Which standard zoom lens for me??

[KKCFamilyman]

I had the 24-70 2.8 II. I sold my gear earlier this year. I have recently bought into the Canon 5d4 and just received the 24-105L II. I was waiting since it finally brought things that made it worthwhile. I like the dp 4k video and wanted and updated 24-105 II with hopes of it being better than the 24-70 F4 while giving me the much desired 35mm of extra reach. Often it felt like I shot at 70mm only to crop in. After all the initial reviews it makes me start to regret this decision. It appears it is only slightly better than the v1 and it does not seem better than the cheaper 24-70 version. I would just get the 24-70 2.8 but for me I like the IS in the lens especially for the occasional video. Should I keep it or go to the 24-70 version which is ok... or rebuy the 24-70 2.8 and forgo the IS. I really was hoping it would hit all my tick boxes except if canon produced a 2.8 IS version of course. I shoot family and travel photography but liked the idea of 24-105 covering such a good range. It would be nice to travel with just that lens. Sometimes the 35mm is still not enough. Any suggestions? Has anyone had a positive experience?

 

[Maximilian]

Hi, KKCFamilyman!

I suppose you've become obsessed by something I'd call an "external" problem.
You read the reviews that are "bad" - or better call them "mediocre" and full of "disappointment".
And I must agree that I've expected more from the 24-105 Mark II. But I am still a happy - or even more happy - Mark I owner.
Because...
The original 24-105 was a really good - but not excellent - lens and so is the Mark II as well.

So what do you have to do now (IMO):
[list type=decimal]
[*]Forget about the reviews and simply use the lens. Go out, get used to and enjoy you new gear.
[*]Then consider if f/2.8 and even better IQ is more important to you than IS and the extra 35 mm reach
If yes ==> If you can afford and justify it, go for the 24-70/2.8 II
[*]If no ==> Then consider if smaller form factor and better macro functionality are worth the sacrifice of losing the extra 35 mm and additional money as I don't expect that this change will be a zero sum in costs.
If yes ==> If you can afford and justify it, go for the 24-70/4.0
[*]If no, stay/get happy with what you have now, because it is really good equipment
[/list]

Hope this helps you with your decision.

 

[Mikehit]

Are you disappointed because of what the reviews say or because of what you see with your own eyes?
You had the 24-70 ii so have experience of both - do you think it is worse than that lens? If you can't say it is worse then it sounds like you are chasing an illusion.

And if the additional 35mm is still not enough then there is the 70-200 f4LIS, but you should be able to crop the 5DIV image quite effectively.

 

[JonAustin]

I don't want to "spend your money for you," but if you can afford it, it sounds to me like you should keep the 24-105 v2 for video and pick up another 24-70 v2 for stills.

I'm on my 2nd 24-105L (v1), also had higher expectations of the v2, and have decided to pass on upgrading. I get why Canon may have compromised on potential improvements in the vII to maintain the (list) price point and relative placement in the product line, but we've become accustomed lately to seeing significant improvements in vII lenses (or such replacements as the 16-35/4L IS for the 17-40L). I have wondered why Canon even bothered to release the v2, since it represents so little improvement over the v1, despite its larger size and weight. There must have been other considerations besides optical quality.

Since the 24-105 v2 "is what it is," I would love to see Canon produce a "v3" which -- rather than replacing the v2 -- would sit alongside it in the product line, priced comparably to the 24-70 II and including the kind of optical improvements we were expecting of the v2.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

Hi, KKCFamilyman!

I suppose you've become obsessed by something I'd call an "external" problem.
You read the reviews that are "bad" - or better call them "mediocre" and full of "disappointment".
And I must agree that I've expected more from the 24-105 Mark II. But I am still a happy - or even more happy - Mark I owner.
Because...
The original 24-105 was a really good - but not excellent - lens and so is the Mark II as well.

So what do you have to do now (IMO):
[list type=decimal]
[*]Forget about the reviews and simply use the lens. Go out, get used to and enjoy you new gear.
[*]Then consider if f/2.8 and even better IQ is more important to you than IS and the extra 35 mm reach
If yes ==> If you can afford and justify it, go for the 24-70/2.8 II
[*]If no ==> Then consider if smaller form factor and better macro functionality are worth the sacrifice of losing the extra 35 mm and additional money as I don't expect that this change will be a zero sum in costs.
If yes ==> If you can afford and justify it, go for the 24-70/4.0
[*]If no, stay/get happy with what you have now, because it is really good equipment
[/list]

Hope this helps you with your decision.

Thanks for the response. I do really want the extra reach and like the new lens hood which was a real issue with me on the v1. I have all three lenses here right now and cannot tell a real difference but if I was recording video the IS would be the best. I wanted the extra reach because when carrying one lens I get 85mm and 105 which gives me a better portrait FL. I think there would not be an issue if the 2.8 had IS. I think I will shoot with it for a few weeks and go from there. Everyone keeps price as an issue but I got this for $900 so it is not much more than the 24-70 f4.