Canon 6d + 24-105mm IS or 24-70mm f2.8 II

[lordsn]

Hi All,

I am little confused between 24-105mm IS or 24-70mm f2.8 II for canon 6d. Could you experts out there differentiate the use between both of them particularly with canon 6d. I wonder how much loss would be the absence of IS in 24-70mm f2.8 II?

Note:
Price doesnt matters.
I like do lot of nature, architect, landscape and portrait.

 

[digital paradise]

I had the 24-105 for about 5 years. Just sold it for the 24-70 II. The 24-105 did me well but it IMO was it was pretty bad @ 24 on a FF. Lots of distortion and soft corners. You can fix barrel distortion but people on the outsides still looked like they weighed an additional 30 lbs.

I had been looking for a landscape lens for years for my FF for years. Used a Tokina 11-16 on my crop in the meantime. I rented the 24 TSE II and Zeiss 21. Both excellent but one was a specialty lens, the other a little costly for the the features. I'm glad I held out. The 24-70 II is not perfect but it is pretty good. Has some barrel dist and vignetting but corner to corner a very decent lens. Sold my Tokina and now I have a versatile workhorse. I'm upset it did not come with IS but have found I'm not really missing it. Still would have liked it for the price.

24mm 2.8

You might want to check this out. Sample shots get better after several posts.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1225646

I posted some shots on Post #308

 

[Dylan777]

If you want the sharpest zoom lens at f2.8, then 24-70 f2.8 II is the one. No other zoom lenses on current market can match Canon 24-70 f2.8 II yet

 

[Robert Welch]

For architecture and landscape, the 24-70L II is the clear choice. For nature, I don't know, depends on what kind of nature you are talking about.

For portraits, it's almost a toss up. I don't think extreme critical sharpness is the most important thing for portraits, in fact just a little softness in the image can be preferable, not blurry, but not overly crisp, if you get my meaning. So in this respect, the improved sharpness of the 24-70L II isn't as important as the other features, which would be f/2.8 vs. IS & additional focal length when compared to the 24-105L. Frankly, for portraits on a cropped sensor camera, I'd say the 24-70L, but on a full frame the 24-105L might be just a little more useful, the extra mm on the long end can make a lot of difference for a nice portrait, particularly with the added benefit of IS. At 70mm, you are just a little short to get a nice head & shoulder shot, definitely for a close headshot. You get a little more out of focus background at 2.8, but at 4.0 it is reasonable for a nice portrait, especially zoomed out to 80-105mm. For bigger group shots at the wide end, the distortion is an issue with the 24-105L, the 24-70L II is probably better, but that would mainly be at 24mm I suspect, which isn't a good portrait focal length anyway.

For me, overall, I prefer the 24-105L for portrait work, but for more general purpose work, the 24-70L II is probably the better lens, over all.

 

[Botts]

This depends entirely on your use case. If dollars weren't an issue for me I'd keep the 24-105mm for casual night shots at a place like Disneyland, and a 24-70 f/2.8 II for event photography.

If you're like me, and like to travel light whenever possible, and may be taking night time photos of landscapes handheld, the IS benefit is immense. I'd take a good 3-stop IS improvement over a 1-stop aperture improvement all day long.

If you're shooting people giving a speech or other photos of people on stage, the motion stopping ability of the extra stop of aperture far outweigh the IS advantage, your shutter times will be fast enough IS is generally moot.

Right now, I'm comparing my photos taken on two recent photo trips, one with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and one with the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS.

I am seriously considering the Tamron as the cost is so similar, and with the Tamron you gain that extra aperture stop. Also, I found the working distance on the Canon's macro mode to be so short that it rendered it useless to me as a very casual macro shooter.

 

[Loswr]

For me, overall, I prefer the 24-105L for portrait work, but for more general purpose work, the 24-70L II is probably the better lens, over all.

Not sure whether to be frustrated or grateful after reading this. I'm getting the 24-70 II, and had planned to sell my 24-105 this week. But you've got a great point - the flexibility to go from wide to a headshot is very useful. I'd not use it outdoors (where I prefer fast primes to blur the background), but rather indoors with a backdrop and monolight+Speedlites in softboxes. In that situation, I'm stopped down a bit because I've got plenty of light and no need for background blur, and as you say, perfect sharpness isn't usually necessary or even desirable.

If nothing else, I suppose I should hang onto the 24-105 for a while.

(By the way, I'm grateful - thanks!)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The only reason I'd get a 24-70mmL is for low light, or sharpness wide open. For landscapes at f/16, you are limited by diffraction, so pretty much any lens will be good. But, at f/2.8 there is little choice in a zoom.
Another limitation of the 24-70mm L MK II is the very poor IQ at or near MFD (Its awful at f/2.8). The 24-105mmL is much better in that regard.

 

[digital paradise]

For me, overall, I prefer the 24-105L for portrait work, but for more general purpose work, the 24-70L II is probably the better lens, over all.

Not sure whether to be frustrated or grateful after reading this. I'm getting the 24-70 II, and had planned to sell my 24-105 this week. But you've got a great point - the flexibility to go from wide to a headshot is very useful. I'd not use it outdoors (where I prefer fast primes to blur the background), but rather indoors with a backdrop and monolight+Speedlites in softboxes. In that situation, I'm stopped down a bit because I've got plenty of light and no need for background blur, and as you say, perfect sharpness isn't usually necessary or even desirable.

If nothing else, I suppose I should hang onto the 24-105 for a while.

(By the way, I'm grateful - thanks!)

I would have kept my 24-105 if I had not needed funding for the new lens. Actually I did a lot of upgrades last fall.

 

[DCM1024]

We originally purchased the 24-105 as a budget compromise vs. 24-70 and 70-200. It has been such a useful lens that we no longer consider selling it. New lens purchases are to supplement it's abilities. It is awesome being able to zoom from wide to portrait on ff, a great, light weight, all-around, go anywhere lens. I think Canon made a wise choice in selecting it as the standard kit lens for ff, plus the purchaser saves money on the kit.

 

[Robert Welch]

For me, overall, I prefer the 24-105L for portrait work, but for more general purpose work, the 24-70L II is probably the better lens, over all.

Not sure whether to be frustrated or grateful after reading this. I'm getting the 24-70 II, and had planned to sell my 24-105 this week. But you've got a great point - the flexibility to go from wide to a headshot is very useful. I'd not use it outdoors (where I prefer fast primes to blur the background), but rather indoors with a backdrop and monolight+Speedlites in softboxes. In that situation, I'm stopped down a bit because I've got plenty of light and no need for background blur, and as you say, perfect sharpness isn't usually necessary or even desirable.

If nothing else, I suppose I should hang onto the 24-105 for a while.

(By the way, I'm grateful - thanks!)

I'm guessing you might be able to get around $500-$600 for a used 24-105L, at that price you might as well keep it, I'd say. I just bought a new one for $850 (to replace one that needs to be fixed, AF motor went out), they go for $800 in the kit with a 6D/5D3, pretty easy to get new ones for around that price range if you look, even without the kit. While the 24-70L II is the better lens IQ wise, the 24-105L is THE bargain.

 

[Dylan777]

For architecture and landscape, the 24-70L II is the clear choice. For nature, I don't know, depends on what kind of nature you are talking about.

For portraits, it's almost a toss up. I don't think extreme critical sharpness is the most important thing for portraits, in fact just a little softness in the image can be preferable, not blurry, but not overly crisp, if you get my meaning. So in this respect, the improved sharpness of the 24-70L II isn't as important as the other features, which would be f/2.8 vs. IS & additional focal length when compared to the 24-105L. Frankly, for portraits on a cropped sensor camera, I'd say the 24-70L, but on a full frame the 24-105L might be just a little more useful, the extra mm on the long end can make a lot of difference for a nice portrait, particularly with the added benefit of IS. At 70mm, you are just a little short to get a nice head & shoulder shot, definitely for a close headshot. You get a little more out of focus background at 2.8, but at 4.0 it is reasonable for a nice portrait, especially zoomed out to 80-105mm. For bigger group shots at the wide end, the distortion is an issue with the 24-105L, the 24-70L II is probably better, but that would mainly be at 24mm I suspect, which isn't a good portrait focal length anyway.

For me, overall, I prefer the 24-105L for portrait work, but for more general purpose work, the 24-70L II is probably the better lens, over all.

That would be 85L, 135L and/or 70-200 f2.8 IS II - NOT 24-105

 

[Dylan777]

For me, overall, I prefer the 24-105L for portrait work, but for more general purpose work, the 24-70L II is probably the better lens, over all.

Not sure whether to be frustrated or grateful after reading this. I'm getting the 24-70 II, and had planned to sell my 24-105 this week. But you've got a great point - the flexibility to go from wide to a headshot is very useful. I'd not use it outdoors (where I prefer fast primes to blur the background), but rather indoors with a backdrop and monolight+Speedlites in softboxes. In that situation, I'm stopped down a bit because I've got plenty of light and no need for background blur, and as you say, perfect sharpness isn't usually necessary or even desirable.

If nothing else, I suppose I should hang onto the 24-105 for a while.

(By the way, I'm grateful - thanks!)

I'm suprised you take that long to pull trigger on the sharpest zoom. I don't see the point keeping 24-105, unless you want to collect dust with it ;D