raffal Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 24-105mm 4.0 vs 24-70mm 2.8 Canon lenses- what ur take on it??,-) tx raf Mod. note - Thread moved from casual conversations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick D. Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 24-70/2.8 have better optical quality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn McCreery Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 12 hours ago, Nick D. said: 24-70/2.8 have better optical quality. Probably so, but the the 24-105 f:4 L lens is so versatile that I use it for the majority of my photographs with my Canon 5D IV. If I want to use a fast lens, I have a 17-35mm f:2.8 L lens as well as a Sigma Art 24mm f:1.4, plus a 100-400mm L lens for longer telephoto shots. But I most often carry just the camera with the 24-105 attached. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick D. Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 3 hours ago, Glenn McCreery said: Probably so, but the the 24-105 f:4 L lens is so versatile that I use it for the majority of my photographs with my Canon 5D IV. If I want to use a fast lens, I have a 17-35mm f:2.8 L lens as well as a Sigma Art 24mm f:1.4, plus a 100-400mm L lens for longer telephoto shots. But I most often carry just the camera with the 24-105 attached. I had both of them, 24-70/2.8 was heavier but better. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
httpwww.photo.netbarry Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 On 2/7/2024 at 7:02 AM, raffal said: 24-105mm 4.0 vs 24-70mm 2.8 Canon lenses- what ur take on it??,-) tx raf You might try posting this on the Cannon equipment forum here on P.net. Those guys talk about all the time and you might get more info. Mod. note - Thread moved from casual conversations 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Assuming the OP refers to the two original versions of each lens: I have both and I agree with the point regarding Image Quality. Discussing the four lenses: The 24 to 105 F/4 L IS II, is a tad sharper than the original, but not significantly enough to warrant me upgrading to the MkII version. Many of the 24 to 105 F/4 L IS lenses reportedly suffer from Zoom Creep, mine does, but that doesn't worry me. For me the IS is a significant feature in making my 24 to 105 F/4 L IS 'versatile' as a one carry 'travel/holiday' lens, especially for interior shots where flash is not allowed. The 24 to 70 F/2.8 L is (I believe) unique in so far as the lens's zoom function moves the barrel through the Lens Hood, this feature results in significantly better flare control than any other zoom lens I have used and such was a substantial enough feature for me not to buy the 24 to 70 F/2.8 L II, even though the latter, is a tad sharper. WW 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwhitegeog Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 I bought the 24-105L more or less on the day it was released. Canon would not admit it but the early version had a few problems wide open at the wide end. But overall it was a very good lens and in fact I still have my original from 2005/6. Canon released a mk2 version what was optically better, so go for that if you can get one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddler4 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 It depends on what you shoot. For me, having the 70-105mm range and the IS trumps the difference in optical quality. I had both the EF versions and agree that the II is not greatly better than the I, but it did avoid zoom creep. I now use an RF 24-105, and it's one of my two most used lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now