The 24-105 and/or the 24-70 II ...

[Loswr]

Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature. And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable. There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase...

All else being equal, I would take a lens with IS over an equivalent lens without it. But let's be real, all else is NOT equal. Look at the 70-200/2.8 - the first IS version came out after the non-IS, and has worse IQ. In the case of the 24-70/2.8, there's nothing to even rationalize – there's just no other option. Image stabilization isn't magic, it's optical physics and engineering, and there are always trade-offs to be made – cost is not the only one.

 

[Eldar]

I find part of this discussion a bit weird. I think we can agree that non of the 24-70 2.8L II users, myself included, would protest if it had come with IS. And I also believe we all accept that in certain cases, the IS provide the 24-105 f4L IS with a benefit, ref. the school photo posted earlier. But what we are saying is that we don´t miss IS, because we normally use it at shutter speeds were it´s OK not to have it and the fact that its IQ is far superior.

I had the 24-105 and I used it a lot, until I got the 24-70. From that day, until I sold it, it just collected dust.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

In your case you might want to look at the 24-70 f/4 IS. It has the sharpness of the 24-70 II, with better IS than the 24-105. But, it is overpriced at the moment for sure as its now a 5diii kit lens. Probably will be in the $1000 range in 3-6 months.

The 24-70 f/4 IS, is not as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8 II. Similar sharpness to the 24-105L according to the TDP comparisons (link below). The 24-70 f/4 is sharper with less distortion at 24mm and 70mm, but the 24-105 is better at 35mm and 50mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

I believe some other CR members have had better luck with their copies of the 24-70 f/4.0 however.

The 24-70 f/4 IS does have the advantage of being somewhat smaller than the 24-105 and has near macro capability, but until its street price comes down considerably, I can't see it being worth the money compared with the 24-105L. If the prices does drop to $1K, it would probably be a decent value.

Yes and I am one who has had better luck. It's way sharper than any of the number of 24-105s I tried (even the first 24-70 f/4 IS that I tried was even though it was definitely not as sharp as the second 24-70 f/4 IS, I returned the first one, the difference was easily clear enough to bother with a return, but even that first one did better than the best 24-105 I've seen). Now I certainly did give a special focus on near 24mm performance that is true since that was always the tricky thing to pull off on FF with a zoom. And not just for edge sharpness but for resistance to nasties like purple fringing it was better too.

The 24-70 f/4 IS is weakest right around 50mm, the farther above that and the farther below that you go the better it seems to get, it's possible it's no better than the 24-105 at 50mm, but a sharp edge to edge 50mm was never a challenge on a FF anyway, a $100 50 1.8 will do that for you with ease. And the 70-200/300Ls deliver 70mm+ in spades. Now a sharp 24mm edge to edge, now that was always the FF trick. No zoom used to deliver that. Now we have the 24-70 II and the 24-70 f/4 IS (maybe the tamron 24-70 vc to some extent???? that is just about the only standard zoom I've never tried). For primes the 24 1.4 II, 24 T&S II, and I'd assume the 24 2.8 IS and 28 2.8 IS although I've never tried those two.

Anyway, all that said, the 24-70 II is generally sharper and a little more APO than the 24-70 f/4 IS (the 24-70 f/4 IS is easily more APO than the 24-105 though).

(I definitely did see copy variation with the 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS though, enough to be noticeable. The 24-70 II were all very sharp wide open, so it's not like they seem bad compared to anything else and actually mostly seem better, but some copies were just a whole new level of wide open sharp. Perhaps more, it seems hard to produce the 24-70 II with all corners set to the exact same flat across field focal plane as every copy seemed to tilt the focal plane a bit this way or that (that said, just about any copy still manages to noticeably outdo the 24-105, although the copy variation is kind of larger than you'd think at that price). The first 24-70 f/4 IS was a bit less sharp overall wide open, although not bad, the entire away from very central field was definitely softer and it was extra extra hard to avoid strong FC at 50mm, that said even that one still seemed to give better results at 24mm than 24-105, but the second copy was definitely better, no doubt whatsoever, and for $1000 f/4 you definitely don't want to accept other than that. In terms of having the focal plane evenly aligned it seems the 24-70 f/4 IS is probably less prone to that, although a test of 2 doesn't say much, but both copies seemed to be very similar in that regard unlike with the 24-70 II where every single copy I have seen has place the alignment of the plane of focus a bit differently, in some cases quite noticeably so.)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If the prices does drop to $1K, it would probably be a decent value.

Actually it has quite a few times, some of the big stores have had them on sale for $1000-$1050 a number of times. When I was looking at them it was easy to nab at $1025 shipped. I agree the full list seems a bit much and I'd definitely hold out for a $1000 sale if anyone wants to give the lens a look.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Great Thread. I just purchased the 24-70II and I have the 24-105, I was wondering the same question.

I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?

Not if you run around outside during the daytime, even with cloud cover it should be perfectly fine.

In museums and no flash buildings where tripods usually are not allowed either then it could certainly help.

Otherwise perhaps if walking in the woods, which can be quite dark in some case and providing you don't want to get constantly get bogged down by tripod work, which granted is the ideal way to go (but sometimes you need to move along faster or want to get off a bunch of shots before the sun changes) or if you are doing some late evening shots and find yourself without a tripod or don't want to use one for one reason or another (too much of a pain to carry around walking around as a tourist, don't want to be so slowed down, etc.).

Of course the 24-70 II can produce reasonable FF edges on the wide end much closer to wide open than the 24-105 (which IMO actually still doesn't even at f/10) so that can make up for some lack of IS at times, depending, sometimes you need the full DOF front to back to a huge degree though and since the 24-70 II makes crisper images overall there is the fact that you can go to a bit higher ISO and still end up with same detail as from the 24-105 too (at the loss of some DR of course though, although in some cases where you'd need IS the light is flat and the DR low, although not always).

Anwyay I never found the 24-105 satisfying. The two new ones I do. The 24-70 II is most used, but if I don't want to bog down and want to run and gun shoot while walking in dark forests and such the 24-70 is better or if are hitting a park late and have limited time and such or going to museum type scenarios and such. And I use it at the ocean, especially on the east coast where the salt is often heavy in the air and coating everything it makes me too paranoid it will eat into my 24-70 II hah. It is a bit pricey to own in addition though so it might get sold though, although it has been useful.

 

[Ruined]

Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature. And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable. There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS. Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.

The advantages with IS are plentiful. Less shots needing tripod, less blurred shots, and even if you have a steady hand your shots will be slightly sharper with IS due to its nature as no one has the hands of a tripod. If we were all as steady as a tripod, tripods would not exist. More possibilities for photos are unlocked. And it helps video, too, if you are into it.

There is no effective argument against IS. Canon is just playing marketing games getting people to buy the same lens over and over again, because they can. That is why it is not in the 24-70 II, no other reason. When the 24-70 IS comes out, the 24-70 II will drop like a rock in value. Take a look at how much less resale the 70-200 non-IS versions have versus the 70-200 IS versions.

So, while people can say they might not need it, that is probably true. But you also don't need L lenses or a full frame camera. IS is another tool in the toolbox that is HIGHLY DESIRABLE. Let's just hope we don't have to wait too long for Canon to milk the non-IS version before the inevitable 24-70 IS release.

Yes, the 24-70 II is sharper than the 24-105. But that has nothing to do with IS, it simply uses better glass. Once the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out, the 24-70 f/2.8 will be soundly outclassed and lessened in value IMO.

Have you actually compared for yourself the output from the 24-105 vs the one from the 24-70 f2.8 II?!

How is that relevant to what I posted?!

 

[Ruined]

In your case you might want to look at the 24-70 f/4 IS. It has the sharpness of the 24-70 II, with better IS than the 24-105. But, it is overpriced at the moment for sure as its now a 5diii kit lens. Probably will be in the $1000 range in 3-6 months.

The 24-70 f/4 IS, is not as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8 II. Similar sharpness to the 24-105L according to the TDP comparisons (link below). The 24-70 f/4 is sharper with less distortion at 24mm and 70mm, but the 24-105 is better at 35mm and 50mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

I believe some other CR members have had better luck with their copies of the 24-70 f/4.0 however.

The 24-70 f/4 IS does have the advantage of being somewhat smaller than the 24-105 and has near macro capability, but until its street price comes down considerably, I can't see it being worth the money compared with the 24-105L. If the prices does drop to $1K, it would probably be a decent value.

I dunno, I've been looking at a lot of real-world A/B comparisons of photos and while the 24-105 is just as sharp in the center, it seems to be less sharp in the corners with increased CA. Just what I have observed. And technically the IS is inferior to the IS in the 24-70 f/4...

I think the extra range of the 24-105 is pretty cool to have though, especially if you have an a crop in addition to your FF. Ideally, if you were to have two it might be neat to have a 24-70 f/2.8 II and a 24-105 IS. But if you just picked one and wanted the best IQ in the smallest package, I'd say to go for the 24-70 f/4 IS.

The lens performance of the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens whips the living crap out of the 24-105L. If you've ever shot with both you'd see what we all mean. I quickly sold my 24-105L after buying the new 24-70 and haven't looked back. There's nothing like "under the basket" shots for basketball than with the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens!

The poster I replied to originally had a 24-70 f/2.8L II and also a 24-105L IS, and he stated he got a lot of camera shake with his shots using the f/2.8L II compared to the 24-105L IS. Thus my suggestion was to try the 24-70 F/4L as it appears in benchmarks to optically outperform the 24-105L IS and have better IS as well. So for that poster, since he already had tried the 24-70/2.8L II and didn't like it, that would not have been a useful recommendation

 

[Ruined]

I find part of this discussion a bit weird. I think we can agree that non of the 24-70 2.8L II users, myself included, would protest if it had come with IS. And I also believe we all accept that in certain cases, the IS provide the 24-105 f4L IS with a benefit, ref. the school photo posted earlier. But what we are saying is that we don´t miss IS, because we normally use it at shutter speeds were it´s OK not to have it and the fact that its IQ is far superior.

I had the 24-105 and I used it a lot, until I got the 24-70. From that day, until I sold it, it just collected dust.

All else being equal, I would take a lens with IS over an equivalent lens without it. But let's be real, all else is NOT equal. Look at the 70-200/2.8 - the first IS version came out after the non-IS, and has worse IQ. In the case of the 24-70/2.8, there's nothing to even rationalize – there's just no other option. Image stabilization isn't magic, it's optical physics and engineering, and there are always trade-offs to be made – cost is not the only one.

Both points taken, but given the 24-70 IS II is $2200 which is not a drop in the bucket for most financially while the 24-105 is kit or an affordable $699, I would think looking ahead to the future might be wise when debating these lenses. And, my point is, I can't forsee anyone clutching onto their 24-70 f/2.8 II when IS version inevitably comes out - even if the IS version is slightly less sharp due to the difference in optics (which usually isn't the case, even if it happened once in the past). Reason, because I think pretty much everyone would like the *option* of IS if it is there. It is useful even at normal focal lengths, not just tele.

Thus, if we are looking at financials and discussing whether to sell 24-105 for a 24-70 f/2.8 II, one must look at the future value of the f/2.8 II if you think you might want to upgrade to that IS version in the future. And my thought is, the value will drop dramatically when an IS version is announced because people will be climbing over each other to get the IS version - look at all the recurrent threads and posts building demand for the IS version! The only way this won't happen is if Canon keeps the f/2.8 II where it is and makes the 24-70 f/2.8 IS significantly more money, though that would be unprecedented cost wise for the focal length compared to past offerings. All of those people upgrading will then dump their f/2.8 II on the used market which will greatly lower used value.

So, while you could say f/2.8 II is the only option NOW, it might also be worth considering waiting for 2014's big lens announcements as many were disappointed that the II did not have IS. I'm sure Canon would love to resell an IS version to those who bought the II, and it might be worth holding out with a lesser lens just a bit longer.

Of course if you need f/2.8 24-70 today, you need it today. But then there really isn't much to debate

 

[Grumbaki]

I've actually tested this for my own benefit, and I've found that without IS I can get camera shake at random with shutter speeds up to about 1/320 with 50mm focal length.

Time to take some beta blockers! ;D

 

[Sporgon]

I've actually tested this for my own benefit, and I've found that without IS I can get camera shake at random with shutter speeds up to about 1/320 with 50mm focal length.

Time to take some beta blockers! ;D

;D

Try it for yourself; take a hand held shot with 50mm focal length of something with lots of fine detail that's far away from the camera. Take the same shot five times at 1/250 and then see if they are all as sharp as each other.

 

[DaveMiko]

Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature. And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable. There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS. Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.

The advantages with IS are plentiful. Less shots needing tripod, less blurred shots, and even if you have a steady hand your shots will be slightly sharper with IS due to its nature as no one has the hands of a tripod. If we were all as steady as a tripod, tripods would not exist. More possibilities for photos are unlocked. And it helps video, too, if you are into it.

There is no effective argument against IS. Canon is just playing marketing games getting people to buy the same lens over and over again, because they can. That is why it is not in the 24-70 II, no other reason. When the 24-70 IS comes out, the 24-70 II will drop like a rock in value. Take a look at how much less resale the 70-200 non-IS versions have versus the 70-200 IS versions.

So, while people can say they might not need it, that is probably true. But you also don't need L lenses or a full frame camera. IS is another tool in the toolbox that is HIGHLY DESIRABLE. Let's just hope we don't have to wait too long for Canon to milk the non-IS version before the inevitable 24-70 IS release.

Yes, the 24-70 II is sharper than the 24-105. But that has nothing to do with IS, it simply uses better glass. Once the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out, the 24-70 f/2.8 will be soundly outclassed and lessened in value IMO.

Have you actually compared for yourself the output from the 24-105 vs the one from the 24-70 f2.8 II?!

How is that relevant to what I posted?!

How is that relevant?! ... How do you pretend to be taken seriously if you talk about something you haven't got a clue about! ... If you don't know what you're talking about, then you'd better keep quiet.

 

[Ruined]

Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature. And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable. There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS. Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.

The advantages with IS are plentiful. Less shots needing tripod, less blurred shots, and even if you have a steady hand your shots will be slightly sharper with IS due to its nature as no one has the hands of a tripod. If we were all as steady as a tripod, tripods would not exist. More possibilities for photos are unlocked. And it helps video, too, if you are into it.

There is no effective argument against IS. Canon is just playing marketing games getting people to buy the same lens over and over again, because they can. That is why it is not in the 24-70 II, no other reason. When the 24-70 IS comes out, the 24-70 II will drop like a rock in value. Take a look at how much less resale the 70-200 non-IS versions have versus the 70-200 IS versions.

So, while people can say they might not need it, that is probably true. But you also don't need L lenses or a full frame camera. IS is another tool in the toolbox that is HIGHLY DESIRABLE. Let's just hope we don't have to wait too long for Canon to milk the non-IS version before the inevitable 24-70 IS release.

Yes, the 24-70 II is sharper than the 24-105. But that has nothing to do with IS, it simply uses better glass. Once the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out, the 24-70 f/2.8 will be soundly outclassed and lessened in value IMO.

Have you actually compared for yourself the output from the 24-105 vs the one from the 24-70 f2.8 II?!

How is that relevant to what I posted?!

How is that relevant?! ... How do you pretend to be taken seriously if you talk about something you haven't got a clue about! ... If you don't know what you're talking about, then you'd better keep quiet.

Lol. Read the post next time, there was no point in which the IQ of the two were even debated, aside from the last line which I state the 24-70 II is sharper (fact) and that was not the subject of rest of the post.

 

[J.R.]

Thus, if we are looking at financials and discussing whether to sell 24-105 for a 24-70 f/2.8 II, one must look at the future value of the f/2.8 II if you think you might want to upgrade to that IS version in the future. And my thought is, the value will drop dramatically when an IS version is announced because people will be climbing over each other to get the IS version - look at all the recurrent threads and posts building demand for the IS version! The only way this won't happen is if Canon keeps the f/2.8 II where it is and makes the 24-70 f/2.8 IS significantly more money, though that would be unprecedented cost wise for the focal length compared to past offerings. All of those people upgrading will then dump their f/2.8 II on the used market which will greatly lower used value.

So, while you could say f/2.8 II is the only option NOW, it might also be worth considering waiting for 2014's big lens announcements as many were disappointed that the II did not have IS. I'm sure Canon would love to resell an IS version to those who bought the II, and it might be worth holding out with a lesser lens just a bit longer.

Of course if you need f/2.8 24-70 today, you need it today. But then there really isn't much to debate

Guessing Canon's next move is next to impossible, unless one has any inside information of course.

In my limited usage of Canon's products, I've come to notice that Canon is loathe to release an update that doesn't make sense to them despite their customers clamoring for it. See the people wanting more MP, more DR, an update to the 100-400L, 135L, 800L, etc.

With Canon, it's water off a duck's back. It will only be released if it makes economical sense to Canon, not because folks like you and me want it.

 

[bholliman]

my point is, I can't foresee anyone clutching onto their 24-70 f/2.8 II when IS version inevitably comes out - even if the IS version is slightly less sharp due to the difference in optics (which usually isn't the case, even if it happened once in the past). Reason, because I think pretty much everyone would like the *option* of IS if it is there. It is useful even at normal focal lengths, not just tele.

Valid point. I suppose it all depends on the quality of the IS variant when/if its released.

 

[Sporgon]

When Canon released the 24-70 II they did state that it is IS less in order to have uncompromised optical quality, and it does indeed have uncompromised optical quality. If you take Canon at their word rather than being sceptical there may be practical truth in it. The new 24-70 IS is very good; nearly as good as the 24-70 II and better than the 24-105 ( I have both ).

The original question was once you are the owner of a 24-70 II will you use the 24-105 anymore ? In theory you might say keep the IS lens for when you need it, but in practice you'll probably never have it with you when you need it.

 

[Pi]

The original question was once you are the owner of a 24-70 II will you use the 24-105 anymore ? In theory you might say keep the IS lens for when you need it, but in practice you'll probably never have it with you when you need it.

Never have with you which lens?

 

[J.R.]

In theory you might say keep the IS lens for when you need it, but in practice you'll probably never have it with you when you need it.

Yes ... with overlapping focal lengths, invariably the 24-105 is left at home (who needs to carry additional weight?) .

That said, I've had more than one occasion where the light was fading and I ended up cursing "why didn't I bring a tripod!" but I don't remember complaining that I didn't have my 24-105!

BTW, I carry a tripod more often than not, being the old-school type shooter

 

[Ruined]

When Canon released the 24-70 II they did state that it is IS less in order to have uncompromised optical quality, and it does indeed have uncompromised optical quality. If you take Canon at their word rather than being sceptical there may be practical truth in it. The new 24-70 IS is very good; nearly as good as the 24-70 II and better than the 24-105 ( I have both ).

I would love to take Canon at their word if not for their incremental upgrade history, and examples of what is already out:
17-55mm f/2.8 IS - great lens, though not as good as the below lenses.
24-70mm f/4 IS - great lens, just about as sharp as 24-70 II.
70-200mm f/2.8 IS II - ultra sharp w/ IS, sharper than any lens in this class released ever.
100mm f/2.8 Macro IS - incredibly razor sharp, yet it also has the most complex IS system Canon makes.

I dunno, looking at those examples collectively I find it logically hard to believe that Canon just can't make an optically superior 24-70 f/2.8 IS happen, especially when the patents for the 24-70 f/2.8 IS already exist and were made public in July 2012. IMO, it's just a matter of 'when,' not 'if.' Granted, that is the big question and we may be in for a wait, but when it does happen the 24-70 II is going to drop in value greatly.

The original question was once you are the owner of a 24-70 II will you use the 24-105 anymore ? In theory you might say keep the IS lens for when you need it, but in practice you'll probably never have it with you when you need it.

If financials are not a concern I think both are cool to have because of the latter's better reach and IS; stick the 24-105 on a secondary crop body and you have quite a nice compact telephoto zoom. But, it is true that it will likely sit in the bag unused most of the time, as you always want to bring your best and generally do not want to lug around stuff you don't need - plus realistically you could get $700 for the 24-105.

On the other hand, if you only have the 24-105 it might be worth hanging onto to see what 2014 lenses bring re: 24-70 especially with the 24-105's low resale.

 

[Pi]

17-55mm f/2.8 IS - great lens, though not as good as the below lenses.
24-70mm f/4 IS - great lens, just about as sharp as 24-70 II.

The 17-55 is noticeably sharper than the the 24-70/4 on the same body.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

 

[Ruined]

17-55mm f/2.8 IS - great lens, though not as good as the below lenses.
24-70mm f/4 IS - great lens, just about as sharp as 24-70 II.

The 17-55 is noticeably sharper than the the 24-70/4 on the same body.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

Yeah, but if you mount them on the respective body/sensor types they were primarily designed for, the 24-70 offers better performance:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Also, I previously owned the 17-55 and there was just something I did not like about the lens' output, although it is hard to quantify what that was. I am not sure if it was the color or sharpness, but it did not appear to match up to cheaper primes or more expensive zooms I had. It is far superior to kit aps-c zooms, though.