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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

basselmudarris wrote in post #16383109
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.