24-70 f/2.8L vs 24-105 f/4

Hey all, now that the 24-105 f/4 has been out for awhile and the

recall thing is a few months gone now I ask this of those who

have/has used/uses both.

I have seen photos from two different 24-105's over the last couple

of weeks that I thought were rather soft at f/4 and just a tad

better at f/5.6, the pics were at all different focal lengths and

used on a tripod with a cable release. I thought they were soft

throughout the entire pics not just at the edges. I have not had

side by side pics from the 24-70 to compare it to so I ask this of

those that do/have.

I read alot of reviews and seem to get a mixed bag of results on the

24-105.

So, those using a FF digital Canon that have/has used the two

lenses, which would/do you use more often. This is geared to the

wedding, portrait, event shooters.

I'm sure this has been asked but I did do a search and went back a

bit and did not see it, if I missed it and am being redundant here,

thanks for your patience.

George

Unfortunately I do not have these lenses. Photozone has tested both (on 1.6x crop factor bodies) and their results do not bear out your observation of "soft throughout the entire pics not just at the edges". The tests miss the edges of the full frame sensor but show that at the wide end the 24-105/4 beats the 24-70/2.8. At 70mm the 24-70/2.8 has a slight edge but both are very good.

 

There seems to be a distressing level of quality control variation in Canon's lenses. Perhaps you saw a poor sample.

I have both and return the 24-105L to Canon for a full refund. Both lens are sharp. 24-105L is sharp and very usable at F4 (not like 17-40L which is only good at f5.6). I never part the 24-70L because it is fast, sharp, and yield beautiful color and contrast. The 24-105L is on par with the 24-70L and is brighter and has longer reach. However, f2.8 can not be replaced with F4+IS. For 20D, 24mm is not wide enough for travel and landscape. I have 1D, so it is ok at wide end.

Hi George,

 

I've not used the 24-70, but have used the 24-105L quite a bit on my 5D (so, I recognize that this doesn't totally answer your question). The 24-105L is a tremendous piece of glass. It's fantastically sharp and has very little CA. In short, I've been very pleased with it, for exactly the sorts of uses you're describing.

 

I have had problems with it overexposing at certain apertures, when on Aperture priority, that aren't attributable to me metering incorrectly, so it's at Canon NJ right now with the 5D getting everything straightened out. I can't wait to get the kit back (I have a 2-day shoot at the end of this week where it'll be my primary combo).

 

Anyhoo, send me an email if you want more info.

 

Ben

George, I think you have to assume these lens are of equal quality.

 

As zooms both are going to be somewhat soft wide open. I put my kit together with f4 zooms because I have fast primes in the same range. Several wedding photogs I know have stuck with the 24-70 because they wanted better sharpness at f4-f5.6 and switch lens/cameras for longer shots. With the great high ISO performance of Canon, I don't feel that IS is necessary in this range. The only exception I have found is shooting stage performances hand held at 1/15 - 1/30, f8 - f11. There is no substitute for image stabilization in this situation.

 

My simple conclusion is that the 24-105 is the better walk about/PJ/travel lens (smaller, longer, IS). The 24-70 is the better indoor people lens (faster, sharper sooner). Hope this helps.

I'm with Lee and Don. I have both and will keep both. Do not believe to those who claim the 24-105 is better. They are both excellent in optic quality. However, f/4+IS cannot repleace f/2.8. The 24-70 is better for indoor while the 24-105 is more convenient for outdoor shooting.

Geroge, like you I've wondered about the 24-105f4L IS. I shoot weddings and just thursday received a 5D. I played with my lenses on it and found that my 24-70F2.8 and my 70-200f2.8IS will work great. My 50f1.4 is too wide for head shots and my 85f1.8 is marginal. I think I'll have to have 100mm f2 or the macro. My wife thinks the 5D is hers so the 100 should be a done deal. I'll still have a 1.6 frame body so the 50mm and the 85mm will still get plenty of use. I think that the f4 lens might be to slow for low light (Weddings). Regards, Bill

Thanks for the input folks, just the sort of stuff I was looking for. :-)

George

I still have both, and since getting the 24-105 around new year's to use with my 5D, my 24-70 hasn't been used at all. I've been considering selling it, but waiting to see if there's anything else that I want to pick up from eBay that would motivate me to put up the 24-70 on eBay as an exchange of sorts.

 

Yes, I miss the f/2.8 of 24-70 when I want shallow DOF or the rare instance when I want to capture fast action in poor light, but in just about everything else, the 24-105 wins for me.

Same here. I haven't used the 24-70/2.8L since getting the 24-105/4L IS with my 5D, but can't get myself to sell it... probably because it was my most used lens on the 20D. Time will tell what I eventually do... but I really like the new 24-105 lens.

 

Pierre

I had both lenses for a while. I returned 24-105L and decided to stick with 24-70L. My reason was that when I photograph people, I find 1/30 sec is just about slowest shutter speed I can use without getting blurry subject movements. IS helps to take sharp pictures but people in it move. Most of times even f2.8 isn't fast enough to get me 1/30 sec shutter speed. If I take f4 1/15th, I get blurry subject movements with sharp bakground. 24-105L wasn't for me so it went back.

"I'm with Lee and Don. I have both and will keep both. Do not believe to those who claim

the 24-105 is better." --Philip To

 

George,

Well, I have both and will keep both...and for weddings on a 5D, I'd prefer the 24-105.

 

By the same token, do not believe anyone who says the 24-70 is better : )