24-105 f 4 L IS or 24-70 f 4 L IS?

[alberto_bocca]

<p>I'm looking for a trans-standard lens for my Eos 6D (I'm happy with my 17-40 f 4 wideangle) and I am in doubt beetween the 24-105 f 4 L IS and the 24-70 f 4 L IS. The first one has the important advantage of 105 tele (instead of 70) and of the slightly lower cost (the difference here is about 50 euros).<br>

If someone has essaied both lenses, I should be happy for an advice: is the 24-70 f 4 really so better, compared to the 24-105, to justify the slightly higher cost and the (not so slight) inferior tele reach?<br>

Any advice is welcome.<br>

Thanks in advance. </p>

[paddler4]

<p>I'm facing the same choice, so I am eager to see what people post. So far, what I have read suggests that the 24-70 is optically better, but I have the same question as you: is it enough better to give up the extra reach? Check out this link, particularly at 24mm: http://tinyurl.com/pe2pdps</p>

<p>In my opinion, another competitor is the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8--optically very good, but with the same short reach, and quite heavy.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>I had a 24-105 F4 L IS USM, it was my walk around lens for years. I have probably 80,000 pics with that lens.</p>

<p>When the 24-70 F2.8L USM came out the MTF chart showed a huge improvement, I bought one. Yeah I know it's now the 24-70 F4 you're looking at, but I can share my views.</p>

<p>On the plus side</p>

<ul>

<li>In shooting with the 24-70, I really notice the difference in sharpness. It's very visible. </li>

<li>I find I don't miss the lack of IS. This took me by surprise, but the F2.8 speed plus my camera's (5DM3) high ISO levels are so low that it more than makes up for the lack of IS.</li>

</ul>

<p>On the negative side</p>

<ul>

<li>I really miss the extra reach of the 24-105. Not every time I shoot, but more times than not.</li>

<li>I thought the 24-105 was a heavy lens at 670g, but 24-70 F2.8 comes in at 805g, it's really heavy, but if you choose the 24-70 F4, it's actually lighter at 600g.</li>

</ul>

<p>Bottom line<br>

I love my 24-70 F2.8's sharpness, I miss the 24-105's reach. My hope is that Canon has a new 24-105 F2.8 IS USM II lens coming out, I might jump to that.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Just to clarify, since the 24-70 f/4 is the one the OP asked about: it is 70g lighter than the 24-105, if I jotted down the numbers right. The Tamron I mentioned is similar to the 24-70 f/2.8, @ 825 g. Also, the f/4 has IS, and I think read somewhere that it is better than the IS on the 24-105, but I can't recall where. So weight and IS are not relevant to the comparison. It really is a tradeoff between sharpness and reach, IMHO.</p>

<p>On my crop camera, my outdoor walk-around was a 15-85, so equivalent to 24-136, and I also used a Tamron 28-75m, equivalent to 45-120, so a change to 24-70 means a LOT more switching and more times that I have to carry my 70-200 with me. So for me, the cost of the greater sharpness of the 24-70 is really high.</p>

[joseph_dickerson]

<p>I recently made the switch from the 24-105 f/4L IS to the 24-70 f/4L IS and am thrilled with the new lens. It's noticeably sharper than the 24-105, at least the one I had, and I don't miss the extra length as much as I thought I would, the "crop-ability" of the full frame images helps.<br>

The 24-70 f/4L balances nicely on the 6D body and I find the IS to be really useful as I now shoot without a tripod more than I ever did before. BTW, while the 24-70 isn't physically a great deal smaller, it's definitely enough to be noticeable (and welcome).<br>

I'd suggest renting one for a short trial, or buying from a dealer that will allow you to exchange it for the 24-105 if you decide it's not for you. My guess is that you'll keep it.<br>

JD</p>

 

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I've used the 24-105/4 IS a lot on a 5D mk 1 and 5D mk 3. I find mine very sharp, and I have no plans to upgrade.</p>

<p>One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the new 24-70/4 IS has a macro mode. The implementation is odd, in that you slide the lens into "macro mode", apparently with the zoom ring, and that loses infinity focus and gains a lot of close focus ability. That'll seem like a new thing to many, but it was pretty common back in the 80s for zooms to work like that. So it's really a throwback to the old days. I've read that the macro mode is very sharp, but that the working distance is extremely short, which limits what you can do with it. The maximum magnification is 0.7x.</p>

<p>I once rented the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. I liked a lot of things about it. It's quite sharp and the VC works well. The deal breaker for me is that the zoom and focus rings both turn the opposite direction from the Canon standard, and the order of the rings is different. On the 24-105 it's zoom ring near the camera, focus ring farther out; on the Tamron 24-70 it's focus ring near the camera, zoom ring farther out. Probably it wouldn't be such a big issue if I hadn't used the 24-105/4 for so many years, but I have, so this drove me nuts. I kept changing the focus when I meant to zoom the lens, and when my fingers did find the zoom ring I invariably moved it the wrong direction. Other than that I liked the lens, and if the Canon standard isn't already burned into your brain, it's worth considering.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>My hope is that Canon has a new 24-105 F2.8 IS USM II lens coming out, I might jump to that.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>LOL, not a chance in hell. You would need a wheelbarrow to carry it.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<blockquote>

<p>You would need a wheelbarrow to carry it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> It would be heavy, but no more than the 70-200/2.8 that I carry all the time.<br>

<br>

Tamron used to make a 28-105/2.8; apparently you can still get it in Adaptall mount. Weighs a couple pounds.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>The 24-104/4L is a good lens but it's heavy (at least I think so). I never had any quality issues with it, just the weight. There are lots of heavier lenses of course. I'd advise you to go to a photo shop if there still are any and check it out for yourself, preferably mounted on a 5D or something similar in size. </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>It would be heavy, but no more than the 70-200/2.8 that I carry all the time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Can you imagine how many photographers would want to carry the equivalent of a 70-200/2.8 attached to their camera all the time in the form of a 24-105mm? Not many.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Tamron used to make a 28-105/2.8; apparently you can still get it in Adaptall mount. Weighs a couple pounds.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The extra 4mm at the wide end and IS would add quite a bit more. Then you have to account for the general L series lens heft. No thanks.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>(Per Allan Bryant) The 24-70's macro mode is a significant factor.</p>

<p>Check out both at The Digital Picture site, he tends to do exhaustive comparison reviewing, and will list all the features of both, including the 24-70's macro mode.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>You probably should now also check out the new Sigma 24-105 f4. Might be really good (?)</p>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>You probably should now also check out the new Sigma 24-105 f4. Might be really good (?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very good point. It had slipped my mind. It's a tank (885 g, 82 mm filter), but it may be worth it. Unfortunately, it will be some time before there are any reviews.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Well, comparing on the-digital-picture, the 24-70 is definitely better than the 24-105 at 24mm. It seems about the same at intermediate focal lengths. At 70mm, the 24-70 shows a lot of chromatic aberration, which I hate, and the 24-105 still has a decent image (better than the 24-70). And at 105mm, the 24-105 totally outshines the 24-70. Of course copies may vary. My own 24-105 is a bit better than it should be, according to lens reviews.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd go for the 24-105 for its longer reach, and I'd prefer using the 17-40 when shooting around 24mm. It's nice to have a bit of overlap between lenses, and the 24-70 gives you a nice overlap with the 70-200 family. The 24-70 gives you no overlap at all. But that's just me. Your priorities and tastes might be different.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I might get a faster, shorter range mid-range telephoto someday, but I'd never actually get it as a <em>substitute</em> for the 24-105. It's just so incredibly "handy" and it fits and balances well on a 35mm-sensor body. I often go out with only that lens for a walk-about in a strange city. New and improved 24-105 (maybe even 24-135?) I might consider as a replacement, but not if it were substantially larger and heavier.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Sarah and JDM,</p>

<p>Many thanks. I read some reviews, including the tests on the-digital-picture, and I came to the same conclusions as Sarah wrote. The place that the 24-105 seems clearly inferior is at the short end, and like Sarah, I would use my 17-40 if I know I am going wide. The macro feature of the 24-70 is nifty, but I have a macro lens and don't need this lens for that purpose. I just purchased the 24-105. However, Alberto (the OP) may welcome more thoughts.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dory_breaux]

<p>You say you have a 17-40 that you really like? Why not go with something longer? Just a thought.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Note, Sigma has just announced a 24-105/4 OS. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>I like the 24-105 for many reasons. Sigma just announced a 24-105 "ART" lens, so maybe give that one a look before you decide.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I love my 24-105mm f/4L IS. I find myself using the IS pretty often.</p>

<p>Whichever you chose, be sure to use Digital Lens Optimization (part of Digital Photo Professional and other top Raw converters) to correct for chromatic aberration, geometric distortion, vignetting, etc. at every focal length and every aperture. DLO brings zoom lens performance very close to prime performance.</p>

<p><a title="Iwo Jima Memorial by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2844/10644922004_fc08073f96_z.jpg" alt="Iwo Jima Memorial" width="640" height="427" /></a></p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I don't know what kind of shooting you do but for me speed at the 24-70 ranger was very important because this is a range I shoot at most often. Because I also shoot video with my Canon 5D Mark II IS was also very important. I personally did not like the 24-105 as it has too much vignetting and it really distorts vertical and horizontal lines which is unacceptable for architectural type photography. <br>

I went with the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC which is about the same price as the Canon 24-105 F4 IS. However, the image quality is pretty much equal to the Canon 24-70L F2.8 I. When I compare the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC to my Canon 17-40 F4L, I absolutely can not tell them apart. With both on a tripod the Canon 17-40 F4L may be a little sharper. However, when shooting them both handheld with VC on the Tamron beats the Canon 17-40 F4L quite substantially.</p>

<p>Too me the F2.8 and IS, is more important than the extra reach as I also have a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and Tamron 70-300 VC lenses. Sigma just seems a step behind Tamron and Canon L-series to me.</p>

 

[maciek_g]

<p>Hi,<br /> For everyone in doubt between 24-105 and 24-70mk2 here is a link that compares focal length difference and sharpness. there is also read me file that you should read :)<br /> <br /> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0km80qv5m8tk9iq/RjX2taGvJt<br>

for full size JPGs click download as zip in right top corner<br /> <br /> test is between 24-105 ,24-70, 17-40 and latest sigma 70-200 @70mm<br /> my 24-105 came as a kit with 6D but I have to say I didn't like it from day one. Lack of sharpness is terrible IMO. sold on eBay and I don't think I will ever regret it.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Maciek, why didn't your run each Raw through Digital Lens Optimization? We can't tell anything until you finish the Raw conversion properly.</p>

[john_merriman1]

<p>15 shots listed in test.txt file. Only 14 pics shown. And not sure of the order so I can't tell which lens.</p>

[ronald_rose]

<p>Maciek..</p>

<p>The articles I've read... the various video comparisons...and the comparometers ...seem to confirm that the 24-70 f4 is sharper with less distortion at 24mm than the 24-105. By 35-40 mm...they are similar in sharpness. At 50mm...the soft point on the 24-70 f4...the 24-105 is sharper. At 70mm...they are similar. The 24-70 f4 again has less distortion at 24mm (which can be corrected in PP)...and less pincushion at the long end vs the 24-105. Another advantage of the 24-70 f4 is it seems to remain a 'bit' sharper at the edge throughout compared to the 24-105.</p>

<p>Now Lens Rentals' review of these two lenses... plus the 24-70 mk I, the 24-70II and a Tamron 24-70 lens... show the 24-70 f4 being a stronger lens of the two. But those don't always translate into what you see when comparing image to image. Interesting....that same Lens Rentals' comparison does show the 24-105 being stronger than the 24-70 Mk I throughout. But the best comparisons may be in comparing the same photo's of the two lenses side by side.</p>

<p>Also in reading articles by Bob Atkins...and some other pro's...the differences are not as pronounced as what some say.</p>

<p>So...in your research...try the comparometers at "dpreview.com" and "Imaging Resource" (or just Google 'lens comparometers') for actual comparisons...side by side... on the same cameras...in controlled conditions... at many different f stops. You may be surprised at what you see.</p>

<p>One thing you will see visually....the 24-70ii is sharper to varying degrees than all the zooms in this range.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>