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

[Triggyman]

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

Thank you very much for answering my questions point for point.

I'm now even more stoked for the 24-70 II! ;D

January 2014!!! I don't know what I'm missing until then.

 

[Triggyman]

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.

Thanks, about every post here say a lot of positive things about the 24-70 II. Your response is very helpful.

 

[Triggyman]

Not that I think many people are following this thread, but I have get this out of my system.

I picked up the 24-70mm II yesterday...January couldn't wait as it's on sale.

I am so floored with the IQ of this lens!

I seem to be lucky to get a copy that is apparently bang on the focus with my camera body, and the results are so...WOW! Out of camera JPEGs show a pop that I have not seen with the 24-105mm that I have. With RAW on Lightroom it's even better.

The lens is so sharp where I want it to be, at 2.8 the area within the plane of focus is full of detail.

The 24-105mm will be jealous, I hope they don't fight inside the cabinet.

I want to thank all those who responded to this thread! ;D ;D ;D

 

[sulla]

I also upgraded my 24-105 to a 24-70 II.

I really miss my 24-105, or rather: its IS. It happens ever so often that I shoot something and I want to close the aperture to f/8 or so, for the DOF needed. In those situations the IS really shines. I could shoot static objects like architecture or flowers at 1/10s without issues, whereas now I need to shoot at 1/100s or so. A huge difference. I took sooooo many photos I really like with the 24-105 in dim light, at dawn or a bit afterwards, and I found IS to be a great asset. The 24-105 IS really shows its best sides during the blue hour. The 24-70 is hopeless (in comparison only!) during that very attractive time of day. Bumping up ISO is not an acceptable option, IMHO. So, I really miss IS but I don't miss the reach.

Having said that, the 24-70 shines when anything moves in the scene. 1 stop of Tv is a huge difference when shooting people in available light, also a very attractive situation. There I usually want to shoot at 1/80s or so, and for this type of work IS doesn't help too much. I can improve so many shots now that would have been motion-blurred a lot more with the 24-105.

In all, I do not wish my 24-105 back. When I set out to do high quality architecture during the blue hour, I compensate for IS with a small tripod. The side effect is, that it also helps composition.

I hope to have been useful, have fun with your new 24-70!!

 

[hawaiisunsetphoto]

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

Enjoy your new 24-70 II !!! +1 on the recommendation, above. Given your shooting needs, I'd rec'd selling the 24-105 and picking up the 135mm f/2L, which is a nice, fast lens that renders beautiful bokeh.

 

[ScottyP]

What do you say to those who claim this eliminates the need for primes? (Other than for shooting narrower DOF than f/2.8?). Exaggeration?

 

[Triggyman]

I also upgraded my 24-105 to a 24-70 II.

I really miss my 24-105, or rather: its IS. It happens ever so often that I shoot something and I want to close the aperture to f/8 or so, for the DOF needed. In those situations the IS really shines. I could shoot static objects like architecture or flowers at 1/10s without issues, whereas now I need to shoot at 1/100s or so. A huge difference. I took sooooo many photos I really like with the 24-105 in dim light, at dawn or a bit afterwards, and I found IS to be a great asset. The 24-105 IS really shows its best sides during the blue hour. The 24-70 is hopeless (in comparison only!) during that very attractive time of day. Bumping up ISO is not an acceptable option, IMHO. So, I really miss IS but I don't miss the reach.

Having said that, the 24-70 shines when anything moves in the scene. 1 stop of Tv is a huge difference when shooting people in available light, also a very attractive situation. There I usually want to shoot at 1/80s or so, and for this type of work IS doesn't help too much. I can improve so many shots now that would have been motion-blurred a lot more with the 24-105.

In all, I do not wish my 24-105 back. When I set out to do high quality architecture during the blue hour, I compensate for IS with a small tripod. The side effect is, that it also helps composition.

I hope to have been useful, have fun with your new 24-70!!

Thanks, Sulla! Indeed this will be fun. I'm keeping the 24-105mm for now since the price of second hand fell, sellers on the classifieds are offering nothing higher than $750. But if that's the price it's settling on then I might have to accept it and sell at that price if I need a longer telephoto.

I'm a klutz with the 24-105mm (I use a tripod in low light to help lower the ISO on at least f8) because I keep forgetting to turn off the IS.

With the one-stop wider aperture, that can help with scenes involving moving people that I often find myself taking pictures of. I think both lenses will be a good combo depending on the subject.

What do you say to those who claim this eliminates the need for primes? (Other than for shooting narrower DOF than f/2.8?). Exaggeration?

Hi Scotty, I don't know what to say to them, because I had not collected a set of primes except for the 100mm macro (which is also great) so I haven't really seen how good the wide and short telephoto primes are in my own experience. My last prime within the 24-70 range was an FD 50mm f1.8 for an AV-1.

But if the 24-70mm II approaches the sharpness/color/contrast of the primes very closely, then I'd rather have this - it will save me from changing lenses often. I can just set the focal length and zoom with my feet. Then again, I might wish for a wider aperture.

 

[mwh1964]

Very useful tread. I only have the 24-105 and actually like it a lot. It is very useful as a general purpose lens which it was also designed for. Of course the 24-70 II should be better. It is more than double up in price. However you loose 77mm filter compatibility, IS and gain extra weight. So probably this also comes down to budget, shooting stile and objectives.

 

[[email protected]]

I used the 24-105 for a long time for street work; decent speed, decent IQ. Then got the 24-70 II. I noticed the increase in IQ immediately. Superb glass, as distinct from 'very very good glass.' That said, I kept the 24-105; I use it for street work in bright sun, in difficult situations where I may not want to risk the 24-70, or if I need just a bit more length. For events on the street I use FF only and the 24-70 and 70-200 OR the 24-70 and 70-200 are a good kit. I don't miss IS on the 24-70 at all. Both are very useful lenses.

 

[Etienne]

The 24-105L IS is really good for general purpose video. f/4 is pretty shallow for video and the IS takes out the micro shakes in hand-held /shoulder-support work.

If I didn't do any hand-held video I'd probably sell the 24-105

 

[pwp]

I thought for sure I'd be keeping my 24-105 after picking up the new 24-70II. The IS, the extra reach which is handy for events work, it's flexibility as a travel lens and it's sharp-wide-open performance just had to make it a keeper. But like other posters here, it's been sitting on the shelf gathering an ominous sheen of dust.

Next time I'm feeling inspired to do a Gumtree session, I'll be putting my three least used lenses up for sale. The 24-105, the 135 f/2 and an older non-USM 100 f/2.8 macro and pushing the $$ towards a 17TS-E.

But that's my experience. You may find totally valid reasons to keep both. Just wait a few months and see how it goes. As they say, time will tell....

-pw

 

[Sony]

My 2 cents: sell the 24-105mm after having a 24-70mm II; then save money and jump to a 70-200mm II. That was what I did and am very satisfied now along with a 5DMKIII.
Actually, we don't need IS with focal length under 70mm.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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!

In marginal lighting without a tripod the 24-105 IS certainly delivers better IQ. In all other cases the 24-70 II blow it away.

Very center frame, my 24-70 II is sharper at f/2.8 than all three 24-105 I tried at ANY aperture across the entire 24-70mm range (definitely not true at the edges near 70mm though).

It focuses better too.

But say you need some f/7.1 landscape hand-held or more DOF for in museum work without tripod or something then you may need high ISO and end up with worse overall quality (especially compared to the 24-70 f/4 IS which is better than the 24-105 IS in terms of image quality and it has even more effective IS, although a bit much $ to have as an extra for many granted and the 24-105 IS can be had for $600 now at least).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

(the 24-105 is very sharp stopped down),

I've got to differ. Especially if you are landscape shooter. The 24-105 is much maligned for that sort of work near 24mm on FF, f/8, f/10, it's still often mush at the edges and it still tosses spades of PF on branches against clouds and such. 24-70 II is just about APO so forget any hint of PF on branches against clouds and it is quite a lot sharper at the edges at f/8 near 24mm.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

I'd more check how many were in IS territory. The 80-100mm can be covered with much better quality (plus much more added range) with a 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L or whatnot.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Not that I think many people are following this thread, but I have get this out of my system.

I picked up the 24-70mm II yesterday...January couldn't wait as it's on sale.

I am so floored with the IQ of this lens!

I seem to be lucky to get a copy that is apparently bang on the focus with my camera body, and the results are so...WOW! Out of camera JPEGs show a pop that I have not seen with the 24-105mm that I have. With RAW on Lightroom it's even better.

The lens is so sharp where I want it to be, at 2.8 the area within the plane of focus is full of detail.

The 24-105mm will be jealous, I hope they don't fight inside the cabinet.

I want to thank all those who responded to this thread! ;D ;D ;D

nice, cna't say i'm surprised

 

[M.ST]

The 24-105 IS lens has not the same outstanding image quality of th 24-70 II lens, but hold both lenses.

IS is very usefull in some situations and the aperture rays from small light sources had less rays and better to sell.

I was not happy with the 24-105 lens and sold it a few years ago after only 3 days using ist, but after the new 24-70 4.0 IS hit the market, I buy another 24-105 IS. The big problem with the 24-105 IS are the visible CA´s and the image quality between 85 up to 105 mm.

The 100 IS Macro do a better job at 100 mm, but you have to carry another lens. Sometimes it is more usefull to walk only with the 24-105 lens.

But I carry almost all the time the 16-35 II 2.8, 24-70 II 2.8, 100 IS Macro, 70-200 II 2.8 IS and both TC´s with me.

 

[J.R.]

I've had been using the 24-105 inspite of having the 24-70 II. The uses were restricted though to situations where I needed the longer focal lengths and/or IS. However, after getting the 70-200 II, the lens has not been used at all.

I am using the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II now. I've put up the 24-105 for sale.

 

[YuengLinger]

I just got the 24-70 2.8 II last week. Ready to sell the 24-105.

Reason I replaced it: For me, on my 5DIII, only works under perfect conditions of light and distance. On cloudy days, unpleasant contrast issues, similar to Clarity slider being too far right. Also, faces at medium distance simply don't resolve well if I want to crop, so forget about further back. Distortion, making group shots always problematic. Occasionally mutinous IS.

Only reasons I consider keeping it: 1) Wife is sometimes a second shooter, and she, I hate to say, has butterfingers.

2) If I go into crime ridden areas, I'll bring it and my 60D.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

The 24-105 IS lens has not the same outstanding image quality of th 24-70 II lens, but hold both lenses.

+1 ... until I bought the 24-70 f/2.8 L II, the 24-195 f/4 L IS was the most used lens on my 7D ... after my 24-70 f/2.8 L II was stolen, I bought Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC lens (couldn't afford the 24-70 L II again) but I still have the 24-105 in my camera bag unused for over a year now ... I don't want to sell it, because it serves as a backup lens, just in case I have another misfortune of losing a lens or dropping a lens (I dropped my 17-85 lens, many years ago, which got completely destroyed) and the lens also reminds me of some very lovely memories, it has traveled to 12 countries with some beautiful images to show for (maybe I'm just an emotional fool) also, the resale value of 24-105 has really dropped quite a bit, coz you can now get a brand new 24-105 for around $700 (sometimes even lower) ... so I see no point in selling it for a small amount, especially when it is such a fun lens ... so I've decided that I'll never sell it.