24-70mm f2.8L II vs 24-105mm f4L; 85mm 1.8 vs 1.2L

<p>I currently have (in addition to - among others - the 70-200mm f2.8L II) the 24-105mm f4L and EF 85mm f1.8. The body is a 1Ds III. When I shoot (it ain't my day job), I shoot just about anything, from my children to landscape to sport to bands. </p>

<p>My feeling with the 24-105mm is that the convenience is great, the max. aperture a tad small these days and the quality of image produced (ignoring aesthetics for the moment) quite good, but not stand out. Most of the reviews and comments I have read about the lens tend to confirm that - though it certainly has its fans. I am considering trading up to a 24-70mm f2.8L II and would be interested in hearing from those with experience of both lenses as to whether the improvement in quality has made the increase in cost worthwhile - or whether you hanker after the extra reach (or the IS) of the 24-105mm. </p>

<p>On the 85mm front, again I know that the 1.2L II has cracking centre sharpness even wide open, but I have found the 1.8 a pretty amazing lens (in common with its FD/FL forebears), esp. for the money; I have found it particularly effective shooting gigs close-up to the band, giving an excellent balance of light and reach. I have read that the 1.2L can be slow to focus. But again I am interested in the experience of those who have tried both: if you do prefer the faster lens, what is it about it that makes the difference for you? Is it just about the extra light, or what?</p>

<p>Of course, whether the extra money is worth it is pretty subjective. But it would still be interesting to hear why it was (or wasn't) worth it for you.</p>

<p>I sold my 28-70 f2.8 L lens (the even earlier version of the 24-70 f2.8 L II) and bought a 24-105 F4 L. The reason was mostly that the 28-70, while a very fine lens, was also quite heavy so often got left at home. Obviously different photographers will come to different views about the same decision. The 24-105 F4 L gets quite a bit more use than the 28-70. The IS is useful too though was not a major factor for me.</p>

<p>My experience is limited to the 85s (as I've not shot with the 24-70/2.8 II, just the I), and i would confirm what you've read. For fast, or unpredictably, moving subjects, I found the 85/1.2 II was just slow enough to be unable to overcome subject movement, always leaving me a heartbeat behind where the subject moved to. To make it worse, the f stop of 1.2 made the DOF so shallow as to make it significantly more difficult to achieve focus - I found it necessary to bump it beyond f2.5 to enable the lens to 'catch up' w/ the subjects - at f2.5, there is no tangible point in using it over the 85/1.8. <br>

For static subjects, there is no doubt the 1.2II is the clearly superior choice - especially @ f1.2->f2, but for subjects that you don't control, and tend to move a lot (in my case children at play, in yours a band on stage(?)), I suspect you may find yourself frustrated with the lens. An alternative which is just as sharp, but very nearly as fast as the 85/1.8 is the Sigma 85/1.4 HSM. That is a very very impressive piece of optic. It is significantly sharper WO and near than the 85/1.8, and faster than the 85/1.2II.</p>

<p>As far as the 24-105 vs 24-70/2.8II goes, I traded up my 24-105/4 to a 24-70/2.8 several years ago because of the 24-105's lackluster imagery (ie. they did not 'pop'), I was and still am quite satisfied w/ my 24-70/2.8's imagery, but the II certainly is crisper. Personally, I doubt I'll buy one though, now there are better, more cost effective, options...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>better, more cost effective, options...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean the Tamron? That is quite attractive, though I do like the weather-sealing of the L lens.</p>

<p>I shoot mostly travel and landscape. For this, the 24-105L is the ticket, at least for me. With the 6D, where ISO 6400 is truly usable, the loss of one stop vs. the 24-70 2.8 is meaningless. And the IS is sometimes a god send. Plus, it makes for a much more lightweight combination...<br>

Now, all the reviews and opinions mention that the 24.70 2.8 MKII is arguably the better lens, but at a cost that for me is not justifiable. For you, if you are able to see the difference in your photos, it could be different.<br>

I find that the 24-105, processed thorugh LR4, gives excellent results. The main optical drawbacks of the lens (noticeable barrel distortion at 24mm and some chromatic aberrations) are easily corrected in LR4 (just two clicks). And of course, the extra zoom comes in very handy quite often.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The main optical drawbacks of the lens (noticeable barrel distortion at 24mm and some chromatic aberrations) are easily corrected in LR4 ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree about ease of correction. It is more the lack of sharpness (everything is relative, I know!) that makes me want to look elsewhere. (Sharpness just happens to be something I particularly value; YMMV.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You mean the Tamron?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do indeed. It seems as good or better than the 24-70/2.8L (optically speaking) and much less likely to get out of whack w/ normal use, though not<em> quite</em> as crisp as the 24-70/2.8L II. Weather sealing is a feature, but not one I personally find necessary (but then I also shoot with 5s, not 1s ;-) ), though of course your use will govern it's importance to you. Given the cost difference between the 24-70/2.8 VC and the 24-70/2.8 II, you can <em>literally</em> buy another<em> excellent</em> lens with what you save (for example the Sigma 85/1.4 ;-) ), making the question valid to consider for most of us...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>much less likely to get out of whack w/ normal use</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because? </p>

<p>The original 24-70/2.8L has a three point attachment for the front (heaviest) lens, which is relatively easy to knock askew with slight blows and even routine 'normal' heavy use. additionally, the nylon slides in the helical assembly are undersized and can wear quickly, causing binding. For more detailed info, take a wander over to lensrentals.com and take a look at Roger's comparison in the mechanics of the lens and lenses.</p>

<p>Of course this has long been a complaint about the 24-70/2.8L, and is something they addressed in the II by beefing up the internal components - presumably the mkII will be more reliable, but it's really to soon to tell yet. Given what I know about the internal components, my 24-70 gets babied compared to the beating I give the rest of my eqp.</p>

 

<p>Thanks, Marcus (and Paulo and Colin). Good food for thought.</p>

<p>I have the two zooms, and sometimes I choose one and sometimes the other - but I use both for serious, high-quality photographic work. Both are excellent lenses. They have different personalities, which may make either more suitable for certain types of shooting. I wrote something about the comparison here: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2011/02/06/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-l-versus-canon-ef-24-105mm-f5-l-is">Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II vs. 24-70mm f/4L IS vs. 24-105mm f/4 L IS</a></p>

<p>I use the 85mm f/1.8 and as lovely as the 1.2L is supposed to be, the non-L f/1.8 is a standout performer at a much lower cost and in a much smaller size/weight. There may be a few people who actually "need" the f/1.2 aperture of the L lens, but far more buy it because it is really big and cool looking, it has a red band and the "L" designation, and because "it must be better since it costs so much.)</p>

<p>(My philosophy regarding Canon primes is that when a really fine non-L Canon alternative exists, I will get the non-L for reasons of performance, size, weight, and cost. There are several examples of types of primes for which the value of the more costly L version is debatable. On the other hand, where an equivalent non-L Canon primes in unavailable, I will purchase the L prime.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Paulo Bizarro, with regard to your 4:46 AM comment on correcting barrel distortion and chromatic aberration with 2 clicks in Lightroom 4, in case you're not aware there is a way to set those 2 clicks (and any other corrections or adjustments you make to virtually every other RAW image in LR) as part of your default setting for importing and have all the adjustments automatically applied to all images that you import into LR4.<br>

If anybody who uses LR4 wants to apply automatic adjustments to the RAW files you import but doesn't know how, let me know and I'll post a link to the process, which is quite easy.</p>

I used a 24-105 for nearly 8 years, purchased the 24-70 f2.8 II lens recently.

 

 

Observations

 

1. I wish the 24-70 had IS, though my photos don't show any issues

 

2. I miss the extended zoom of the 24-105

 

3. I can really see the difference in sharpness. The 24-70 is a MUCH sharper lens

 

 

Conclusion:

 

I hope Canon comes out with an updated version of the 24-105 with f2.8, IS, and the same level of sharpness of the 24-

70

<blockquote>

<p>I hope Canon comes out with an updated version of the 24-105 with f2.8, IS, and the same level of sharpness of the 24- 70</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It won't happen!</p>

<p>The 24-105 is a fine lens. More importantly, it is a good-to-buy but not-good-to-sell lens. At Amazon, the price difference between the 6D with and without the 24-105 is $520, and between the 5D III is even lower: $450! Unless you have a better way to sell your 24-105, and if you put it on Amazon market place, the money you can get is just approximately $500, or even less if you want a quick sale.</p>

<p>I traded my 24-70 I for the 24-105 when it first came out because of the weight of the 24-70. To me, carrying it around for an hour was a pain, especially with my 20D at that time. Recently I bought the 24-70 II. Besides the the range from 70-105, it is clearly superior to the 24-105. Lacking IS is not a considerable factor when using the 24-70 II. I decided to keep the 24-70 as well.</p>

<p>I have been using the 85 1.8 and recently add the 85 1.2 to my lens group. Each lens has its own strong and weak points. For still portrait, the 1.2 is a near perfect lens.</p>

<p>James, I have experience with all four lenses in question.</p>

<p>I replaced my 85/1.8 with an 85/1.2 L II because I needed a short telephoto to shoot without flash in poorly lit conditions, such as my daughter's recitals. It also serves as the finest portrait lens I've ever used, with its legendary bokeh and all. But for your purposes, I think sticking with the 85/1.8 would be better. It focuses much faster and is much lighter, and will give you superior performance for concert photography, despite the faster prime's superior optics.</p>

<p>I replaced my 24-105 with the new 24-70 for similar reasons. (I've also had the older 24-70.) The longer zoom is certainly versatile, but I found its images to be flat and lifeless in lower light, even outdoors. With its extra stop and prime-level resolution, I have been using the 24-70 much more than I used the 24-105. And, like you, I have a 70-200, so I don't have a focal length gap between zooms (and tend to use the longer zoom exclusively while walking about, anyway). So while it's less clear in this case which lens would be better for you, I would seriously consider the 24-70. Sure, it lacks IS, but that's less important (for me, at least) with shorter lenses.</p>

<p>Good luck with your decisions!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the max. aperture a tad small these days</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With the quality of high ISO images these days, this is exactly backwards.<br>

My problem with the 24-105 is that the 105mm is a little short for all day, so I would never even consider going shorter to 70mm or similar.</p>

<p>My first lens was a Canon 24-105 and it was very soft, even after I sent it back to Canon. I sold it for that reason.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the max. aperture a tad small these days</p>

<p>With the quality of high ISO images these days, this is exactly backwards.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily, JDM. For example, when I'm shooting my daughter's recitals with my 5DII, I have to use use my 85/1.2 wide open at 1600, so even with an f/2.8 zoom I'd need at least 3200. With an f/4 zoom, I might as well forget it.</p>

<p>Then go to 3200 and up....<br /> A little "noise" never hurt anybody.<br>

I have f/1.2 lenses and lots of F/2 to f/2.8 lenses and use them when appropriate, but we're talking about <em>everyday</em> use here, not special low-light cases. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>[W]e're talking about <em>everyday</em> use here, not special low-light cases.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True enough. That's why I qualified what I took to be your categorical claim with "not necessarily."</p>

<p>I was, in my turn, reacting primarily to the categorical use of "these days" when it has never been more true that f/4 + IS will suffice for an astonishing range of shooting conditions where formerly superfast lenses were needed.<br>

Not that I wouldn't like to add an 85mm f/1.2 lens to my kit some (wealthy) day. :)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I agree about ease of correction. It is more the lack of sharpness (everything is relative, I know!) that makes me want to look elsewhere. (Sharpness just happens to be something I particularly value; YMMV.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, everyone loves sharpness! What I love about the 24-105 is that its images are pretty easy to sharpen and clean up in post. You honestly can't say that about every lens.</p>

<p>Like others here, I would greatly miss the reach of the 24-105 and its IS. I think I would miss the IS more than the reach. Another thing not discussed (?) is that the 24-105 gives you a bit of fl overlap with your 70-200. If you happen to be shooting right around 70mm, give or take, you'll probably appreciate this. I hate being forced to the limits of any lens' focal length range. Optical quality usually suffers, and the annoyance factor goes way up. I have a bit of overlap between each of my primary lenses (12-24 / 17-40 / 24-105 / 70-200), and I really like it that way.</p>

<p>What's right for you? Nobody here can tell you. You simply have to go through your photos and figure out how many you take in the 70-105 range that you could no longer take without switching to your 70-200; how many you would have preferred to take at f/2.8 if your lens were that fast; how many required or benefitted from the IS, etc. </p>

 

<p>To give your images from the 24-105mm the best chance to "stand out", make sure that you're shooting in Raw and using DLO (Digital Lens Optimization) software to convert your images. Digital Photo Professional, which ships any body you're likely to use with the 24-105mm does an excellent job of adjusting for CA, vignetting, softness, geometric distortions at every focal length and every aperture. DxO Optics Pro includes DLO and I've read that it's included with Lightroom. The improvement is like buying several new prime lenses.</p>

<p>In fairness, if a lens<em> requires</em> 'cleaning up' in post to make the imagery 'pop', then that doesn't speak to it's virtues. I personally feel that the 'crispness' should be apparent before you touch a slider. I am satisfied with a lens when it is capable of producing imagery <em>out of camera</em> which is as sharp and contrasty as I need it. IMPE, the 24-105/4 was never that lens. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>... make sure that you're shooting in Raw and using DLO (Digital Lens Optimization) software to convert your images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, doing that (I'd be kind of embarrassed to be using a body like the 1Ds III and <em>not</em> shooting in raw, but then I know even professional photographers who use in-camera jpegs and don't shoot raw - though I don't get the impression that that is necessarily an <em>informed</em> choice) and LR has an optimisation option which I almost always use (though I sometimes quite <em>like</em> the natural vignetting you get with the 135mm L wide open, but that is straying off-topic). And I agree it makes a big difference.</p>

<p>Some of the reach issue can be compensated by cropping, of course - which I realise is Not The Same Thing At All, but it is another way of compromising.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I love about the 24-105 is that its images are pretty easy to sharpen and clean up in post.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll be sure to try some extra sharpening, Sarah, thanks. But extra sharpening = more noise, does it not? That would be a bit of a killer for some of my shots (though I would/should probably be using the 85mm in low light anyway).</p>