Canon 25-105 L or 24-70 L ii for a landscape lens?

[NancyP]

Analyze your focal length use. Could you get more use out of a fast 50mm prime? Or do you need a walkaround zoom more than a fast prime? This is assuming that you shoot more than landscape. The gap between 35mm and 70mm is nicely filled with a 50mm lens.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

A couple of months ago I sold my 24-105 to help fund a 24-70 F2.8 V2.
Is it worth it? Yes. However the 24-70 V2 is much more expensive, has no IS (Yipee!) and needs new filters (as you have noted).
The 24-70 V2 is an upgrade but, at smaller apertures, not necessarily a huge one. I am pleased with my purchase and feel it was well worth the price. Others may pixel peep and state that there is not much difference at F8 or so - they may be right. However my landscape images are looking better and that's all I care about. Very non technical but images now look sharper and have more life and colour rendition is superb.

Incidentally a local professional photographer/friend gave my 24-70 F2.8 V2 a run against his Mk1 - he is not happy with me!

I have to agree with this. The 24-70 2.8II is much better than the 24-105. I own both and I'm trying to sell the 24-105 at the moment. Is it worth the extra money though? Only you can answer that. For most people I suspect the answer would be no. For me it was a big yes but then I'm using it at f2.8 quite often and not for landscapes as much.

The OP is specifically asking for landscapes, the f2.8 does nothing for him and all you guys saying there is a massive difference are simply not comparing realistic scenarios against each other. There is not a noticeable difference worth a damn between the 24-70 f2.8 MkII and the 24-105 at f8 at any focal length other than 24mm, but even that isn't huge. But as I already said, if 24mm is a primary shooting focal length then the 24TS-E will really open up some landscaping possibilities.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

To date I have only used my Canon 24-70 F2.8 V2 for landscapes, except for about 1 hour when I shot some portraits of a friend's toddler. I normally shoot at F8 or so unless there is a specific need and almost never more open than F5.6.
There are many links/posts etc etc (ad nauseum) that state there is no difference - so what? My images have taken a significant step up = me happy!
If you don't believe this then try one for yourself - don't read what "experts" say try it. If you have already tried one and cannot see any difference then I would (respectfully) suggest there is a problem somewhere.
Now whether the difference is worth the money is an entirely different question. To me it it certainly is, the OP may or may not agree but they have asked for opinions as to which of the 2 is better for landscapes and the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 most certainly is, the 24-70 F2.8 L Mk1 is also shaded by the V2 at all focal lengths and apertures according to my Pro Photographer friend who is currently saving for the V2. I shouldn't have let him borrow mine!

 

[jd7]

What about 24-70f4??

Small, better than 24-105, has IS, and a macro mode. f2.8 is generally wasted when photographing lanscapes

And add to the 24-70/f4 the 16-35/f4 so that you can get 24mm without distortion.

Perhaps, but as the 24-70s go, the 24-70/f4 actually does very well for distortion at 24 according to LensRentals ...
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

 

[Ryan85]

Thank you all the advice

 

[steliosk]

keep the 24-105

avoid using it at 24mm because it suffers from distortion.
However you have the 16-35 for the 24-35 range.

Your gap is between 35-70mm
Not a wise investment buying a 24-70 2.8 II for that gap

The 35-70 gap at f/8 f/10 is excellent with 24-105L and if you want to carry only one lens, the 24...somthing isn't wide enough for travel photography.

Use the 16-35 f/4 as primary landscape and travel lens which does the job, and everything else only when needed.

 

[jeffa4444]

Just to confuse the conversation we deal with a number of the best professional landscape photographers in the UK and ALL those using Canon have one T/S lens and its the 17mm lens not the 24mm. Companies like Lee Filters do adaptor rings to filter the TS-E 17mm f4L (its front element protrudes) (the TS-E 24mm F3.5L uses regular wide angle adaptor rings). However logically the 24mm is a more manageable lens and cheaper.

 

[ktrphoto]

Adding a 24-70 to your existing outfit would add little to its capabilities, but would add a lot to its weight (especially if you go for an f/2.8 version). It would also add to the headache of deciding what to carry and what to leave at home, every time you go out. Sometimes less choice is better for your photography.

As for replacing your 24-105, that would be sensible only if you desperately needed the greater freedom from distortion (but for landscapes that is not the problem it would be if you were shooting (say) architecture), the Macro of the f/4 version or the greater action-stopping, background-blurring speed of the f/2.8 version.

Nevertheless, whatever Ken Rockwell might say (and he is no idiot, however much he might contradict himself, or change his mind, or rant about something, or hate Sigma for no good reason) a 24-70 is a very useful lens. 70mm and 24mm are hugely different angles of view. It is not always possible to "zoom with your feet" and in any case, doing that changes the perspective. Getting closer or further away with a 50mm lens does not give the same results as using a 24mm or a 70mm from the same spot.

When I returned to using Canon SLRs recently (after years of Leica rangefinders) I used only prime lenses (35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 macro). I quickly realised that a zoom would be more versatile and obtained a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. That is a wonderful lens, even if it gets a lot of bad press. It is light, focusses quickly and silently, covers a great range of focal lengths, and is almost as good in the corners as in the centre. It might not give the greatest resolution or sharpness, but if you focus properly and either keep the camera very still or use a very fast shutter, it can give terrific results.

Nevertheless I recently replaced it with the 24-70 f/4 IS USM Macro. I hardly miss the extra reach from 70-105. It is not so big a gap as it might seem. It is similar to going from 35mm to 50mm. The extra reach at the other end is useful, but by itself would not justify the change, especially as the new lens is not cheap, is much bulkier and not so nice to handle as the 28-105, and is getting on for twice the weight. It is a tiny bit sharper and resolves a tiny bit more detail, but that would not be worth the change either.

WHat makes it worth-while is the IS, which really does give the equivalent of 4 extra stops. For static subjects I can hand-hold it as effectively as an f/1.0 lens. The other great plus is the Macro mode. All over the web you'll see it criticised for not giving enough working distance. But if you are travelling relatively light then the ability to get excellent magnification (about 0.7x) with your main lens saves you from carrying a longer specialised macro lens.

There has been a lot of hand-wringing in this thread about covering all the focal lengths economically and practically. But you don't need to cover all the focal lengths. Recently I have travelled with just the 24-70 doing street and landscape photography and for those subjects I have never really needed anything longer. At first it felt odd, but I soon got used to it. I just concentrate on looking for good shots in the 24-70 range. If I really don't want to risk coming back without any images I'll slip a light backup SLR with the 50mm f/1.8 into the back pack.

And I get more good shots with just the one zoom than I ever got when I was younger and more foolish, and used to lug around a pair of film Nikons and 20mm, 35mm PC, 50mm, 105mm macro and 180mm f/2.8 lenses, or an even heavier set of zooms

 

[RGF]

A couple of months ago I sold my 24-105 to help fund a 24-70 F2.8 V2.
Is it worth it? Yes. However the 24-70 V2 is much more expensive, has no IS (Yipee!) and needs new filters (as you have noted).
The 24-70 V2 is an upgrade but, at smaller apertures, not necessarily a huge one. I am pleased with my purchase and feel it was well worth the price. Others may pixel peep and state that there is not much difference at F8 or so - they may be right. However my landscape images are looking better and that's all I care about. Very non technical but images now look sharper and have more life and colour rendition is superb.

+1

Have the 24-70 V2, sold the 24-105. Glad I did for serious work. For walking around I miss the 24-105. Lighter and greater.