Nunta | Foto video nunta | Foto video Brasov
_________________________________________________________________
Foto Nunta Brasov | Fotograf Nunta | Foto video nunta | Foto video Brasov
Upvote
0
A lens that is 7 years newer and costs 3x as much should be superior in every way.
24-105 is all the general purpose zoom I need. Don't forget the price of the 24-70 II (or 70-200 2.8 II for that matter) = a 24-105 + 70-200 f/4 IS + 85mm 1.8 and those are all rock solid lenses.
24-105 is all the general purpose zoom I need. Don't forget the price of the 24-70 II (or 70-200 2.8 II for that matter) = a 24-105 + 70-200 f/4 IS + 85mm 1.8 and those are all rock solid lenses.
Upvote
0
