EF 24-105 f/4L vs 24-70 f2.8L

[james_mccormick]

<p>Hi All,<br>

I am currently in a little bit of a situation and require some guidance. I am on the market for a new lens. The focal length I need is around 24-70 and I use variable lighting conditions. Sometimes indoor low light and sometimes outdoor bright (or whatever British weather throws at me!). I am also in possession of a speedlite so can use flash. My question to you guys is this: Would you go for the 24-70 f2.8L or the 24-105 f/4? I am really talking about the speed of the lens here. The 24-105 being considerably slower but has 3 stop IS, has a little more length (if I ended up needing it) and is (importantly) cheaper than it's bigger brother (in terms of weight!) than the 24-70 2.8L. Secondly, is the IQ the same on these lenses in real world situations? That is, have people found the 24-105 sharpness as good as the 24-70?<br>

I try to stick to EF lenses as I am sure that I will upgrade to a FF body at some point and do not really want to have to start accumulating new glass!<br>

Thanks in advance for your input.<br>

James</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Wow, James, do a search here and on the web for hours of reading on this topic. This is probably one of the most debated of the Canon lens comparisons.</p>

<p>I chose the 24-70 for the extra stop since I shoot a lot in low light.</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>Watch this thread grow by the same folks who participated in all prior discussions on the topic.</p>

[jo.cools]

I have the 24-105. (on the 5D2) A very good basic lens. Both for street photography, portraits and studio work.<br /><br />A friend has the 24-70. Optical probably slightly better but in real life I see no difference. But no IS and the lens is much larger and heavier. I would choose again for the 24-105

[john_bellenis]

<p>Hi James, there is a reason that Canon sells these two lenses. There is a market for both of them and which one you choose depends on your specific needs.</p>

<p>I chose the 24-70 f2.8L after testing them for about an hour in the store side by side. I really wanted to like the 24-105 f4L. On paper it had everything going for it - smaller and lighter, an extra 35mm of reach at the long end, IS and only a stop loss in speed.</p>

<p>After testing them, I walked out with the 24-70mm and haven't regretted my decision for a moment - it's one of my most used lenses and is a superlative performer.</p>

<p>I found the 24-105mm to have horrendous vignetting wide open at 24mm. The distortion was more pronounced and the resolution a little lower (I'll mark that one a wash in real life). I don't generally need IS so that wasn't a big factor for me, but I do often shoot wide open to minimize DOF so the extra stop helped there. The viewfinder was marginally brighter with the 24-70mm, but again, that's not a deal breaker.</p>

<p>Many people love the 24-105mm though, and if the IQ shortfalls and f4 max aperture don't bother you, it's got to be one the best walk around lenses out there. The bottom line is that I'm sure you'll be happy with either, but it's worth taking a look at the pros and cons of each lens and see how they relate to the sort of work that you do.</p>

<p> </p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Yes, this topic was just recently debated. I liked the suggestion of getting both if possible. If not possible, I'd start with the 24-70 unless you really want that extra length.<br>

Another way to look at this: if you shoot outside a lot (i.e. don't need the f2.8 so much) then the extra length of the 105mm will be nice.<br>

If you shoot inside a lot then you won't need the extra length as much (probably) and the f2.8 will nice.<br>

At this point, having tried both lenses, if I had to pick one, I'd pick the 24-70. I did not try both lenses for the same amount of time (the 105mm getting much less time) but in that time I liked the results I got with the 24-70 a bit better.<br>

On the other hand, I like the smaller size of the 105mm and outside the extra length is nice.<br>

If I had more time with the 105mm I might change my opinon about which I'd get if I could get only one.<br>

If you are really stuck try this: rent both for a week and see which one you end up using the most. </p>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Discussed to <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=24-70+vs+24-105&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a">death and back</a>.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I shot w/ the 24-105/4 for awhile, the slow speed ended up being a dealbreaker, and I bought a 24-70/2.8. I've found that the term 'walkaround' is shorthand for 'compromised' A 24-105/4 compromises IQ (esp @ 24mm & near WO), and speed (f4) to give a 'walkaround' experience. To those who value 'lightweight' and f4 w/ IS vs. f2.8 w/o IS, it's the perfect lens. <strong>One thing you should evaluate <em>before you choose</em> is how much you shoot WO,</strong> I shoot easily 80%+ WO (w/ the 24-70/2.8) so obviously <em>any </em>f4 lens is going to suck for me. If you shoot a mixed bag, maybe the fstop isn't so important, and you can go w/ the cheaper lens.<br>

To me,though, it felt like an upgraded 28-135, (kind of an intermediate lens), and only rarely significantly outperformed that lens. As a result of that experience, I kept the 28-135 IS for when I wanted a perfect 'lightweight' 'walkaround' lens, that has a 'good' range, and 'good' performance.</p>

<p>When I'm working though, I use the 24-70/2.8 because it so dramatically outperforms the 24-105. I'm willing to accept it's shortcomings, as they don't force me to compromise my imagery nearly as much (yes, I'd pay $5k+ for a 24-70/f2 :-) ). I kept the 24-105 for awhile though...as a backup.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>After responding to this important but very familiar question, oh, about 157 times, I finally gave up and posted something at my blog:</p>

<p><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 EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L versus Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS</a></p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The only thing I'd like to add to G Dan's insightful, near "definitive" comparison of these two very fine lenses is a little of my personal experience.</p>

<p>I have both of the said lenses, but use them for exclusive applications. I use my 24-70 for informal, available light portaiture indoors, and my 24-105 for outdoor walkabout shooting. While their resolution characteristics are very similar, the bokeh of the 24-70 is more pleasing to my eyes, hence my preference for using it for "portraiture."</p>

<p>One qualification I have is this: I have lately been using my primes instead of my 24-70 for available light work. They're faster, sharper, and have better bokeh. In fact, I'm contemplating selling the zoom because of this.</p>

<p>So my recommendation is the same as G Dan's if you're using a crop body and need a<em> single all-purpose </em>lens<em>: </em>take a look at the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. That lens combines great IQ with speed <em>and</em> IS.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Mark's observation about bokeh is accurate - if you are trying to achieve that with a zoom in this focal length range and that need trumps other assets of the 24-105 in your shooting, the 24-70 will generally produce nicer bokeh. Two qualifications that this are worth nothing:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>If you are a real "bokeh nut," you might do what I do - combine the zoom with some larger aperture primes - they will generally go better than any zoom in the bokeh department. (Back to that point in my post regarding how the lens under consideration fits into the rest of your lens "arsenal.")</li>

<li>I was surprised to find that the 24-105 produces really beautiful bokeh - really! - if you shoot macro with extension tubes. It is a wonderful lens for shooting wildflowers, for example - somewhat to my surprise.</li>

</ol>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's been said. These are very different lenses and they serve different functions.</p>

<p>Neither of them gives any really useful wide angle on an APS-C body. I wouldn't forgo function now for a "maybe someday I'll go to the 35mm sensor" - besides, many of us continue to shoot APS-C at the same time as a 35mm sensor camera. I have both the EF-S 17-85mm AND the EF 24-105mm. I just don't use the 24-105 on the APS-C cameras--it's not a very useful reach on them, wonderful a walk-around lens as it is on the "full frame".</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>24-70: sharper (ultimately, though in low light, the 24-105's IS put's it ahead. Apart from that, with my copies, the<br>

24-105 is definitely mushy/vague, into the corners)<br>

24-105: better flare resistance, by far. (not the loops and arc, but the general diffuse glow from just out-of-frame light source. The 24-70 is very prone to this)<br>

24-105: wider, a bit (setting both to 24mm)<br>

24-105: much lighter and more compact<br>

24-70: less prone to light fall-off in the corners<br>

24-70: significantly closer macro</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>It's an <em>a propos </em>coincidence that Jo Cools's very fine portrait entitled "Mango" just appeared at the bottom of this page. The image well illustrates the harsh, somewhat distracting, and generally unpleasant bokeh of the 24-105. See <a href="../photo/11101230">link</a>.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I don't think that one stop is significantly slower, and if you're shooting indoors in low light without a flash, going from 1/8 sec to 1/15 sec isn't going to make much of a difference in preventing camera shake or subject motion. IS will help with the shake, to some extent. IS also helps for composing, even if your shutter speed is sufficient to arrest camera shake.</p>

<p>Corner sharpness/light fall off open won't really affect you at this point, since your APS-C camera doesn't even use those edges. You're going to be using the sweet spot of the lens, even wide open. Cross that bridge when you get the full frame camera, or pick up the 24-70 for the FF body when you go that route.</p>

<p>I got rid of the 24-70 in favor of the 24-105 for these reasons, as well as the fact I was often finding myself wishing for more reach. Sometimes you can just move closer, other times, you can't (or shouldn't, if the perspective is important to your shot).</p>

<p>If you like the DOF that f/2.8 gives over f/4 and you'll use it wide open enough that you'd miss it, then your decision is made.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

"24-105 is definitely mushy/vague, into the corners)"

 

Nonsense.

 

Dan

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Oh geez, now it's a debate ;)</p>

<p>BTW: I've got <em>both</em>.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I own sharper lenses, but I would still categorize the 24-105 as a sharp lens on a full-frame camera. It won't compare with one of Canon's best primes, but it's still strikingly sharp, and it's such a useful lens in so many situations that I can't imaging being without it.</p>

<p>I use the 24-105 a lot, and once I run it through the lens correction profile in Lightroom, I have no issues with vignetting or distortion. Yes, I'm sure that I lose a few bytes of data due to the filter correction algorithms, but, again, the lens is so handy it's worth it.</p>

<p>The 24-70 f/2.8 might be better in a dark church if you're a wedding photographer, but the lack of IS really limits this lens' usefulness in handheld situations.</p>

<p>I own the Nikon version of the 24-70. It's a useful focal range, but a lens that reaches out to 105 is more useful when you're shooting with a single body.</p>

<p>The IS on the 24-105 works very, VERY well.</p>

[james_mccormick]

<p>Thanks for all your responses everyone. I do find these debates very interesting and they really throw up how people perceive and utilise their tools. At the moment I am leaning towards the 24-70/2.8. I have been asked by a few people to start shooting baby portraits for them which I have accepted (being a father myself, I understand why people want to immortalise those precious early years). <br>

At the moment I am a scientist who is doing photography as a hobby. However, as my skills improve and my portfolio gets larger, who knows where the future will take me. What I do want to do, however, is give my clients the best possible image I can produce. Yes, the lens only records what the photographer points it at, but what I do record I would like to be high quality - and I am certainly guilty of 'L-series lust!'. It's a personal goal as well as a 'business' goal. I just want to get the right tools for the job.<br>

Again, thanks for all the reponses they have certainly been of great help, and feel free to continue the debate!<br>

James</p>

[OPK]

<p>sharpness isn't everything. no one told about microcontrasts, color rendering and glass quality. almost all pros in city where I live use 24-70 for ther sessions, treating 24-105 as a walkabout lens.</p>

<p>you have to answer yourselfs what do you demand, because both lenses are good. there's always pro and cons. there's no such thing as a perfect gear. just choose what better suits your needs.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>James, you never mention which body you're using. Since 24mm is wide enough for you, then I'll assume that you use a full-frame, like the 5D MkII. If so, then the 24-105mm f/4L IS is close to ideal. The IS, combined with the high-ISO performance of the 5D2 make for a stunning combination for street and night photography.</p>

<p>When I first got my 5D2/24-105mm conbination I was shooting jpeg and I too thought that my 24-105mm was soft. Then I bought DxO Optics Pro, which corrects for known errors in lenses, such as chromatic aberration, geometric distortion (particularly at wide angle) and vignetting and I was stunned with the resultant images. Lightroom and other RAW conversion software will also make similar corrections. Shooting RAW and using one of these programs will result in stunning images with either of these lens. I think that the IS trumps the extra f-stop in most, but not all, situations.</p>