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

tudor_apmadoc · February 20, 2013

Phil

I purchased the 5D III when it was first released. At the very beginning it was only sold as a kit with the 24-105. I sold

the lens online for $875. The price difference at the time was about $700

In terms it being a fine lens. It is, but Canon has been updating many of their lenses lately - as the MP have increased

over time, any individual lens weakness become more apparent.

16-35 f2.8 was introduced in September 2001 the 16-35 f2.8 II was introduced in April 2007 or about 5.5 years

70-00 f2.8 IS was introduced in September 2001, the 70-200 f2.8 IS II came out April 2010 or about 9.5 years

24-105 lens IS was introduced in October 2005.

When you compare the MTF chart and resolving power of the 2 versions of the 16-35 you will see a huge improvement.

Now look at the MTF charts of the 24-70 II and the 24-105. I can really see the difference in sharpness.

g dan mitchell · February 20, 2013

"In fairness, if a lens requires '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."

</blockquote>

You might then be the only serious photographer doing serious print work (assuming you do this) who believe that. Essentially every photographer, with the exception of a few specific approaches to a few particular genres, works images in post just as photographers did in the darkroom when working with film. I do this when I use the 24-105 and I do it when I use the 24-70 II, and I do it when I use a L or a non-L prime. If you shoot RAW, you must sharpen in post with any lens, and you will almost certainly want to at least make some curves adjustments.

mike_whalen · February 20, 2013

My experience with the 24-105 has been quite good over the last 4 years. In fact, if I was forced to own only one lens this would probably be it. It is just so versatile: the range is superb, the IS is great for hand-held shooting, the IQ is very good, and it is not significantly heavy. I've carried only this one lens (with a FF 5D2) on many extended trips, taken thousands of great images with it, and rarely felt lacking for another lens. With most other lenses you will with have to carry several, or give up something. Sure there are better lenses and I own many of them, but this one (24-105 f/4 IS) is my favorite since it works in so many shooting situations. A true work-horse. I will say though that if Canon produces as 24-70 f/2.8L IS for a decent price, I'd probably give it a look. I suggest you try renting the lenses you are considering for one week, shooting with them, comparing them to what you have, and then make your decision.

model mayhem gallery · February 20, 2013

I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark II and the 85 1.2L, 50 1.8, 28 1.8 as primes and the Canon 17-40 F4L, Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC, Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 VC and Sigma 70-200 F2.8.

Out of all those lens the sharpest and funnest to use is hands down the Tamron 24-70 F2.8, followed closely by the Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6.

If I was purley shooting for artisitic value nothing touches the 85 1.2L. It is not as sharp as the Tamron's which can at times be too sharp. The 85 1.2L is my least used because of its slow focus and extememly narrow DOF at 1.2 makes it really hard to focus. However, when i do get a good shot from the 85 1.2L it is often a great shot. The colors makes it look like an oil painting than a photo but it has a softer look than the really sharp look you get with VR.

For the price vs performance the Tamon 70-300 VR is an absolutely amazing lens.

I have test the Tamron 24-70 VR against the Canon 24-70 F2.8 I and It was very close. Overall, very close but honestly tyher edge with out VR would go to Canon L. However, the VR of the Tamron when needed in my opionion makes it surpass both the Canon 24-70 F2.8 I and II. When shooting handheld video the VR is absolutely a must have feauture....

I also compared the 24-105 IS to the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR and The Canon did not meet the mark. The Canon 24-105 has so much distortion at 24mm and vertical and horizontial lines bowed awfully. My Canon 17-40 F4L blows away the Canon 24-105 at 24MM.

dcstep · February 20, 2013

<a name="00bMwa"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3835189">Marcus Ian</a> said:

In fairness, if a lens requires '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 out of camera which is as sharp and contrasty as I need it. IMPE, the 24-105/4 was never that lens.

</blockquote>

We're talking about D-SLRs systems here. "D" stands for digital. Whether the user realizes it or not, even the preview that you see in-camera has been digitally processed and someone at the maker has made choices about how the image will be processed for you. The system includes lens and in-camera processor and, for those of us that shoot in Raw, Raw conversion and post processing with software. The system is lens/body/software. It's no longer, lens/body to positive film. To get the best final image, many of us Expose To The Right in Raw in anticipation of improving our ability to pull up shadows, lower the overall level and add contrast. Many successful digital photographers look at the Raw file as a data file and we strive to obtain as much data as possible with the file origination.

Digital Lens Optimization software takes into account how a lens interacts with each specific body that its likely to be used with. There is automated correction at every focal length and every aperture and different correction may be required for a 5D MkIII vs. a 7D or a 1DX. This is not because the lens is defective, but because all the parts of the system interact differently from body to body and lens to lens.

Unfortunately, lenses are not typically tested using the manufacturer's DLO software. We see uncorrected images as if that's the way we use the camera and few knowledgeable users do that anymore. I wish that we could begin to see that sort of testing. I know that, in my case, when I found out about DLO software and applied it to my lenses, it had a dramatic positive impact in my satisfaction with my lenses.

philip_wilson · February 20, 2013

I have the 24-70 MK I and the 85 F1.8 and have owned the 24-105 and shot both versions of the 85 F1.2. So here are

my thoughts

The MK I 24-70 is a good lens but not a great one but on full frame it is noticeably better than the 24-105 I replaced with it

some years ago. I have not had any issues with my lens but it is big and very heavy. If you shoot crop the 24-105 is

probably fine but on full frame the 24-70 has sharper edges.

The 85 F1.8 is not a bad lens and a great bargain at the price. Mine is best shot at F2 rather than f1.8 but it is very good

value. I have looked for a while at the 85 F1.2 (both versions) and also at the Zeiss 85 F1.4. Of the three I liked the Zeiss

best but really wanted AF. I have not taken the plunge as for $2000+ I wanted more.

I own two copies of the FD 85 F1.2 and it was my favourite lens and I am not afraid of spending on good glass as my

Leica lens collection shows. Somehow I have just not found the willingness to go with the 85 F1.2 as it feels a bit

compromised. I always feel that a MK III would be what is needed for me. All three of the 85 s listed above are very

good lenses - they just don't feel like great lenses.

Not sure if this helps but it is my opinion

philip_wilson · February 20, 2013