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

[bholliman]

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.

 

[Sporgon]

The 24-105s trump card over the 24-70II is of course IS. Its usefulness depends upon your technique, but if you're hand holding shots where you want to hold small fine detail, I find IS incredibly useful.

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. I'm not that shaky, but I do drink a lot of coffee, and tend to arrive late and be in a rush. However for myself the 24-70 II, despite it's superlative optical performance, could result in softer images than the 24-105 when off the tripod. So I stick to a 'general purpose' lens with IS.

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.

Already have ! In fact we've now two copies at Building Panoramics, but one is with our man in the States. Changed a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VS GTi for it.

A fine lens, much better than the reviews give it credit for. However I do like the 70-105 range but may eventually give it up for the better qualities of the 24-70 IS and its more compact, handy size.

 

[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.

 

[gferdinandsen]

I shoot with both, but find that I rarely use the 24-105. The contrast and detail on the 24-70 is amazing.

 

[Dylan777]

I've had the 24-105 for about a year and a half now. It came as the kit lens for my 5D Mk III. My copy is a very good one, tack sharp and quite fast, as far as I seem to notice. 3 months ago I bought the 24-70 II. It is an outstanding lens, as far as AF response and sharpness are concerned. I think it's better than the 24-105. That being said, is it possible that the 24-105 can still be useful? If I keep it, and don't sell it, to what uses, if any, can the 24-105 be put? Is there anything that I can do with the 24-105 that I can't do with the 24-70 II?!

Tack sharp @ at what f-stop? 8 or 11?

sell it and save bag space for other lenses.

 

[sawsedge]

Of the two, I only have the 24-70 II, yet I often wish I had a little more reach. The range of the 24-105 seems ideal to me. In my film days, my trio was a 24, 50, and 100mm. But, the AF speed, accuracy, contrast and resolution of the of the 24-70 II are outstanding and I'm unlikely to give that up. About my only complaint with it is the size. It's just fat with the 82mm filter.

All that said, I still think about picking up the 24-105 for certain occasions. But I'd prefer one with a 67mm filter to match the 70-200 f/4L IS.

Perhaps someday Canon will make a 24-105 f/2.8L IS, match the current IQ, and then we'll all know what to do.

 

[J.R.]

I think the troubling conflict starts once you own both.

I got the 24-70 II a few months ago and kept the 24-105 for the IS and the additional focal length. Despite having that intention, I found that I was rarely using it. I kept convincing myself that I would be using the 24-105 when the need for IS arose but that rarely happened because the 24-70 II would invariably be the lens mounted on one of my bodies and it made no sense to carry a lens with overlapping focal length out in the field.

After getting the 70-200 II, I realized that the 24-105 would not being seeing any action at all because for the corresponding focal lengths (above 70-105mm), the IS and the IQ of the 70-200 leaves the 24-105 in the dust.

I finally sold the 24-105 yesterday for close to $750 - this goes straight to the fund for the 300mm f/2.8 L II.

If you have both the 24-70 II and the 24-105, the 24-105 will be sold, it's only a question of time ...

Cheers ... J.R.

 

[Loswr]

I think the troubling conflict starts once you own both

I think this issue was addressed a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away….

[quote author=Darth Vader]
There is no conflict.
[/quote]



(I also sold my 24-105L…)

 

[bholliman]

If you have both the 24-70 II and the 24-105, the 24-105 will be sold, it's only a question of time ...

+1 Same situation for me. With the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II in my bag, the 24-105 was gathering dust. $750 is a really good sales price in the current market!

The 24-70 2.8 II is an incredible lens!

 

[Sporgon]

I think the troubling conflict starts once you own both

I think this issue was addressed a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away….

[quote author=Darth Vader]
There is no conflict.

(I also sold my 24-105L…)

[/quote]

I would expect a Neurosurgeon to have hands as steady as a rock. A Neuroanatomist must be a close relation.

Me, I shake like a leaf. And that's before the morning coffees.

 

[freitz]

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?

 

[Pi]

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?

A few people already did, and they find IS useful. IS also helps wit using ISO 100 more often, for better IQ and, well, DR, than say, ISO 400. I had cases where my 24-105 was better in landscapes than my 35L, handheld, because I could shoot at ISO 100 with the zoom, and I thought that my SS was enough with the prime (ISO 100) to reduce shake but it was not. Which is not to say that the 24-105 is better than the 24-70II for all uses, of course.

 

[Loswr]

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?

It depends a lot on what you shoot. If you frequently shoot landscapes and other static scenes handheld, IS can be useful (but a tripod would be even more useful). If your subjects include people, you'll almost always need a shutter speed fast enough to mitigate subject motion, and that will mitigate camera shake as well.

 

[DaveMiko]

As I mentioned when I started this thread, I've used my 24-70 f2.8 II for a few months now. It has replaced my 24-105 as my walk around lens, practically all of the time. Only once when I took a few dozen pics at a friend's wedding did I find a few (quite a few) images soft. I guess, it was because the light available was fairly dim. ... That said, I don't really miss my 24-105.

 

[Sporgon]

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?

If you read form the beginning of the thread you'll find some interesting comments and observations.

The 24-70II is a superlative lens; the best there is optically, and I can well understand people who have purchased it ditching the 24-105. But the former doesn't have IS and it depend on how much you value this. Over the years I have come to realise that I need IS.

Here's a shot that has made me a fair bit of dosh. I was shooting at the school, thought the evening light was a wash out, then literally five minutes before sun set the sun began to break through. I ran down the hill with the 5D and 24-105, waited briefly to get my breath back and then began shooting the sequence at 1/30s because I needed through DoF and low ISO (100 ). There was no time to take or set up the tripod. I've included a 100% crop which is straight of camera, converted and un sharp mask of 100% 0.3 pixel as I have sharpening set to zero for these shots. The final image is sharp enough to be blown up to 3 metres across and is on display at the school. We sell smaller ones 1 metre across the the 'old' boys and girls of the school.

Without IS this shot would not exist.

 

[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.

 

[Random Orbits]

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.

The problem is that the optical formula with IS is different than the one without it. Are the 70-200 f/2.8 IS versus non IS the same optical design? According to the rumors circulating before the 24-70 II came out, both the 24-70 II and a 24-70 IS variant were being field tested. They were different lenses. The testers preferred what became the 24-70 II. If that is true, then it is harder to design something that is as good as the 24-70 II and has IS.

 

[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?!

 

[Sporgon]

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?

Without IS this shot would not exist.

Do you any arguments to back up your claim?!

Errr.... not quite sure I understand what you mean. I took the shot and I can't hand hold 1/30th without IS to save my life at a focal length of 67mm, which is what this is. It's a commercial picture and had to be sharp. If it had been blurred it would have been in bin.

 

[bdunbar79]

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!