Better Quality, 24-70mm L or 24-105mm L?

[nathangardner]

<p>Which of these two lenses produces better image quality? The 24-70mm L or the 24-105mm L? I know one has more focal range and IS, while the other is faster, but all that is evident without ever seeing the lenses. I just want to know about image quality.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Well, the image quality of the 24-70 is not very good at all between 70 and 105mm...</p>

<p>Both actually can produce quite excellent image quality. Neither is perfect, but both are quite good. I would not select one over the other primarily on that basis.</p>

<p>For example, what if the 24-70 could produce slightly better resolution at 50mm but it turns out that you often shoot handheld at longer FLs? In this case the IS feature - depending upon <em>what</em> you shoot - could well do more for the sharpness of your photographs. What if the 24-105 turns out to be a bit sharper at 50mm at f/8... but you do a lot of low light photography of moving subjects at wider angles and the additional stop at f/2.8 will help you get, yes, sharper images of your subject.</p>

<p>And, how sharp do you need? If maximum sharpness is your thing - perhaps you regularly print at 20 x 30 and larger sizes? - then the right primes can produce slightly higher resolution if you use a tripod, MLU, and a remote release. (You do all those things, right? I would assume so if you are obsessed with maximum sharpness.)</p>

<p>In the end, there are fans of both of these lenses and they have their reasons for their selections - most of which will have to do with other factors.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[pto189]

<p>Check <a href="../search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Canon+24-105+IS+vs+24-70&filter=0&as_qdr=&sa=Search+Photo.net#1264"">http://www.photo.net/search/?cx=000753226439295166877%3A0gyn0h9z85o&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Canon+24-105+IS+vs+24-70&filter=0&as_qdr=&sa=Search+Photo.net#1264</a></p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I had the 24-105 but replaced it with the 24-70. Both are good lenses and it depends what you want. This is a frequent question on this forum and you should read the older posts. The advantages of the 24-70 are:<br>

Slightly sharper at the edge of the frame on a full frame camera (I suspect that on an APS-C sensor there will be no difference)<br>

Faster aperture<br>

Shallower depth of field (F2.8)<br>

Brighter viewfinder (F2.8)</p>

<p>Advantages of the 24-105 are:</p>

<p>Image stabilization which many find essential (I grew up with MF bodies so this is not a big deal for me - especially with the high ISO performance of the 5DII)<br>

Smaller, lighter and more compact<br>

longer range (105 vs 70)<br>

Slightly cheaper.</p>

<p>In my case I changed for the F2.8 capability - the IQ difference is fairly small but I missed the ability to isolate subjects with the F4 lens. If you don't mind the weight and will not miss the image stabilization then the 24-70 is the better lens. If you shoot APS-C I suspect that the 24-105 is a better lens as the 24-70 is a very big lens for a small body.<br>

the main image quality difference is that the 24-70 is slightly sharper at the edges on full frame camera but this is a fairly small difference. The main thing you notice as a photographer is that the 24-70 allows the shallow depth of field of an F2.8 lens.</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>The 24-105mm has one Super-UD glass element and three aspherical lenses while the 24-70mm has two aspherical lenses. What does this mean? I'm fairly knowledgeable about my camera, but I don't know as much about lens construction. What is better 2 or 3 aspherical elements?</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I find my 24-70 to be sharper than my 24-105, especially in the corners. This is after the 24-105 had one trip to a Canon Service Center, to fix an overly soft corner. The fix was succesful, but the overall sharpness is still a notch down from the 24-70.</p>

<p>Regarding the published focal lengths of both lens, I've found some disparity in practice: while both claim 24mm wide end, the 24-105 is slightly but noticeably wider. At the long end, set both to 70mm, and the 24-70 has a bit more reach. The 24-105 needs to be set around 80mm to match the 24-70's 70mm.</p>

<p>One published but neglected statistic: the 24-70 has closer Macro capability than the 24-105, capable of .29x (of life size), vs .23x for the 24-105. This is a fairly signifcant difference. Close focussing on the lens cap with the 24-70, you can get close enough to start cropping the cap edges. This is not the case with the 24-105: doing the same exercise you end up with a good fingerwidth of space beyond the lens cap. Source for the macro stat's, a chart about 1/3 of the way down this page:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>I find the 24-70 delivers warm results the 24-105 is cooler. Of the two I'd say the 24-105 is more neutral, and more in line with other lens in my line up.</p>

<p>Also, I find the 24-70 quite prone to flare: the general diffuse flare you get with a light source just out-of-frame. This is with/without uv filter and/or hood. The 24-105 is much better in this regard, showing little or no flair in similar situation.</p>

<p>So, I think a tough call, depending on your preferences.</p>

<p>BTW, while this is a very common question, I can never resist. Neither can G Dan ;)</p>

[tdigi]

<p>They are both very capable lenses. Do you value wider range, IS and lightweight or do you need/want 2.8. The 24-70 is much heavier. You can do a search here, this same question comes up almost everyday. Really trying to decide based on image quality is splitting hairs. Most would not ever see a difference. What body are yo using? </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>40D now hopefully 5D within the next 30 years, also whats the difference in 2 aspherical elements vs 3?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you are using them on a APS-C body, there are comparative reviews at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos">Photozone.de</a> . Unfortunately, they have only reviewed the 24-105mm on a 35mm sensor body. At least you can get an idea of the relative distortion, and so on. Lenses in this general focal range have to compromise on certain dimensions of "quality" even when they are L lenses.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<blockquote>

<p>The 24-105mm has one Super-UD glass element and three aspherical lenses while the 24-70mm has two aspherical lenses. What does this mean? I'm fairly knowledgeable about my camera, but I don't know as much about lens construction. What is better 2 or 3 aspherical elements?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aspherical surfaces are high-tech wonders that lens designers use to correct aberrations that would otherwise be impossible or too costly to address. The exact number doesn't really give a clue to overall performance--there are too many other factors. Still, <em>all other things being equal</em> , one should expect that a lens with an aspherical lens will be better a fast apertures than one without. There are a couple of manufacturing techniques which take a lot of the craft out of what was once the exclusive domain of the master optician. I've been told on good authority that there are only a handful of opticians in the entire industry who are capable of fashioning a high-quality aspherical lens. Canon's website has a AV presentation about their master, told in suitably reverent tones. The aspherical lenses in today's mass-produced lenses are made with manufacturing processes that bring the costs down, but the ones that use a grinding technique are given special note in Canon's literature, so there must be something especially hard in producing them.<br>

<br /> While this is all very interesting, all I can say is that it's pretty irrelevant to your lens decision. The review cited above at the-digital-picture gives you the low-down and provides a great way to compare image quality at different focal lengths and apertures. I do recommend that you try in a store before you buy: it took me 10 seconds of playing with the 24-70 to decide that it was too large and heavy as a general-purpose lens for me, but that's just me.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Here's The-Digital-Picture's target shot comparison with both lens. I've set the apertures and focal lengths middle-of-the-road, you can adjust to different. You mouse-over to toggle between the two.</p>

<p>The results bear out my experience. The 24-105 actually has a very slight edge in sharpness at center with the current focal length and aperture, but is softer at the edges. A bit more light fall-off too. The-Digital-Picture also has light fall-off tests, if you look around.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=101&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2</a></p>

<p>Addendum: Hmm, they're pretty close.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>You can find the 24-70 sharpness charts at: <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=8503">http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=8503</a></p>

<p>the 24-105 at : <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=11924">http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=11924</a></p>

<p>You'll note that they appear to be very similar. So you have to decide if the extra zoom available in the 24-105 is worth going from f2.8 to f4<br>

<br />Myself I've been using the 24-105 for almost 4 years and love it. It's my walk around lens. The original reason I chose it over the 24-70 is that the 24-105 matches the zoom range of the 580EX</p>

[sam_stovall1]

<p>Search "groups" on Flickr.. for 24-70 and 24-105.. find the Canon group with a lot of members.<br>

each lens has a group that post thousands of great shots.. see which is more like what you shoot</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>deleted - double post by accident - sorry...</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>The 24-105mm has one Super-UD glass element and three aspherical lenses while the 24-70mm has two aspherical lenses. What does this mean? I'm fairly knowledgeable about my camera, but I don't know as much about lens construction. What is better 2 or 3 aspherical elements?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In terms of making a smart lens choice... it means essentially nothing.</p>

<p>You don't make a smart choice among lenses like these by counting aspherical elements - you make it by thinking long and hard about your own photography - how and what you shoot and what you do with the photographs - and what your specific functional requirements are to do this photography. Then you select the lens that provides the best balance of performance features for the work you do.</p>

<p>Regarding these two lenses, some select the 24-70 and others select the 24-105, in each case because their selection is the best choice for their photographic needs.</p>

<p>Tommy wisely wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>They are both very capable lenses. Do you value wider range, IS and lightweight or do you need/want 2.8. The 24-70 is much heavier. You can do a search here, this same question comes up almost everyday. Really trying to decide based on image quality is splitting hairs. Most would not ever see a difference.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 !</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Nathan, I have and regularly use both of the lenses in question, but for different purposes. The 24-105 is my walkabout lens; its focal length is just about ideal for most of my outdoor shooting situations. (I use only full frame bodies). The 24-70 is one of my indoor portrait lenses (the other being the 50/1.4).</p>

<p>All I can really add to Dan's, Philip's, and Mendel's excellent comparative assessments of these lenses is that the bokeh (background blur) is better with the 24-70, making it better for portraiture, and that it is also better corrected (has less horizontal linear distortion) at the wide end, perhaps making it better for some types of landscape shooting.</p>

<p>You can't go wrong with the image quality of either of these zooms (notwithstanding the differences that have already been mentioned). In my opinion, which one you get should be determined by your intended uses.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I just put the 24-70 on a Difgital rebel that the kids use - as you can see it is massive compared to the camera body and you can only just get your fingers between the grip and the lens. If you plan on sticking with APS-C bodies the 24-105 may be the better lens. As many of us have pointed out the sharpness difference is small and is mainly at the edges so it will not be a factor on the APS-C sensor. The size factor may be the big decider, especially on the smaller body.</p><div></div>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>In about a week I'll begin a new post about the exact same subject. And in three weeks somebody else will add another. Just so that everybody is closer to asking this question once(for some maybe twice)and breaking a photo.net record.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>if you need the extra focal lengths, then get the 24-105. if quallity was absolutely paramount, then don't get a zoom, get primes.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>I own and use both. And under similar circumstances you won't be able to tell the difference on IQ alone. For example if you shot both lenses at 50mm F 4.5 you'd be hard pressed to tell which lens shot which image.</p>

<p>So, why do I have both, for all the reasons stated above. They are different lenses for somewhat different purposes. When I need to travel light, need extra reach and can use flash or need IS I take the 24-105. When I want low light performance that can stop action, phenominal bokeh and weight is not an issue I take the 24-70.</p>

<p>If you really can't decide based on your needs here's an idea. Get the 24-105 used, and pick up a Tamron 28-75 F2.8. This kind of gives you most of the best of both for about the price of just the 24-105 used. That's what I did until I could cost justify the 24-70.</p>

[hh253]

<p>Did you think about the 24-85. I use it as a walk around lens on the D700 and I am very happy with it. Sufficiently fast and sharp.<br>

Heinz</p>

[rashedahmed]

<p>I chacked 3pcs of 24-105L side by side.All are not sharp after you cross 60-70 mm.For wide angle shots it's fine. 24-70L also got the same in tele end.My friend(pro) changed his 24-105L and bought 24-70L two months back.It is a good lens but not a great one,he said.CCD size also playes an importent part here.</p>

 

[josephwalsh]

<p>"Just so that everybody is closer to asking this question once(for some maybe twice)and breaking a photo.net record"<br>

Angel, with all due respect to you Canonites, you have a way to go to match our obsessive insanity on the Nikon forum. We agonize over "50mm f1.8 or the old 50mm 1.4D or the new 50mm 1.4G" once or twice a week. Suspect we shall continue to do so forever.<br>

As for this discussion, I'm jealous...wish Nikon made an equivelent to your 24-105 f4 IS.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I chacked 3pcs of 24-105L side by side.All are not sharp after you cross 60-70 mm</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are not getting sharp photographs from the 24-105 "after you cross 60-70mm" something is seriously wrong with the lens, the camera, or your technique. Same for the "tele end" of the 24-70.</p>

[lazybird]

<p>I sold 24-70 and don't want to buy 24-105. A tried both and I think there's no much difference between them in optical quality. If you need f/2.8 get the first one, if you don't--you can prefer a lighter piece of glass, but I'm sure you shouldn't spend your time trying to select"the best one"--it doesn't exist.<br>

A guy that bought 24-70 for me tried 2 or 3 lenses--think about it and remember, that a difference between various copies of one lens can be even bigger than a difference between 24-70 and 24-105 IMO.<br>

Also try to realize how many times you will REALLY need f/2.8.<br>

In my opnion they all are "not so good as they could be". ,)</p>