canon 24-105 f4 vs. 24-105 f3.5-5.6

[sheryl_bury_michals]

I'm thinking about adding a Canon 24-105 lens to my lens collection. However, there seems to be 2 types - the f/4 and f/3.5-5.6. Did some research and reviews are all over the place liking one or the other. I am gong to Belgrade and Geneva this June and don't want to have to carry both the 17-40 and 24-70 lenses. I will be doing candid photos of people in the evening after a conference my husband is attending, but also scenic shots too. While I know the 24-70/2.8 is great for low-light situations (especially in dimly lit restaurants), it's a bit weight and with all the airline changes in what can and can't be brought on a plane, I want to keep my kit simple but effective (I am using the Canon 7D and a Mark II version on the body as well, so one of those will be taken).

 

Does anyone have either of those lenses that can give me their take on them, it would help. I may think about taking a small prime (a 35 f/2) with me for the low light candid group shots in the evening.

 

I tried searching on the new forum search format, but could not find anything, which was surprising..

 

Thanks

Sheryl

[dcstep]

Compare for yourself at the-digital-lens.com .

 

I own the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II and used to own the Series I. This is a super versatile lens. Use digital lens optimization when you do your RAW conversion, adjusting for geometric distortion, CA, softness, vignetting, etc. at every focal length and every aperture. DLO puts this lens into performance levels comparable to many primes. I own some Canon's very best lenses, such as the 500/f4L II, 14mm/f2.8L II and the 70-200/f4L and I don't feel like there's a drop off in performance when going from those lenses to my 24-105. One of my all-time favorite images, hanging in my office, is the Grand Canyon under snow, taken with this lens and printed at 50" on the long side. People put their eyes 6" from the paper to see the incredible details.

[Ken Katz]

Not surprised there are not many comments on the new 24-105 STM lens since it has not been out very long and the 24-105L is still a very popular lens. Below are tests done by Photozone on both lenses:

 

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS (full format) - Review / Lab Test Report

Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS - Review / Test Report

 

They did not find a significant difference in sharpness, though the "L" lens is somewhat heavier, better built, and of course, 1 stop faster at the long end. I would expect that you can find the L lens used for a price that is cheaper than the new STM lens. I also have found Photozones results consistent with my own experiences with Canon and Olympus lenses. FYI, they also tested the 24-105L II.

[sheryl_bury_michals]

dcstep and Ken Katz - thanks for your thoughts on this. I do know I would sometimes use this for action shots at rugby matches, sometimes played in inclement weather, where sometimes the action gets closer than my Canon 100-400 would be able to get. I may be going with the weather-resistant one for that reason. That in and of itself is a big thing for me.

[dcstep]

Weather concern is not a small thing. In light rain and snow, I don't worry about moisture with my L-serices lenses.

[JDMvW]

I see no reason for me to "upgrade" from the older 24-105mm*. If you have special needs, then your actions may be different.

 

 

_________

* partly based on the Photozone.de tests cited by Ken.

[dcstep]

I see no reason for me to "upgrade" from the older 24-105mm*. If you have special needs, then your actions may be different.

 

.

 

I made the upgrade, but that was mainly to gain the extras stops of IS. I hand hold it in low light a lot and find every stop of IS useful. IQ is not any better at all, that I can discern.

[Marcus Ian]

IDK, I've shot in a lot of very inclement weather - with plenty of un-'weather sealed' lenses (including beach days, tropical storms, and torrential downpours), and 'sealed' ones as well. I've never seen any reason to think that the 'weather sealing' is much more than mostly marketing hype ... bodies (especially with a slew of buttons) are a different matter, but I guess that the anxious person who has something addressing their fears will shoot more confidently (and presumably better) as a result, and that is definitely worth the extra few hundred dollars a 24-105/4L II will cost you.

[ruben leal]

I am gong to Belgrade and Geneva this June and don't want to have to carry both the 17-40 and 24-70 lenses. I will be doing candid photos of people in the evening after a conference my husband is attending, but also scenic shots too.

 

Hey Sheryl, seems like there are already some comments regarding your question, but I think we should also address what you don't ask: How do you plan a 24-105mm lens replace your current 24-70mm and 17-40mm lenses?

 

If you bring a 24-105mm lens, you would add reach to what you can do with the 24-70, while losing speed at the same time, but I can't think of the 24-105mm as a replacement of the 17-40mm lens, specially if you are planning to use it with a 7D or 7D Mk II.

 

While I really like to use my 24-105mm f/4L with my 7D, I wouldn't plan to use it alone as a travel kit, where a wide angle will probably be needed.

[Robin Smith]

Why not get the 17-55mm f2.8? I suggest that would be a much better choice for a standard APS-C zoom than the others suggested above. Then you only need to take one lens. Tamron also make some good 17-50mm zooms too. SIgma make a 17-50mm and also a 17-70mm which I definitely suggest you look at. The 17-70mm is a 27-112mm FF equivalent, and it is faster than the Canon 24-105 and covers the important wider angles too.

[Marcus Ian]

I would have suggested considering the EF-S 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS USM. no slower than the non L 24-105, and covers 24-136mm FOV on your in one convenient package, all for a very reasonable under $350 new white box. For travel (as you are planning) every millimeter in width you add to a lens' wide end, increases it's flexibility (and usability) dramatically IME. The difference between a 24mm (36mm FOV) wide end on crop and a 15mm (24mm FOV) is YUGE(!) while visiting (and photographing) an unfamiliar urban environment.

[geoffm]

I know I'm a bit late coming to this, but I use a 24-105/4 Mk 1 as my "standard" lens on a crop body (80D).

When travelling, I like to pick out details, and I find the extra reach of the 24-105 is great for that, and I don't have to carry the extra weight of a medium tele.

If I want to do a "dirty" wide angle, I often fire off a a few shots in a sweep, and merge them into a pano in LR.

For the real WA, I nearly always carry a 10-22, which is small, light, fits in a pocket, and goes all the way down to 10mm.

For me, the combo of 10-22 + 24-105 works better than say, 15-85 + 70-200 would.

[markonestudios]

I have owned 2 copies of the 24-105L and absolutely love how versatile it is on my full-frame. It has a very solid build (I regularly shoot in rain, etc) and great close-focus capabilities (although not quite a macro lens), so I can usually get as close as I need to. For your purposes, you may well consider the 15-85 as has been suggested. If you're not ready to buy, there are also some great rental companies (not sure if I'm allowed to mention by name, but ATS Rentals has proved to be an amazing rental company). I have tried some of the bigger name ones and they fell short)...The point is, you can try by renting before pulling the proverbial trigger.