24-105is vs. 24-70 comparisons

[marknagel]

I did my usual search for comparisons, (photonet, the digital Picture, etc) does

anyone have any other good comparisons of these two lenses wide open and both at

f/4? Before I order this lens, which I will almost always be using at f/4, I'd

like a few more comparisons to cover the sample some variation.

 

Thanks

 

m

[john_macpherson]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

[steve torelli]

Why do think you'd be shooting at f/4 almost all the time? The two lenses are comparable really only in price. The 24-70 lets in twice as much light, 24-105 has IS which adds $400-$600 to the price of a lens, depending. The way I see it is the 24-70 is a $1200 L lens and the 24-105 is a $700 L lens with IS. Which is more valuable to you is a question only you can answer. AFAIC, I'll take the speed over the IS every time. The extra stop of light is always valuable, IS is valuable some of the time. YMMV. I don't know how much more can be said in comparing these two lenses. This is only an observation, I have no numbers to back it up, but in perusing the Buy and Sell forums here and at FM, I see more people looking to trade their 24-105 for a 24-70 than the other way around. You can take that for what it's worth. Good luck.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>If you type "24-105, 24-70" into the PN search field you will get 951 returns...

 

<p>Direct link: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site%

3Aphoto.net&q=24-105%2C+24-70">http://www.google.com/search?

ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site%

3Aphoto.net&q=24-105%2C+24-70</a>

 

<p>Revising the search to "24-105, 24-70, f/4" returns 391 hits...

 

<p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site%

3Aphoto.net&q=24-105%2C+24-70%2C+f%2F4">http://www.google.com/search?

ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=site%3Aphoto.net&q=24-105%2C+24-70%2C+f%2F4</a>

 

<p><a href="http://www.slrgear.com/">slrgear.com</a> has a lot of very useful tests.

 

 

 

<p>Enjoy.

 

<p>Dan

[gdanmitchell]

By the way, the general consensus (which tends to flatten out differences among individual

opinions) is that both lenses are excellent though suited for somewhat different uses and

types of users.

 

As usual, it is not a question of which is "best" in some universal and objective sense - it is

a question of which is "best" for your particular photographic needs.

 

I chose one of these lenses, but I won't tell you which... :-)

 

Dan

[marknagel]

Dan, thanks, I did search, have been for the past week. I'm just looking for a few more actual photo comparisons to than the ones I found. The one at TheDigitalPicture shows the 24-105 significantly softer than the 24-70, but the written reviews don't back that up, so I'd like to see another photo comparison or two to rest my mind.

 

 

Steve, I have a 24-70L and love it. I am just using this comparison as a benchmark since I know what it can do. This would be for my wife (20D), she is my BU at weddings, and for a general walk around to replace the 17-85is and 28-135is I just sold. So I figure I have an $850 credit in my pocket to use toward a replacement lens. During the wedding I carry my 27-70L and 35/1.4L and don't want to chase each other down to swap. I don't think I want the 17-55is because my next camera will be another FF and she will get my 5D, leaving the 20D as another BU.

 

I don't want to buy another 24-70L, and am definitely leaning toward the 24-105 to meet two roles, my wifes lens for weddings, and a all-in-one carry lens for my 5D and 20D. (my 20D rarely leave my safe anymore)

 

M

[beauh44]

Hi Mark, I also sold my 28-135mm IS and bought the 24-105mm f/4L IS and am glad I did. Good luck!

[mendel_leisk]

I've posted a couple of full res shots at the very bottom of this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00L6ed

 

Both are at 24mm focal length, 1/125 sec, f5.6 and ISO400. Focus in both cases on the little framed picture on the tv.

 

With my copies the 24-70 really trounces the 24-105 for off-center sharpness. Look in particular at the fireplace stonework, and the gilt edge frame hanging on the stonework.

[steve torelli]

Mark,

 

After reading your last post, I agree with Beau. The 24-105 is in another league compared to 28-135, a lens I had years ago. As you already have the classic 'wedding zoom lens", it would be a good choice as a backup and walk about lens for your wife's 20D. Again, good luck.

[gdanmitchell]

Now that I hear that you don't want another 24-70 and the this will be a second lens for the

backup camera, I think the idea of having both (24-70 and 24-105) sounds intriguing - a

best of both worlds sort of thing. You'll get a bit more reach and IS when that is useful (and

still quite good images) and you'll have f/2.8 when that is needed.

 

Take care,

 

Dan

[eric merrill]

I have the 24-105/4. Just bought it a few weeks ago. I really like it. Both on a 5D and on an XTi.

 

On the 5D, there is vignetting at 24mm and f/4. Big deal. A swish of the mouse and a click of the button in Adobe Raw Converter, and the vignetting disappears.

 

I can hand hold down to 1/8 at 24mm and 1/30 at 105mm for printing sharp 8x10s. My general rule of thumb is 1/2xfocal length. So I'm happy with the IS. Just for comparison.

 

This is the only zoom I own. So I'm not so concerned about using it in low light. I'd switch to a 35/1.4 or 85/1.8 instead of the 24-70/2.8 any time in low light. So I don't really see the 24-70/2.8 as having an advantage for me.

 

 

Eric

[rtrace]

Picture quality aside, the 24-70mm is notorious for having focus issues. I've never heard of a lens that Canon makes (L too) that is so hit and miss. Apparently it has 8 calibration points, and Canon only calibrates at the long and wide end. A lot of wedding photographers are dumping them and going for the more reliable 24-105. Just something else to think about besides picture quality. Some will swear (and be right) that they've never had any issues and it's the user's fault, but I had 3 copies before getting one that was decent. I've dumped it still long time back.

 

Bogdan

[marknagel]

Borgdan, thanks, I have a great 24-70L. I'm just using that as a benchmark to see how the 24-105is preforms.

 

m

[rtrace]

Mark, consider yourself lucky then! From other forums and from those I know, a lot of wedding photogs are going to the 24-105. Especially now that there are cameras with crazy clean ISOs like the 5D/1DM3. 24-105f/4 and primes for speed/shallower DOF. Best of both worlds.

 

Bogdan

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

They are both good lens. The only question need to ask is weight vs quality.

 

24-70: Heavy! No IS! Impossible to handhold at 1/15 and below. Not a lot of distortion at the short end. Superb image quality. even at f2.8 is sharper than f4/5.6 of 105IS.

 

24-105: Not as sharp as 24-70, but it's very sharp at all apertures. distortion at short end, but can't really tell in real world Lightweight and IS and can be handhold at 1/15s and below if needed. Extra reach at the long end.

 

I had both and love them both. If I can afford to keep them both, then I would do so. Since I do a lot of Wedding and need that extra reach and rarely used the f2.8, I choose the 24-105.

 

I would love to keep the 24-70 to do portrait and outdoor portrait where I can use the f2.8 and don't have to drag the shutter.

 

They are both really good lens and it's depend on what you need it for. You have to decide it yourself;

 

Choose the f2.8, heavy weight, no IS, and no 70-105 reach or

Choose f4, light weight, IS, and more reach.

 

for image quality, I would say 10 vs 9/8.5. If you pixel peeping, then you can tell the differences. In the real world, it's not that much of differences and your client don't even know if the pictures are coming from the 24-70 or 24-105.

 

And like I said before I would keep both if I had the money for it.