Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 19 Oct 2013 (Saturday) 11:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-70 2.8L II worth extra $1K over 24-105L?

 
Greg_8
Senior Member
Avatar
551 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 175
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Michigan, Northern Lower & Eastern Upper
     
Oct 19, 2013 11:25 |  #1

Thanks for replies to my earlier post regarding the crop sensor question.

The 24-70 2.8L II sounds like it has top notch IQ but that extra grand gives serious pause. The 24-105L 4L is certainly not as bright but has longer reach.

I was wondering how the forum readers compare the two lenses. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks.


Keep 'em flying,
Greg B

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gtpstrunz1o98
Member
Avatar
85 posts
Joined Sep 2013
Location: virginia
     
Oct 19, 2013 12:28 |  #2

The 24-105 is a bit softer compared to the 24-70 in the still photo department.
When I shoot videos I lean towards my 24-105 bc of it's IS feature.
24-70 if you want the extra aperture and speed.
At the end it really boils down to what you're using it for and your budget.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basselmudarris
Member
Avatar
223 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
     
Oct 19, 2013 13:02 |  #3

The IQ of the 24-70 II is leaps and bounds better than 24-105mm from my experience. Photos from the 24-70 II just pop, and it's sharper at f/2.8 than my 24-105mm was at f/4.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,053 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 407
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Oct 19, 2013 13:37 as a reply to  @ basselmudarris's post |  #4

yes. the 24-70LII is the first medium range zoom that I am completely happy with. it is a stellar lens that I love to use. for years I switched between 24-105L and the brick and really liked neither.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
flashpoint99
Senior Member
411 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Dec 2012
     
Oct 19, 2013 13:46 |  #5

Its a 2.8 and when you need that to get the shot its worth every penny!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
john5189
Senior Member
598 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 19, 2013 14:07 |  #6

If you can afford the 24-70 then buy it, the 24-105 has substandard IQ in comparison. My opinion only- but distortion is visible in the veiwfinder which was a shock.

Have a look at the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC it is excellant value for money with IS too


Wedding Photography in Herefordshire.  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,053 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 407
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Oct 19, 2013 14:08 |  #7

basselmudarris wrote in post #16383109 (external link)
The IQ of the 24-70 II is leaps and bounds better than 24-105mm from my experience. Photos from the 24-70 II just pop, and it's sharper at f/2.8 than my 24-105mm was at f/4.

I think that's an understatement. at f2.8 the 24-70L II is sharper in the center than the 24-105L ever gets. it's crazy sharp at f2.8 and by f4 is critically sharp across the frame.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
     
Oct 19, 2013 15:23 as a reply to  @ ed rader's post |  #8

There is no doubt that the 24-70 II is better but only each individual can say if it's worth the $1000. Maybe that $1000 would be better served on other gear, putting it towards savings, vacation plans. Maybe it makes more sence putting that $1000 to get the $1500 mountain bike instead of the $500 one. It all depends.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snoop99
Senior Member
Avatar
588 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
     
Oct 19, 2013 17:26 as a reply to  @ FEChariot's post |  #9

If you are landscape photographer the Canon 24-105 IQ is not great compared to 24-70 2.8 II. I if you are a wedding photographer F/4 is to slow and does not Isolate your subject enough.


5D MarkII 70-200 IS F/2.8 II L, Canon 24-70 2.8 II L[COLOR=Red][COLOR=Blac​k], Canon 17-40 L, Canon 50 F/1.4, Canon 2X II, 580EXII Canon S100
Flickr (external link)
http://dcphotofixed.bl​ogspot.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Oct 19, 2013 19:42 |  #10

For me: no.

Sharper, sure. My 24-105 is sharp enough for my purposes.
Faster, sure. I prefer the extra range of my 24-105, and IS.
Also, 82mm vs 77mm filters, and weight.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,080 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2746
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Oct 19, 2013 20:42 |  #11

For me, yes. But I settled for the next best.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stone ­ 13
Goldmember
Avatar
1,690 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Huntersville, NC
     
Oct 19, 2013 23:26 |  #12

I first bought the 24-105 and was never really happy with the IQ. Other than slightly soft corners, there wasn't anything I'd call bad about it, but I returned it after a week. I was impressed with the 24-70 from the very 1st shot.

Is it $1k better? probably not especially considering the lack of IS but I'm more than happy with it...


Ken
Fujifilm X100T | 5D III gripped |35L | 24-70 2.8L II | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 85 1.8 | 430 EX II | Yongnuo YN-568EX | Billingham 445 | Think Tank UD 60 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kurt765
Senior Member
416 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Nov 2009
     
Oct 19, 2013 23:56 |  #13

I have owned the 24-105 for many years now, and recently I rented the 24-70 2.8L II for a week when I went on a trip. I left the 24-105 behind. My impressions were thus.

The 24-70 is incredibly sharp indeed. AF was quick on my 5D3 and corner to corner it was pretty much completely awesome. Sunstars were nice and pointy. I can't complain about the image quality at all. It's top notch.

I missed the extra 35mm on the long end quite a bit. If I wasn't so used to having it maybe I wouldn't, but that reach to 105mm is incredibly useful in a walkabout lens. I did a lot of indoor people shooting during this week, and to compensate for lack of IS I ended up cranking the ISO which is not something I normally do.

A week or so after I returned the rental, I was pondering the switch. Then there was a night-time arts festival and I took my camera and the 24-105 to it. This was really challenging to shoot and incredibly dark. I had the IS on and was able to get sharp images down in the 1/8th second range. Such a shot would have been utterly impossible with the 24-70 2.8 unless using a tripod, which wasn't a very good practical option for this event.

Before I sent it back, I did a series of test shots on a tripod with my 16-35 2.8L II, the 24-105, and the 24-70 II shooting the same scene, in the same light, at f/8 and f/11 at 24mm. First place was the 24-70 predictably. Second place was the 24-105, and it was a CLOSE second. Sharpness was almost equal at those apertures. Distant third was the 16-35. Since I do landscapes mostly, this complicates things with my thoughts on trading the lenses. I was expecting a huge sharpness difference even at f/8 and f/11 but didn't find it (although I found a big difference with the 16-35)

The conclusion I came to was that I will keep the 24-105. Someday I will add the 24-70 II to my kit, but the 24-105 is just too useful to let go of. B&H selling the 24-70 II for $1699 after rebate makes it really, really tempting. If I had both the 24-70 would be on my camera for most landscape stuff. 24-105 would remain the walkabout choice for most of the time.


http://www.kurtlawson.​com (external link) • 5DIII • 5DIII • 17mm TS-E f4L • EF 24-70mm f2.8L II • EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS • 100mm 2.8L IS • 8-15mm f4L • Sony A7r • 24-70 f4 ZE OSS • 55mm 1.8 ZE •

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tinker's ­ Realm
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Oct 2013
     
Oct 20, 2013 02:01 |  #14

bw!

kurt765 wrote in post #16384193 (external link)
I have owned the 24-105 for many years now, and recently I rented the 24-70 2.8L II for a week when I went on a trip. I left the 24-105 behind. My impressions were thus.

The 24-70 is incredibly sharp indeed. AF was quick on my 5D3 and corner to corner it was pretty much completely awesome. Sunstars were nice and pointy. I can't complain about the image quality at all. It's top notch.

I missed the extra 35mm on the long end quite a bit. If I wasn't so used to having it maybe I wouldn't, but that reach to 105mm is incredibly useful in a walkabout lens. I did a lot of indoor people shooting during this week, and to compensate for lack of IS I ended up cranking the ISO which is not something I normally do.

A week or so after I returned the rental, I was pondering the switch. Then there was a night-time arts festival and I took my camera and the 24-105 to it. This was really challenging to shoot and incredibly dark. I had the IS on and was able to get sharp images down in the 1/8th second range. Such a shot would have been utterly impossible with the 24-70 2.8 unless using a tripod, which wasn't a very good practical option for this event.

Before I sent it back, I did a series of test shots on a tripod with my 16-35 2.8L II, the 24-105, and the 24-70 II shooting the same scene, in the same light, at f/8 and f/11 at 24mm. First place was the 24-70 predictably. Second place was the 24-105, and it was a CLOSE second. Sharpness was almost equal at those apertures. Distant third was the 16-35. Since I do landscapes mostly, this complicates things with my thoughts on trading the lenses. I was expecting a huge sharpness difference even at f/8 and f/11 but didn't find it (although I found a big difference with the 16-35)

The conclusion I came to was that I will keep the 24-105. Someday I will add the 24-70 II to my kit, but the 24-105 is just too useful to let go of. B&H selling the 24-70 II for $1699 after rebate makes it really, really tempting. If I had both the 24-70 would be on my camera for most landscape stuff. 24-105 would remain the walkabout choice for most of the time.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ungraphic
Member
94 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Oct 20, 2013 03:03 as a reply to  @ Tinker's Realm's post |  #15

I'd have to lose a good number of IQ points in order to get any of the Canon 24-70mm lenses over the Tamron 24-70 with VC. Half the price with VC and about 95-97% of the image quality of the Canon.. that would remedy every concern kurt765 has with switching from 24-105mm to the 24-70mm without IS.

The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC and the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 are the next two lenses on my list. I just understand the negativity from photographs towards 3rd party manufacturers... its mind boggling to see such an allegiance towards a brand... its like watching Apple nutjob fans lineup for days in camping gear outside the shop just to get their product a few days early.


Canon 70D w/ Grip, Canon 70-200mm f/4L, Canon 24-105mm f/4L, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,187 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-70 2.8L II worth extra $1K over 24-105L?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is HamPhoto
889 guests, 312 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.