Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM vs Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM

[awinphoto]

This conversations and comparison has been beaten to death as much as the 7D/5D conversation has if not more... 2 trains of thought... first, people say if you need 2.8, the 24-105 just cant do that and IS wont freeze motion... then again 2.8 to 4 is only 1 stop and wont really freeze motion any more than f4 UNLESS f4 is really on the cusp and you need 2.8 to get that extra little bit... Secondly, 2.8, especially on full frame cameras is still razor thin, especially on the long end, so yeah you can freeze (maybe) people dancing at a reception but you have difficulties getting the eyes in focus due to the low light and constant motion... Is the 2.8 really an advantage then? I've tested samples of both lenses in my studio for a good week... IQ between the two are negligible and dont forget extra heft and bulk... To be fair, I really dislike how both lenses extend when zooming... I prefer internal zooming when possible... and at least the 24-70 hood protects the lens when zooming, but then you get the reverse zoom which isn't for me either... To me I compromised and got the 24-105 as it's the lesser of two evils and i'm not afraid of using flash to get more light.

 

[WTW]

24-70 for SURE 8) Worked with a 24-105 to shoot big groups but the 24-70 is much sharper in the corners and in tha middle.

 

[Flake]

I've had both of these lenses at the same time, and for me the 24 - 70mm L just can't manage with the low light levels we have here. People will say open it up to f/2.8, but that's no use when you need depth of field, the IS on the 24 - 105mm is a life saver, with keepers possible as slow as 1/6th sec. It's lighter cheaper and smaller than the 24 - 70mm, plus that extra 35mm of zoom. In addition the 24 - 70mm L suffers from poor QC and has field curvature issues. In terms of low light it's only one Iso stop difference, most times there isn't quick movement in dark places so it's not an issue, and if it was I'd be using a prime instead.

For me the 24 - 105mm f/4 L IS is capable of easily producing commercially acceptable images & why does anyone need more than that? The funny thing is that many people who claim they need the very best equipment have no idea how to inspect their images for technical errors! If you really do believe you need the ultimate in IQ production perhaps you shouldn't be shooting with Canon?

 

[Eagle Eye]

Had both, sold the 24-70mm. I just wasn't using it. If I wanted a fast aperture, I wanted faster than f/2.8 and would go to a prime. In short, if I was using a zoom, it was the 24-105. More reach, lighter, IS, less expensive. With the money you save, buy an inexpensive prime for low light.

 

[DavidM]

24/105mm f/4 IS - is more of a rock solid lens with less QC issues.

 

[JR]

I had both zoom lens for a while. I am only a sample of 1 (!) but for me the 24-70mm f2.8L was much sharper. I love the idea of the 24-105 with IS, but at f4 it was simply not fast enought to stop the action of my baby girl for inside picture. I may also have gotten a bad copy of the 24-105 because 90% of my shot were not sharp at all. Judging by all the positive comments on the 24-105, I must have had a bad copy.

Again just a sample of one...

 

[savale]

as portret photographer I owned the canon 24-70 2.8 for a while, but I always ended up using my 35/50/85 primes. Mainly because at 2.8 a prime outperforms this zoom so easy. The optical zoom range is a bit limited too. I might want to buy a 24-105 one day just because it have IS, which helps a lot for portret I think.
My wish: 50 or 85 primes with IS <3