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 17 Feb 2014 (Monday) 01:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

My review of the 24-70mm II vs 24-105mm IS (and 35L)

 
Paulstw
Senior Member
827 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2012
     
Feb 17, 2014 07:23 |  #16

I have the 24-105L and I love it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ilumo
Goldmember
1,708 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 14
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 17, 2014 07:37 |  #17

Paulstw wrote in post #16695752 (external link)
I have the 24-105L and I love it.

you should. Its a great lens.


Body: 5D Mark IV
Glass: 50mm f/1.8 | 35mm f/1.4L USM | 17-40 f/4.0L USM | 24-70 f/2.8L II USM | 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM | 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM | 85mm f/1.2L USM | 100mm f/2.8L IS USM
Accessories: 430 EX II, 600 EX, tripods, umbrellas, and other goodies.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,231 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3599
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Feb 17, 2014 07:45 |  #18

Damn you, now I'm thinking of trading my 28-70 for a 24-105. Grrrrrrrr. Must resist.....


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ilumo
Goldmember
1,708 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 14
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 17, 2014 07:57 |  #19

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #16695780 (external link)
Damn you, now I'm thinking of trading my 28-70 for a 24-105. Grrrrrrrr. Must resist.....

you just just rent them and try it out. If you don't need 2.8 or corner to corner sharpness then the 24-105 is a great lens. I mulled it over for quite a while before I pulled the trigger. But 24-105s are going for 650 new, so if price is a factor then you can't bean the 24-105 for value. Luckily I got an amazing deal on my 24-70.


Body: 5D Mark IV
Glass: 50mm f/1.8 | 35mm f/1.4L USM | 17-40 f/4.0L USM | 24-70 f/2.8L II USM | 24-105 f/4.0L IS USM | 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM | 85mm f/1.2L USM | 100mm f/2.8L IS USM
Accessories: 430 EX II, 600 EX, tripods, umbrellas, and other goodies.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MNUplander
Goldmember
2,527 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
     
Feb 17, 2014 09:20 |  #20

Invertalon wrote in post #16695673 (external link)
Your experience is quite a bit different from mine.

I had the 24-105L and currently have the 35L and 24-70 II... The 24-70 II was sharper (when tested) across the frame at f/2.8 than my 24-105L stopped down, and certainly wide open. Side by side with my 35L, the 24-70 II is sharper at f/2.8 and 35mm *overall*... As well as compared to the 24L II I rented. By overall, the center sharpness may be similar but the 24-70 II clearly performs better near the edges/corners. Quite stunning for a zoom!

Judging by those shots you did post, that copy does seem off. The resolution of my 24-70 II all the way into the corners is amazing... Yours looks terrible in comparison (to be honest). I have never seen my 24-70 II perform that badly, resolution wise.

I am not "fanboying" the 24-70 II, but there *is* copy variation (the first I purchased was decentered badly on the right side at 24mm... Exchanged for my current copy that I have had since). I really loved the 24-105L but the 24-70 II is a superior lens optically, no doubt. It has been well documented through various review sites that the 24-70 II is a much sharper lens. If you are showing the complete opposite, I would think that something is messed up on that 24-70.

ilumo wrote in post #16695704 (external link)
agreed on this as well. I think the ops copy was a little off. I know in my comparisons of the 24105 vs 2470II the II was definitely better corner to corner. I thought my 24105 was an excellent performer. But the 2470 is superior. Maybe not to the level that some fan boys are saying but I am enjoying it. hiwever the extra stop of speed DOES help with my speedy crawling baby. Also the corner to corner sharpness allows me to crop less when my subjects are near the corner. I do miss IS soemtimes but I don't regret getting the new II at all.

kin2son wrote in post #16695374 (external link)
Awaiting for the 24-70II army to come in and say that your rental copy is faulty.

Count me in with Invertalon and ilumo. Our experience seems to match what well known and respected reviewers unanimously agree is the highest performing standard zoom in terms of IQ and focusing speed available for Canon today. If that puts me in some sort of braindead "army", then so be it.

Roger Cicala from LensRentals has the opportunity to test resolution with multiple copies and concluded the resolution of the 24-70 II was sharper than the 24 TS-e II at 24mm and the 70-200II at 70mm. Brian from TDP concludes similarly, among others.

Your test results are clearly the result of a bad copy, poor test methodology or some sort of confirmation bias. The vast majority by-and-large do not support your results.

But, having said all of the above - it's still an expensive lens and it's a tough call to determine if it's $1000 better than the 24-105. For me and many others, it most certainly was - YMMV.


Lake Superior and North Shore Landscape Photography (external link)
Buy & Sell Feedback
6D, 16-35 f4 IS, 50 1.2, 100L Macro, 150-600C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
marcosv
Senior Member
775 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Feb 17, 2014 10:04 |  #21

More thanks for taking the time to share your review in such great detail.

Personally I have found the 24-70/2.8L II to be superior to the 24-105L. That's wide open, at various focal lengths, and various camera to subject distances. Especially at the corners.

However, if you typically shoot around f/5.6 to f/8 and smaller, I think the 24-105L is great as the differences are really minimized.

In the end, if you don't shoot at f/2.8 all the time, I personally wouldn't bother with the cost.

As for sample variance, I had a friend who did indeed get a slightly before par copy of the 24-70L II that resulted in below average performance. So it does happen.


EOS-M | 40D | 5DII | 5DIII | EF-M 22 | EF-M 18-55 | 10-22 | 17-55 | 17-40L | 24-70L mk II | 24-105L | 70-200/2.8L IS mk II| 35L | 85L II |35/2 | 40/2.8 pancake | 50/1.8 | 50/1.4 | 100/2 | Rokinon 14/2.8 | 90 EX | 270 EX II | 580 EXII | 600 EX-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NemethR
Senior Member
Avatar
864 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 212
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Pécs, Hungary
     
Feb 17, 2014 10:04 |  #22

MNUplander wrote in post #16695966 (external link)
Roger Cicala from LensRentals has the opportunity to test resolution with multiple copies and concluded the resolution of the 24-70 II was sharper than the 24 TS-e II at 24mm and the 70-200II at 70mm. Brian from TDP concludes similarly, among others.

Your test results are clearly the result of a bad copy, poor test methodology or some sort of confirmation bias. The vast majority by-and-large do not support your results.

In lab conditions shooting a straight wall, It MIGHT be sharper, then the 24-105, but in a real world situation, I really doubt it is so much sharper.

OP's test really shows that well. I n a realy world situation there is not such a big difference.

About the poor copy: Canon Tests these lenses before selling them a poor copy would not be sold. There might be inor wariations, but not so big.


Roland | Hobbyst Photographer
Nikon D850 | Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II | Nikon 85mm f/1.8G | Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
genjurok
Senior Member
537 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Feb 17, 2014 10:04 |  #23

The 24-105L is a nice lens and I myself will buy one for travel purpose after using my sister's copy for my last trip, but I'll be seriously shocked if 24-70 II PQ is really at the same level as 24-105L at wide aperture. It's pretty much universally considered the sharpest standard zoom lens for FF out of any brand, confirmed by many reviews and end users.

If there is anything about the test , it shows that the 24-105L is very good, but I'm willing to bet that the result doesn't represent the PQ of a good 24-70 II copy.


6D
Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 100mm f/2
580 EX | 430 EX | Pixel King Pro wireless radio trigger and receiver (x2)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,845 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2335
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Feb 17, 2014 10:12 as a reply to  @ MNUplander's post |  #24

Thank you for the review, great job. I have been debating what DOF (or lack of :D) was available with the 24-105 @ f/4 vs. a 2.8 lens. I had come to the conclusion of just backing up and zooming in. I tend to like to shoot from far away anyway, so it's been working out just fine.

I'm also not printing enormous prints or pixel peeping, so sharpness, while important, is not my primary driver. I do think that you might have been front focusing with the rental lens. Did you happen to check it out? Might be something to look for with some of your images.

The reality is that the 24-105 is worth about 700 bucks. They are everywhere (in the US at least) used, and even whiteboxed at that price and lower. And often available with kits for even less. I'll keep the $1400 in my pocket.

Actually I'm going to be picking up a fast prime and maybe the Tokina 16-28 so that money isn't staying in my pocket.

:P


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John57
Member
157 posts
Joined Jun 2003
     
Feb 17, 2014 10:42 as a reply to  @ Left Handed Brisket's post |  #25

Interesting - I ordered a 24-70 f2.8 Mk II earlier today ...

I have not fully read your review but a quick look shows me what I found when I bought a 24-70 Mk II back last August to replace one of our excellent 24-70 f2.8 Mk 1's.

Back in August I bought a 24-70 f2.8 Mk II that was not really sharp at f5.6 let alone f2.8 on a 5D III.

Tests at home on it against both our 24-70 f2.8 Mk 1's and 24-105 f4 showed all of them except the new 24-70 to be superb. The new lens was sent back to HDEW in the UK without issue. They were (as always in my experience) great and were totally OK.

I am seriously hoping the new lens is not like the last Mk II I bought or your rental copy ! I want a good one - given the cost (and reputation for being brilliantly sharp) I don't want to have to go back to HDEW for a second time with the same type of lens so hope I get a good one. It is used for weddings so has to be 100%.

All other L lenses I have bought have been ok except for an early Mk 1 24-70 f2.8 ... so what is it with 24-70's !!

Are most people actually happy with them ? I have been away from this forum for a bit - in fact the last time I posted was re the faulty 24-70 ... was I just unlucky last time ?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Feb 17, 2014 11:03 |  #26

NemethR wrote in post #16696070 (external link)
In lab conditions shooting a straight wall, It MIGHT be sharper, then the 24-105, but in a real world situation, I really doubt it is so much sharper.

OP's test really shows that well. I n a realy world situation there is not such a big difference.

About the poor copy: Canon Tests these lenses before selling them a poor copy would not be sold. There might be inor wariations, but not so big.

No, trust me... It really *is* that much sharper in real-world situations. It is significant... I owned the 24-105L for years prior to upgrading to the 24-70 II and I have thousands of "real world" photos to compare against. Not even close, honestly.

And Canon "testing" them is a loose term... I have had lenses, brand new, that should have never left the factory in the optical condition they were. Sure, they may have been damaged in transit and all that, but plenty of people have had issues with brand new, Canon "factory tested" lenses. Most of all, decentering defects. Trust me, they can have HUGE affects on image quality and look just like the pictures shown... If not worse.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bearmann
Goldmember
Avatar
1,226 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Feb 2008
Location: I live behind Graceland in a tool shed. I often meet the man early in the morning at Krispy Kreme.
     
Feb 17, 2014 11:19 |  #27

They are both nice lenses, but sometimes you need a faster aperture. In addition, most Canon cameras have certain focusing points which function better with lenses f2.8 and faster.


Barry

http://b-r-s-photo.zenfolio.com (external link) (remove the dashes)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
VirtualRain
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
541 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Feb 17, 2014 12:21 |  #28

Invertalon wrote in post #16696172 (external link)
No, trust me... It really *is* that much sharper in real-world situations. It is significant... I owned the 24-105L for years prior to upgrading to the 24-70 II and I have thousands of "real world" photos to compare against. Not even close, honestly.

And Canon "testing" them is a loose term... I have had lenses, brand new, that should have never left the factory in the optical condition they were. Sure, they may have been damaged in transit and all that, but plenty of people have had issues with brand new, Canon "factory tested" lenses. Most of all, decentering defects. Trust me, they can have HUGE affects on image quality and look just like the pictures shown... If not worse.

I think there are several characteristics that are often touted about this lens and sharpness is just one (and perhaps not even the most highly lauded one). People also claim the 24-70II has superior colour and contrast, but that's something I also didn't observe. I could see sharpness varying slightly from copy to copy, but contrast and colour?

If there are sharper copies of the 24-70II out there (like yours), I'd like to see some images that show 100% crops from the same scene taken with both lenses. Perhaps there are some previous tests here on POTN I just haven't come across.

However, I think it would be a shame if this whole thread became a debate about sharpness. The fact is, both these lenses are adequately sharp to capture images for almost any intended purpose.

What I think is getting lost already, is the the other major factor that weighs heavily in a decision regarding switching from the 24-105 to the 24-70II... the lack of Image Stabilization. What I found is that I rely heavily on IS... to the point of taking it for granted. And while I could possibly adjust my shooting to live without it, that's unnecessary and counter-productive. I'll simply end up with more ISO noise in my images with little other benefit to show for it.


Sony a7rII / 24-240 / Zeiss 25, 55, 85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gnome ­ chompski
Goldmember
1,252 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 136
Joined Jun 2013
Location: oakland, ca
     
Feb 17, 2014 12:24 |  #29

I didnt see much difference between the 24-70 and the 24-105 in real world conditions. I dont doubt it being optically superior in a lab testing, but once you introduce atmospheric pollution/stray lighting and all the usual stuff you run into when shooting, I didnt see a difference, and I surely dont see a need to "upgrade". In a studio, where you control the environment I could see the 24-70 having an advantage. But again, not sure its really worth it to be honest.


Tumblr (external link)
Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Feb 17, 2014 12:32 |  #30

VirtualRain wrote in post #16696343 (external link)
If there are sharper copies of the 24-70II out there (like yours), I'd like to see some images that show 100% crops from the same scene taken with both lenses. Perhaps there are some previous tests here on POTN I just haven't come across.

I no longer have a 24-105, but I will get a comparison between the 24-70 II and 35L in the next two days or so at f/2.8 and smaller apertures.

In terms of the 24-105L vs. 24-70 II, the 24-70 II is sharper yes... But also less CA (significantly). Colors and contrast are great, but I don't remember them being too much different.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

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

23,679 views & 0 likes for this thread
My review of the 24-70mm II vs 24-105mm IS (and 35L)
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 skoczekan
1418 guests, 353 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.