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

[Ryan85]

I already have a 24-105 L, 16-35 f/4 L and 70-200 2.8 Is L ii for my landscape kit. I'm wondering if the 24-70 ii would be worth investing in at this point for landscape shoots considering the price and of it and needing to purchase 82mm filters if I get it. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you, Ryan

 

[privatebydesign]

Not in my opinion. You'd be much better looking at a 24 TS-E MkII to bring something new to your kits capabilities.

 

[dpc]

I think you've got reasonable coverage as it is. Buying a 24-70 would be redundant in my view. As previously indicated, a tilt-shift might be something to look at but I'd rent one before buying.

 

[Pixel]

24-70 L II is one of the best lenses Canon has ever made.
24-105 has considerable distortion issues at 24mm in my opinion.

 

[privatebydesign]

24-70 L II is one of the best lenses Canon has ever made.
24-105 has considerable distortion issues at 24mm in my opinion.

No it isn't, well the three different copies I have tested weren't. At f5.6 and f8 my MkI is every but as sharp as the MkII, the 100L macro sharper, as is the 70-200 f2.8IS, and a whole host of other lenses.

Besides, at f5.6 and f8 there is so little to choose between them it as good as makes no difference. As for distortion, well that is so easily removed now, again, it is a non issue.

 

[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!

 

[dpc]

If you decide you want a 24-70 (I'm assuming you'd sell or trade in the 24-105), you might want to consider the Tamron version or even the Tokina one that was just announced. The savings would be considerable. The Tamron has a good reputation. The Tokina is a question mark at this point since nobody has seen one, but my experience with Tokina has been good. It might be worth the wait to see how it shakes out.

 

[benperrin]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

 

[benperrin]

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

Read the last part of my statement again. I'm saying that I don't think the upgrade is worth it for most people and the biggest benefit is the f2.8 vs the f4 of the 24-105. I also stated that I didn't use it for landscapes very often.

 

[gn100]

What about 24-70f4??

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

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Most landscape shooters want depth of field, and shoot to f/22 in extreme cases. At f/22, almost any lens will work. In fact, at f/8 most lenses are pretty similar.

I'd probably avoid a expensive zoom and get a low cost prime like a 35mm f/2 IS.

But, you have lenses that are pretty good at landscape apertures so don't spend $$$ on improvements unless you have a reason to need wide apertures.


A tilt-Shift brings some unique perspectives for landscape photography, so check them out.

 

[siegsAR]

The 24-70 f/2.8 or f/4 is really redundant Ryan. You can sell your 24-105 and fund a tilt-shift.

As for your middle focal lengths, the 40mm and/or 50mm STMs can be a very good in there, small, light, and also cheap. Not so easy with square filters though.

 

[bholliman]

I agree with the advice to look into purchase of a 24mm tilt-shift. As others have pointed out, stopped down to apertures used for the vast majority of landscape photography, the difference between the 24-70/2.8 II and 24-105 is almost non existent. I sold my 24-105 two years ago to fund a 24-70/2.8 II and am happy I did. But, landscape use wasn't why I switched, I wanted a lower light lens that I could use for shooting the kids and family events.

I use my 16-35/4 IS for the vast majority of my landscape work. I do shoot a few landscapes with my 24-70, it's very sharp and has low distortion at 24mm, but for your expressed usage I think you are fine with the lenses you have. I have a 24 TSE targeted as my next hardware acquisition. The movements of a TS lens make it possible to shoot at wider apertures and faster shutter speeds and still have a wide depth of field. This is very handy for situations where you need a faster shutter speed to freeze motion due to wind or other factors.

As siegsAR pointed out, you might consider selling the 24-105 to help fund a TSE purchase if you are using it primarily for landscape. That said, the 24-105 is a terrific general purpose lens, so if you are using it as a walk-around or for other purposes, you may not want to do that.

 

[Maximilian]

Hi Ryan,
hi to all!

Ryan, if I understand you right you already have the 16-35 f/4 L IS USM so the latest WA zoom with IS and an outstanding performance for landscape, as far as I've read throughout all the review.

After going through all the posts here arguing pro and con the 24-70 L II I can only agree to those saying that if you don't need or want the F2.8 for low light purposes, meaning something else than landscape, you should put your money somewhere else, like the mentioned TSE option.

Of course the 24-70 L II is outstanding in IQ (and price).
Of course it is performing better than the 24-105L.
But you should ask yourself
- do you need F2.8 in that range?
- do you need that better performance somewhere around F2.8 to 5.6? For landscape?
- or do you just need an argument to get it? (called GAS )

If I personally had enough money, I'd buy the 24-70 L II, because I really like top notch optics.
But I don't feel limited by the performance of my 24-105L.
And I like having the IS and I really want that extra 35 mm at the longer end.

So for me the decission would be clear...

 

[BeenThere]

I recall reading that Art Wolf carries the 24-105 for his landscapes in that focal length range. Have you seen any of his images?

 

[FTb-n]

I prefer the 24-105 f4L IS for landscapes because of the IS and the extra range.

I have both lenses and the 24-70 II is my preferred short lens for events and sports. I typically carry two bodies, one with the 24-70 and the second with the 70-200 f2.8L II IS. The latter gets the most use.

I don't specialize in landscapes and may not fully appreciate all the subtleties of the art. Logically, it makes more sense to use the sharper 24-70 on a tripod. But, when I shoot landscapes, I'm typically vacationing with my family and time is a factor. I don't want to make the family wait while I set up a shot. I find that the 24-105 with IS to be very handy in these cases. If landscapes involve moving water (waterfalls or streams) then I prefer shooting with slower shutter speeds for some controlled blur. This is where the 24-105 shines.

My copy of the 24-105 is quite sharp, so I cant complain that it's not up to the task. I love the 24-70 for low light people shots where blur isn't desired. It is particularly bright for a 2.8 lens. But, I find the 24-105 to be more versatile when I'm shooting landscapes.

 

[longtallkarl]

hi ryan,

i have the both the 24-105 and the 24-70 mkII, shoot a lot of landscapes, and make 20x30" prints. since i bought the 24-70, the 24-105 doesn't get a lot of use. the added sharpness is just too good for me to pass up. (for some reason, despite being a "landscape photographer" i rarely close down beyond f8, and am frequently at about 5.6) i also have the 17 and 24 ts-e's, which are really great tools for doing things that you can't do with other lenses, and are both super sharp.

however, if i had your current kit (16-35 is, 24-105 is, 70-200 II is) and had the budget to add one lens, it would be the 24 tse. i wouldn't sell the 24-105 to get it, as that would leave a gap between 35 and 70. if you had to sell a lens to upgrade the kit, then i would sell the 24-105 and get the 24-70 mkII.

just my $.02

karl

 

[sunnyVan]

Depends on what you want to shoot. If you just want day time landscape, 24-105 is good enough when stopped down. But if you shoot night sky you will need 2.8. Sure, you could also get a prime like 24 1.4 or tilt shift, but I'd rather have something more versatile. For me, the 24-70ii does exactly what it's supposed to do--a bit of everything from landscape, portrait, low light events, etc at good enough quality. I bought it for versatility and convenience. If you only shoot daytime landscape, you need to consider more thoroughly before commiting to an expensive lens. Plus the long end at 100mm is incredibly useful for landscape.

 

[D.]

I have both the 24-105 f4L and 24-70 II and have good copies of both lenses. For my lenses, from 2.8-5.6 the 24-70 II is clearly better, at f8 the 24-70 II is a tiny bit better (its often hard to see any difference after processing) and at f11 I can not discern any meaningful difference. In actual use, when shooting landscapes handheld, the most noticeable difference in image quality for me between the 2 lenses is that the AF seems a little more reliable on the 24-70 II and the IS on the 24-105 f4L helps prevent blur from camera shake. Since you already have the 16-35mm IS I wouldn't get the 24-70 II solely for your landscape use. That said, when Roger from Lens Rentals says the 24-70 II is the "is the best standard-range zoom ever made. By any manufacturer. Ever." and you shoot Canon, its hard not to buy it.