Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II vs Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS

[YuengLinger]

If you asked 100 working photographers, PPA members, the kind who make money from local editorial and portraiture...The 24-105mm is likely STILL the overwhelming favorite! Because most use lights, and the extra reach trumps the extra f-stop. Lower light they'll switch to a favorite prime or the 70-200mm 2.8 IS.

Photojournalists and available light wedding photographers might go the other way, preferring f-2.8 for 24-70mm.

Y

 

[tpatana]

Some time ago I was wondering the same. I used to have the 24-105, and after reading reviews, especially one from Ron Martinsen, I decided to go for the 24-70 F4.

Why:
-price ($800 from B&H new)
-Sharper than 24-105
-0.7x macro(ish)
-IS

Why not:
-Not F2.8
-Not as sharp as 2.8 II
-Lose 70-105mm on my old lens.

The why category weighted more than the why nots, so bought one. Couldn't pay ~$1000 more for the 2.8 II.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Having trouble deciding whether to purchase the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II or the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS to go along with my 5D Mark 3. They are quite a big price difference, and i have seen third party lenses eg Tamron etc. but i always liked the Canon L lenses.
I currently do birthday, christening and engagement photography gigs and might be doing weddings in the future. I have a Canon 650D rocking with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 600EX flash, and wanted to upgrade to FF, but at the same time keeping the my 650D as a backup.
I also take photos on the dancefloor of people dancing and group photos with the flash, however i'm worried that getting the 24-70mm without IS would create the photos to be blurry.
I was also thinking of purchasing the 24-105mm and adding prime lenses for example the Canon 50mm 1.8, thoughts?
If you guys need anymore information let me know
Thanks

24-70 II is radically better. It's more than a stop faster (the 24-105L has a poor T-value). It has better AF due to f/2.8 AF and when paired with 5D3 it uses the high precision AF slip measurement correction. The edge performance is much better, especially near 24mm so it works a lot better for landscape work. It resists longitudinal chromatic aberration much better (the purple in front/green behind type that can occur anywhere in the frame).

I'd also easily get the Tamron 24-70 VC over the 24-105 IS. Also much better.

I'd also get the Cnaon 24-70 f/4 IS over the 24-105 IS, much better, cost isn't that much more, very small and light.

If price, weight, IS matter a ton maybe go for Canon 24-70 f/4 IS.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Although it seems your primary uses are actually more events and weddings, rather different from mine, but for these actually the f/2.8 helps too and so does the AF. For this I might look 24-70 II and if you can't manage it then I guess the Tamron.

 

[YuengLinger]

Having trouble deciding whether to purchase the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II or the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS to go along with my 5D Mark 3. They are quite a big price difference, and i have seen third party lenses eg Tamron etc. but i always liked the Canon L lenses.
I currently do birthday, christening and engagement photography gigs and might be doing weddings in the future. I have a Canon 650D rocking with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 600EX flash, and wanted to upgrade to FF, but at the same time keeping the my 650D as a backup.
I also take photos on the dancefloor of people dancing and group photos with the flash, however i'm worried that getting the 24-70mm without IS would create the photos to be blurry.
I was also thinking of purchasing the 24-105mm and adding prime lenses for example the Canon 50mm 1.8, thoughts?
If you guys need anymore information let me know
Thanks

24-70 II is radically better. It's more than a stop faster (the 24-105L has a poor T-value). It has better AF due to f/2.8 AF and when paired with 5D3 it uses the high precision AF slip measurement correction. The edge performance is much better, especially near 24mm so it works a lot better for landscape work. It resists longitudinal chromatic aberration much better (the purple in front/green behind type that can occur anywhere in the frame).

I'd also easily get the Tamron 24-70 VC over the 24-105 IS. Also much better.

I'd also get the Cnaon 24-70 f/4 IS over the 24-105 IS, much better, cost isn't that much more, very small and light.

If price, weight, IS matter a ton maybe go for Canon 24-70 f/4 IS.

Those fancy AF enhancements sound good on paper. Not sure how noticeable in action or on a print.

And, while I do find the overall feel of the 24-70mm 2.8 II images to be slightly more dynamic, pleasing, it falls down a bit with detail shots from 50-70mm. Working at close to MFD guarantees images that are a bit soft--even under controlled conditions with a tripod. With good lighting, if going back and forth from portraits, modest action, and detail shots, let me have the good old 24-105.

Still, you have a point, and if I had only one lens to take pics of my little daughter in available lighting, it would be the 24-70 2.8 II.

I'd say the 24-70mm f/4 IS is not a contender. Not even close in terms of usefulness, IQ edge or not.

The 24-105 vs 24-70 is surely one of Canon's more complex dilemmas!

 

[PhotoOp]

It is a tough decision. Back in the latter days of the 24-70 v1, this user opted for 24-105. The decision was based on the extended range, IS and a $300 lower price tag. Up to that point, nothing faster than f3.5 was in his bag, so a constant f4 seemed to be a no brainer. It was a good decision until the lens went to my new 5d Mk iii 6 months later. Within one month there was a felt need for the 24-70 f2.8ii. The specs on the new lens were excellent so it was purchased and replaced the 24-105 on the 5diii.

Both lenses were carried around the world. Frankly, in that range, the 24-70 never left the 5dii. The 24-105 was always there but never used. The pictures from the 24-70ii are just better. The faster lens usually outweighs the added focal length because in most situations I was able to get closer anyway. The limitations of f4 over f2.8 are more significant especially with a steady hand and multiple techniques that usually work stabilizing a hand-held camera. Even though it is hard to describe, there is a definite reason that the 24-70 f2.8Lii is more than double the price of the 24-205L. If cost isn't a factor get the 24-70 f2.8ii. Save a little longer if you need or buy a used 24-105 to resell when you can afford the other.

Now if you are considering the original 24-70L, the 24-105L makes more sense.

One final thought. On the last trip the 7d with the 24-105L was the only gear taken due to concerns about theft in that particular country. The daylight pictures were great and I enjoyed the extended focal range but the indoor pictures and the evening\night pictures were so lacking in so many ways. I so missed the 5dii and the 24-70 f2.8ii lens. This user won't make that mistake again.

My point: owning both, the 24-105 is almost always in the camera bag. And with a few more exotic L lenses (T&S fisheye and macro) it has been so replaced. Just my two cents from experience.

 

[triggermike]

The OP has a 17-55 2.8 IS lens which is an L quality lens which can be used on his APS-C camera in low light. He can get the 24-105 in a kit with his 5D3 for $600!

 

[FTb-n]

I upgraded from a 7D/17-55 f2.8 IS to a 5D3/24-105 f4 IS kit lens and found this move to be a nice improvement. The 24-105 on a current FF is very similar to the 17-55 on crop, but the former offers a little better reach, slightly smaller DOF, and about a one stop improvement in clean high ISO. With the same focal length, f2.8 on crop offers a DOF similar to f4.4 on FF. Since FF bodies tend to offer a two-stop improvement in high ISO (for RAW images), even at f4, the 24-104 still offers better low light performance than f2.8 on crop bodies. In addition, the FF body offers sharper images with greater color depth.

I have since added the 24-70 f2.8 II to my kit. Unlike many on this site who made this upgrade, I'm unable to part with the 24-105. It is still my preferred general purpose lens, especially for travel. The extra reach is nice when I want to leave longer lenses home and the IS enables hand-held slow shutter motion blur for shooting landscapes with moving water.

However as a short zoom for events and sports, the 24-70 f2.8 II can't be beat. I shoot a lot of both and typically carry two FF bodies, one with the 24-70 and the second with the 70-200 f2.8 II. The lack of IS on the 24-70 was a concern. But, with event photography, the faster f2.8 is an asset because it enables the faster shutter speeds necessary to prevent subject blur. At events, I rarely shoot slower than 1/100 sec, which is fast enough to prevent blur from camera movement with the 24-70.

I have also noticed that the 24-70 focuses quicker than the 24-105 because it can take advantage of f2.8 focus points. Plus, this 24-70 is a particularly bright lens. Wide open, it is at least 1/3 of a stop brighter than the 70-200 2.8.

I can't give the OP a definitive answer. The 24-70 is the better event lens and a great compliment to the 70-200 (which is, by far, my most used lens). But, the 24-105 is no slouch. On a FF body, it is a nice step up from the 17-55, it's a great general purpose lens, and it's cheap.

 

[Robert Welch]

I find the 24-70/2.8 II will focus more consistently than the 24-105L. Especially in difficult light conditions with subjects in motion (i.e., at most events such as weddings), I can get more keepers with the 24-70 II. That said, the 24-105L is a good lens, just in a direct comparison the 24-70 II is better IQ. Also, as was stated, you get more light with the 24-70 II, at f/4 it's brighter than the images from the 24-105L at f/4.

One other thing, in combination with the 24-70 I like having the 85/1.8. Would love to have the 85/1.2, however I've heard it doesn't focus as quickly as the 1.8, so I've not ventured there yet, plus the additional size and cost. But having the 85 on one body with the 24-70 on the other is a stellar combination for weddings and other events. I am waiting to see if Sigma releases an 85 Art lens, and see how the performance is on that. Will be worth considering, we'll see.

 

[martti]

You probably have made your decision already.
My findings thus far. My Canon 5DIII does not want to focus in bad light with lenses less than f/4.0
The L-lenses f/1.4 it is a different story totally.
the Old version 24-70 f/2.8 picture quality jus was not anymore 'there'.
the 24-105 f/4.0 picture quality is not there any longer, either.
With all of the 24-70mm's tested, the pisture quality of the 24-105mm was inferior to the -70 lenses cropped to the same viewing angle.

After hesitating between thebest of middle range zooms and the one with the stabilizer, I got the stabilizer.
The pictue quality is more than acceptable. Even low-light pictures aree turning out as keepers and sellers.

Surprised am I.

 

[ben805]

The Versatility of the 24-105 is very hard to beat, I sold and bought it 3 times and keep coming back to it, I'd rather have the extra range than an extra stop. In low light condition where speed is really needed I'd rather use primes. range is small from the 24-70 and f/2.8 isn't all that fast so it is one of those lens that I never get attracted to. ;D

 

[unfocused]

The Versatility of the 24-105 is very hard to beat... I'd rather have the extra range than an extra stop...

And that's my dilemma. I expect that 90% or more of the time, I'm shooting this lens at either 24mm or 105mm. I need that extra reach. Yeah, I wish the 24-105 were faster, but I just can't see a 24-70 for my purposes.

 

[verysimplejason]

The Versatility of the 24-105 is very hard to beat... I'd rather have the extra range than an extra stop...

And that's my dilemma. I expect that 90% or more of the time, I'm shooting this lens at either 24mm or 105mm. I need that extra reach. Yeah, I wish the 24-105 were faster, but I just can't see a 24-70 for my purposes.

I've shot with the older 24-70L mark 1 and 24-105L. Versatility and weight brought me back to 24-105L. It's my favorite lens and most used lens for events. Using strobes, I always use my primes. For events, the high ISO capability of my 6d is mostly enough.