The neverending 24-70 vs. 24-105 battle

[miklosphoto]

Just to put it straight right up front. This is not a question which lens do

you recommend to get. I've read all the postings on that question.

 

Here is what I'd like to ask:

 

I see a a trend among photographers that whoever have been owning the 24-70mm

lens swears that that is the best lens. Those who "upgraded" to 24-105mm swear

the upgrade was worth it.

 

I own the 24-105mm lens and everything is perfect with that lens, except the

lack of that extra f-stop which I would need for low-light. I photograph events

where the subjects tend to move around so the IS is not helping me there.

 

I rented, borrowed several 24-70mm lenses to test and compare and in general

experienced that the 24-105 was always sharper.

 

Is it because I happened to get "bad copies" of the 24-70mm or is it because by

design the 24-105 is sharper? There are contradicting opinions about this, many

photographers claim that the 24-70 is very sharp, many say that is the case

only if you are lucky enough to get a good copy.

 

I welcome any opinion, feedback on this as I am concidering to switch, that is

to sell my 24-105 and get a 24-70 but also afraid to regret that move later.

Regret only because of the sharpness issue (if there is an issue); focal length

and IS is not an issue for me.

 

Any respons is appreciated.

Thank you.

[ralph_jensen]

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/24-105/index.htm

 

OR, if you want to see for yourself,

 

1. Go to http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

2. Click on "ISO 12233 crops"

 

3. Choose a focal length at which you wish to compare crops

 

4. In the "Compare to" box, choose "24-105"

 

5. Compare the two lenses at various focal lengths.

 

I suspect you're hoping there is a clear winner, but in light of sample variations, I don't think there is.

 

You should be easily able to find some copies of one lens that are sharper than the other at various focal lengths and some copies of the other that are sharper.

 

So I'd decide based on whether you need the extra stop more or the IS and extra reach more.

[chris_laudermilk]

There is no "winner" here. The optics are both excellent (see here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html -- so close that the differences are meaningless). They are two different tools for two different jobs. For *my* needs the 24-70 is the clear winner, for others the reverse might be true.

 

Sounds like you got some soft copies, or your 24-105 is exceptionally sharp.

[rob - atlanta, ga usa]

Were you using both on a tripod? If not, maybe the sharpness difference was being masked by the IS or in other words, maybe the IS was helping more than you think?

[gdanmitchell]

Both are great lenses with different strengths and weaknesses. Either is plenty sharp for just

about any use most of us will contemplate. The significant differences are more in the feature

set than in the optical quality.

 

This is not to say that there are not differences between them in this regard. It is just to say

that for nearly everyone the other issues are more significant when it comes to making a

decision.

[mendel_leisk]

I'm sure there is a bias to believe what you have is better than what you passed up. Everyone likes to think they've made good choices. These lens are very close, and both have their pros and cons. This coupled with manufacturing variations makes this an often contested subject.

 

My personal experience was to start with the 24-70, and then acquire the 24-105. I still have *both*. I've done comparison tests on several occasions, sometimes hand-held, sometimes on tripod, with varying subject matter. My conclusions, and of course this is just with my copies:

 

1. Shooting subjects at near equal distance across the frame: in the majority of areas, the 24-70 is sharper. But in a few areas the 24-105 was sharper. So, it's close, but overall I was more pleased with the 24-70 sharpness.

 

2. The 24-70 shows less light fall-off.

 

3. The 24-70 is capable of significantly closer focus, near macro.

 

4. The 24-70 shows less chromatic abberation with things like branches against bright sky. Or at least it is less noticeable, objectionable.

[KenPapai]

There are several advantages to the 24-105 over the 24-70, but as usual, my money is always on the faster lens. Always. I'm talking zooms here, not esoteric primes that cost (sometimes, far) more than 1 or 2 thousand dollars.

 

The 24-105 has longer reach and I.S. It's got NOTHING else over the 24-70. So... if you want a slow f/4 zoom w/I.S., go for it.

 

My 13x19 inch prints from the 24-70 are VERY sharp.

[miklosphoto]

Bob,

yes, I tested both lenses on tripod with cable release and mirror locked up with IS turned off.

Miklos

[howard_slavitt2]

Another big advantage for some is that the 24-105 weighs A LOT less than the 24-70mm, which is a monster. Others do not care about this feature.

 

"The 24-105 has longer reach and I.S. It's got NOTHING else over the 24-70."

[bob_osullivan]

I'm sure you'll miss the 24-105IS. I have been contemplating getting the 24-70 as some point too. Just don't need it yet. But when I do, I'll keep the 24-105IS and maybe split the difference on cost and buy the Sigma 24-70 2.8. The reviews seem to indidcate is it at least as sharp, if not better, than the canon, and costs less than half.

[qtluong]

There is a slight edge in sharpness for the 24-105 (as determined by Norman Koren's imatest), but this is not significant compared to other differences. I still have both but use almost only the 24-105.

[grant g]

I still have and use both.

 

For my copies, the 24-105 is sharper by far even with both at f/4 or f/5.6.

 

For weddings, I mostly use the 24-105. I'm good at handholding the 24-70 at very low shutter speeds (1/6 sec.) but in the end IS wins when I want to shoot at f/5.6 anyway and can reliably shoot it down to 1/3 sec. I never used the 24-70 for shallow DOF shots anyway and that's what I use primes or the 70-200/2.8IS for anyway. I still use the 24-105 in low light. If you use 'balanced flash' techniques, the IS is priceless for working without a tripod.

 

For travel, it's the 24-105 for the added range and lower weight.

 

For landscapes, I like shooting at f/8 to f/16. IS lets me keep the ISO as low as possible for the lowest noise...all handheld.

 

But I still have the 24-70 for flare resistance and to some extent, close focusing.

 

If I had to keep just one, it would definitely be the 24-105.

[qtluong]

Now that Grant mentions it, the "slight" advantage of the 24-105 mentioned previously is at optimum apertures. I also found that at f4, the 24-105 was significantly better than the 24-70.

[marknagel]

I have an excellent 24-70L. I wanted to buy a 24-105L for my other body and all the copies I tried (4 at the store) were noticeably less sharp wide open to f/8 (tripod, release,5D, etc). I decided not to get one and I bought a 300mm f/2.8L IS instead. I'm a happier man now.

 

m

[marknagel]

Bob, I had the sigma and tamaron versions, here are my experiences:

 

http://www.nagelhome.com/phototest/Test%20Final.jpg

 

As for the 24-70L here is a comparison at:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=9&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=355&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

 

m

[nhut-nguyen]

Hello everyone,

To me sharpness is not really important when it comes to comparing one L lens to another, I think both the 24-70 and the 24-105 are really sharp for most of the stuff people do, one may be sligtly sharper than the other, so what? People spend too much time talking over sharpness of a lens and wasting their time doing test shots and comparing. To me what important is detail, you and I can easily increase the sharpness in photoshop, but you and I cannot add more detail to the image...The detail may be a little soft, but it's available, you can't enhance something that isn't there. L lenses have the amazing capability to capture details. Just my thought and please correct me if I'm wrong, thank you.

[gdanmitchell]

I want to second Sinh Nhut Nguyen's points. :-)

 

Dan

[miklosphoto]

Sihn and Dan,

I agree with you guys in general, but in my case there were striking differences between the two lenses. I believe that in case you have two lenses which are as sharp as they designed to be, your assesment is correct.

All I wanted to know if I just came across two bad copies of the 24-70mm lens or that lens is not as sharp by design.

 

To all:

I appreciate all the answers.

 

I guess I just try to get a good copy of the 24-70mm and when I get it I decide which lens works better form me.

[ralph_jensen]

Ken Papai said, "My money is always on the faster lens. Always."

 

MY money is always on the lens that lets me get sharp pictures in the lowest light - and with I.S., that's often not the "fastest" lens. If in a given situation it's between f2.8 @ 1/12th second using a non-IS lens vs. f/4 @ 1/6th with IS, I'll bet on the latter every time.

 

I had both lenses but found that for event photography, both with flash and with ambient, I was always using the 24-105 (for reasons explained in the previous paragraph). So I sold the 24-70.

[miklosphoto]

Ralph,

I understand that with flash it does not matter which lens you use, but with ambient light, how does that work for you? I Usually carry my 50mm lens with me to go even under f/2 to get at least 1/125 sec speed on ISO 3200. That is why I consider the f/2.8 lens so I can get close to that and don't need to carry an extra lens.

Miklos

[anthony_zipple]

I have used both, but the 24-105 is on my body most of the time. It is longer and lighter and the IS is great. The 24-70 is faster, but f/4 is fast enough for most of my needs. It is also much heavier and less useful as an all around street lens. In real life use, both are great performers and optically good enough for any use.