Question for owners of EF 24-105mm who also acquired EF 24-70mm II

[Triggyman]

Hi there.

I'm pretty sure there are people here who had a 24-105mm before and bought the 24-70mm II. I have some questions:

1) Does it make sense to own both lenses (in case it will be difficult to sell the 24-105mm). I also have the 100mm f2.8L Macro for little subjects.
2) If you sold the 24-105mm, did you miss it later on?

At the present my 24-105mm has 98% utilization rate on the 5D3 because it's the only one I have, it's a versatile general purpose lens. But I *want* better with the 24-70mm II despite the lack of IS (I can get around that). Not need. Want! (haha).

I heard that the 24-70 II at f/4 gives much better image quality than the 24-105mm at f/5.6. Is this true?

I am not a professional photographer, just a serious amateur who loves cameras, pictures, and photography for more than 30 years.

Thank you!

 

[Loswr]

The 24-105L was my most-used lens until I got the 24-70/2.8L II. Whether or not it makes sense to have both depends on what you shoot. The IS of the 24-105 makes it useful for static subjects in low light with no tripod. In a studio situation, where you have lots of light and a backdrop, meaning you can stop down to f/8 or narrower, the IQ differences are minimal (the 24-105 is very sharp stopped down), and the longer tele end is very useful - you can go from a group portrait to an individual headshot with one lens.

Having stated that, after a few months of not using my 24-105L, I sold it...and haven't regretted it at all.

 

[Eldar]

I basically did what Neuro did. I was very fond of my 24-105, but I wanted more than f4 and the lens is not very good wide open. Stopped down it produced great results. After I got the 24-70 f2.8L II the 24-105 stayed on the shelf collecting dust. Some people say they miss IS on the 24-70, but that has never been an issue for me. Something is moving in my images almost all the time, so I need a respectable shutter speed anyway.

I thought I would be missing the 70-105 range, but that has actually not been an issue. The 24-70 2.8L II is a phenomenal lens in every way. Only thing I would want is the magnification you get on the 24-70 f4 IS. That would make it the perfect walkaround lens for me.

I sold the 24-105 after a couple of (unused) months.

 

[J.R.]

I have both and still use both. The usage of the 24-105 is now restricted to travel situations where I am without a tripod and/or need the additional focal length.

In any controlled or reasonably lit environment (till the time IS is not required), the 24-70 II certainly trumps the 24-105 in ways more than one (except that it doesn't shoot at 71-105mm).

I'm not considering selling the 24-105 anytime soon.

 

[candyman]

I have both and still use both. The usage of the 24-105 is now restricted to travel situations where I am without a tripod and/or need the additional focal length.

In any controlled or reasonably lit environment (till the time IS is not required), the 24-70 II certainly trumps the 24-105 in ways more than one (except that it doesn't shoot at 71-105mm).

I'm not considering selling the 24-105 anytime soon.

+1 (though I don't have the 24-70 MK II but instead the Tamron 24-70VC)


I find the 24-105 to be excellent urban walk around lens and so not considering selling the 24-105.

 

[ForumMuppet]

If you use the 24-105mm as your primary lens I would troll back through your images and see how many of them are in the 70-105mm range from that lens. That would tell you how much you would miss it if you were to sell it.

 

[candyman]

If you use the 24-105mm as your primary lens I would troll back through your images and see how many of them are in the 70-105mm range from that lens. That would tell you how much you would miss it if you were to sell it.

What was going through your mind? ;D

 

[RC]

I'm in the same boat as the OP. It's just a matter of time until I get a 24-70 II, probably when the next rebate pops up. For those of you who sold your 24-105s, what percentage did you recover since CL and eBay are flooded with so many "new" kit lens. I'm inclined just to keep my 24-105 (as a backup / travel lens) since I'll lose so much on the resale.

 

[Triggyman]

This is great, being given advice out of valuable experience. Thanks!

Neuroanatomist and Eldar: What I see is that despite the loss of 71-105mm and IS you preferred the 24-70mm II as a general purpose lens. That is encouraging. When I do take the plunge (sometime next Spring) I will see how much use (or lack thereof) for the 24-105.

JR and Candyman: Thanks for the counter argument. You give a good reason for keeping the 24-105mm along with the 24-70. What I see is keeping both doesn't look like it's a bad idea after all. This will fall in the "look and see" period after acquiring the 24-70.

ForumMuppet: I know a vast majority of my shots are 24-35-50mm. I occassionally used 85 for headshot (not too much bokeh) and 105mm if I'm lazy walking to a far away subject (but still too short)

 

[dhachey77]

OK, I have both lenses (and an older 28-135). Originally I was ambivalent about the 24-70 II and had it listed on the FM B&S forum, but retracted the sale. I decided to keep it for landscape work. My early testing showed the keeper rate was lower than I liked, probably due to lack of IS, and I had trouble accepting the cost. So I decided to dust off my old pre-IS shooting skills and practice a bit with it. Now I use both lenses. The 24-70 II is used for landscape and artsy stuff, while the 24-105 is used for environmental shooting and as a general walk about lens. Overall I really like the 24-70, it's one of the sharpest lenses I have (except for the 70-200 II and 200-400), and I'm using it more now for all work in that FL range. When I really need a wide angle landscape lens I do a 3 shot vertical pano and stitch. The 24-70 takes a bit of practice to use if you have become reliant on IS, but it's worth every penny I paid for it. Good luck with your decision.

P.S. As others have said, the resale value of the 24-105's has plummeted, so it's worth keeping as a backup lens.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I have both. I got the 24-70 to replace my 17-55 as a social event lens when I moved up to FF. The lack of IS is less of a concern since people move around, but still, it was nice to be able to "drag the shutter" to lower ISO whenever people posed.

As for the difference between it and the 24-105, the 24-70 is better at 24 and distorts a little less. I find it has sharper corners at the wider apertures. However, 70mm (lack of sufficient reach in large spaces) and lack of IS prevent it from fully replacing the 24-105 for me, which still has a use (general outdoor photography, travel). But the 24-70 wins in the indoor, tight environments of events.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I still have my 24-105L. For outdoor use in bright sun, its great as a walk-around lens. I haven't used it since I bought my 24-70L though. I just can't part with it.

 

[ForumMuppet]

I had originally bought the 24-105 last summer for around $1100. Then I bought a 5D3 w/ 24-105 as the kit. The difference in price of the kit and non-kit was $800. A coworker was looking at getting that lens so I sold him my "old" one for the kit price difference of $800 and I kept the one that came with the 5D3 in the kit. You could either look at it as I took a $300 loss on the sale, or that I just traded it for a newer one and the price was a wash. If I now sell the 24-105 that came with the kit is where I would see taking the loss because no way I would get $1100 for it. So, what I have decided to do is keep it for a backup camera that I keep in my desk at work for those days I want to go shooting at lunch. That also gives me an excuse to buy a work camera body to keep in my desk with this lens.

 

[Loswr]

I had originally bought the 24-105 last summer for around $1100. Then I bought a 5D3 w/ 24-105 as the kit. The difference in price of the kit and non-kit was $800.

That's why I'm not a fan of buying a kit lens as a standalone purchase. I bought a 24-105L for use with my 7D, but I bought it used, for $800. When I bought a 5DII, I got it with the 24-105L kit for $800 more than body only, kept the new copy, and sold the used copy for....$800. So it was truly a wash. I was also fortunate enough to buy my 24-70/2.8L II and then sell my 24-105L before the price drops of the 6D/5DIII kits, so I was able to sell it for...you guessed it...$800.

 

[terminatahx]

I purchased the 5d3kit (24-105l) and liked the image quality the few days I had it. However, when a photog buddy came over with his 24-70 2.8L mk1, I was quickly reminded that I value IQ far more than range for a general purpose zoom. I think the 24-105 is not worthy of the L distinction and sold mine on Ebay. Either 24-70 2.8l and the 100 2.8L are clearly better in IQ, imho.

 

[Triggyman]

Thanks to the responses, I can see a much wider picture of the pros and cons of keeping both lenses or not.

I initially thought of selling the 24-105mm right after getting the 24-70 II (the replacement), but will hold on to the 24-105mm either to assess its continued value or make it a back-up (like forum member RC). I feel better knowing that having both at the same time is getting less impractical. I'm kind of like Mt Spokane, it will be hard for me to part with the 24-105, it's "one L of a lens".

I agree with Act444 - I could drag the shutter longer with the IS but I frown each time there is motion blur when people walk by or when they are just plain restless. More reason for me to get the 24-70! ;D

 

[Dylan777]

Sell it and use that money toward 70-200 f2.8 IS II or 135L

I have x2 5D III. Guess what lenses I have on both bodies most of time? 24-70 II + 70-200

 

[Triggyman]

Sell it and use that money toward 70-200 f2.8 IS II or 135L

I have x2 5D III. Guess what lenses I have on both bodies most of time? 24-70 II + 70-200

Excellent, Dylan777! That's the most ideal FF setup many of us would agree (or wish upon) on, 2 FF bodies and 24mm-200mm constant 2.8 without having to change lenses (and that means significantly lesser missed shots and sensor cleaning).

My short term goal would be these three lenses:
1) 16-35mm II
2) 24-70mm II
3) 100mm 2.8L macro

Having the 24-105mm would almost overlap all three if I will still keep it. I will give the 24-105mm more time to see if it will still have more use, but it won't look like it.

 

[Invertalon]

I have owned a 24-105 for two or three years straight prior to upgrading to the 24-70 II.

1.) Makes no real sense to have both... Unless you need IS for video and whatever. It will just collect dust.

2.) Not at all... The 24-70 II is a much superior lens. The 24-70 II is sharper at the edges/corners wide open then the 24-105 stopped down to f/8. It has considerably more sharpness.


The 24-70 II is a stunning lens... The IQ is incredible. Wide open at 70mm, it even surpasses the IQ of the 70-200 II (two different copies I compared against). And you know how highly regarded that lens is...

I did not miss the 24-105 one bit though... What is the 24-105??? ;D

 

[zlatko]

I preferred the 24-105 to the original 24-70 version I, but I prefer the new 24-70 version II to the 24-105. Each has some strengths, but I don't see a point in owning both. The 24-70 II is quite excellent.