Quick question on 24-70 vs 24-105 OPTICS

Know I know the big debate is whether you want the f2.8 or the IS of the 24-105. I already have the 70-200 f2.8 and i'm looking for a standard zoom with EF mount. Now aside the 2.8 Vs IS which lens Optically better? I'm looking for which one is optically better and I've searched and most of the results are 2.8 vs IS needs and such. Thanks

/chris

They are basically the same at same apertures. 24-70 is slightly better

24-70 - advantages: f/2.8, less distortion at 24 mm, less light falloff in the corners at wide apertures, smoother bokeh.

24-105 - advantages: IS, greater range, lighter weight.

I really think that they are optically close in terms of sharpness and color. Both very good.

I know that someone will bring it up, but have you considered the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens as well (if you're shooting the 7D)?

Tom W wrote in post #11745373
24-70 - advantages: f/2.8, less distortion at 24 mm, less light falloff in the corners at wide apertures, smoother bokeh.

24-105 - advantages: IS, greater range, lighter weight.

I really think that they are optically close in terms of sharpness and color. Both very good.

I know that someone will bring it up, but have you considered the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens as well (if you're shooting the 7D)?

I have considered the 17-55 but I want an EF mount lens incase I step up to the 5d MKII in the future. It sounds like the 24-70 is better besides the lack of IS and range. I don't care about weight. I just want the lens that's optically better which from what it seems like the 24-70 is a little better. Any others wanting to pitch in??

I really like the 24-105 on both full frame and crop bodies.

ya thats what i hear. but i'm looking for facts on the optics.

I have owned both and I am still not sure which I prefer, probably because both are better at different things even though both can do the same thing ( if that makes any sense )

Not sure of specifics of optics but to me the 24-70 produces better photos at similar apertures, could be the nicer bokeh or whatever but to my eye I always preferred 24-70, still both are good lenses that are capable of pro results.

If I was traveling or shooting outdoors I would always go for 24-105.
If I was shooting events, wedding, portraits I would go for 24-70.

- I would suggest doing a search this topic is beaten to death but you will probably find, like I did, that there is really no right choice.

yeah i've done a search and it's all of the same thing:

whether people would rather have f2.8 or the length and IS but i'm more intrested on which shows better results optically.

No one?

I've owned both. They are very close optically. I prefer the 24-105 for its longer range on the tele end and it's IS. The only thing the 24-70 has going for it is the F2.8. F4.0 vs F2.8 is only one stop.

With that said, I would go for the 17-55 2.8 w/ IS. IMO, this is optically better than both the FF standard zooms and it has IS and it has F2.8. Get this for your 7D. When you decide to move to FF, then you can pick something else up and sell the 17-55 without losing too much money. In fact, when I sold my 17-55, I actually made $50.

Optically I prefer the 28-70 but I own the 24-105. Go figure.

I have had 2 24-105's and 3 24-70's......the 2 24-105's were sharper at each end point ( where zooms are used the most...). I really wanted to love the 24-70.....it just couldn't beat the 24-105!

See for yourself buddy:

24-70 2.8 vs 24-105 IS

I think they are close for sharpness (I own both). The 24-70 is better for distortion and vignetting. I also think the 24-70 has better aesthetic qualities to the out of focus regions.

I have not compared them much for CA. Both are good for flare.

Kento wrote in post #11752361
See for yourself buddy:

24-70 2.8 vs 24-105 IS

looks like the 24-105 is a bit sharper at similar apertures.