24-105 vs 24-70 II Comparison

Another thread started by VirtualRain debated the significance of the differences between the 24-70II and 24-105. I own a 24-70 II and recently got a 24-105 with a camera kit which gave me the opportunity to pit my two copies against one another.

A few disclaimers before I begin:

-This is NOT a scientific test nor a "review" and should not be critiqued as one. This is merely compilation of center/corner crops at 24mm, 50mm and 70mm using apertures f4, f8 and f11.

-All tests were completed from a tripod using MLU and a 2 second timer. I used manual focus on the same reference point for every exposure using 10x live view. Exposures were kept as consistent as possible in outdoor light. No more than 1/4 stop exposure adjustments were made in post to keep them consistent.

-f2.8 on the 24-70II compared very similarly to f4 on the 24-105 in most cases so I will be saving myself the additional work by not posting those.

-There are very few appreciable differences between the full images at web resolutions so I'll only post one full sized image for reference.

I've only made it through the 24mm shots, so without any further delay - here they are. I'll do 50mm and 70mm as time allows.

Full Image (no it's not a work of art but I like using trees as they are captured in my landscape work frequently):

Corner Crops

24-70 f4

Thanks for posting.

24-70 is clearly better based on these.

-much sharper both in the center and the corners.

-much better job controlling CA.

-surprisingly, more dynamic range with the 24-70. Exposure of the trees is equivalent between the two lenses, howver where the sky is blue in the 24-70 images, the sky is blown out in the 24-105 images.

Did you turn IS off on the 24-105?

Just gonna latch on to this.

Ratjack wrote in post #16812135
Did you turn IS off on the 24-105?

Yes, IS off on the 24-105.

I really didn't see a huge difference between my 24-105 and my 24-70 regarding overall IQ. The 24-70 is slightly sharper on the corners (pixel peeping) and not nearly as distorted when straight lines are in the picture. Where the 24-70 outshines the 24-105 is the ability to shoot at 2.8. If I didn't need that extra bit of light and speed I would have kept the 24-105.

Can you do a handheld comparison as well, seeing as how the 24-105L is a jack of all trades and master of none. :P

Apples and oranges imho. The comparison is definitely appreciated nevertheless.

they look very similar to me. CA is better on the 24-70, and fine details seem to be a bit better. Basically, the 24-70 is a tad bit superior. I wonder if the improvements would be easier to see if this test was done on say an A7R or something with an uber sensor. All of the latest comparisons support my belief that the 24-70 II is slightly superior, but hardy worth the price jump.

What I dont get is the few owners of the 24-70 II who claim this lens is the greatest zoom ever. When does the 24-70 II completely annihilate every other lens, including primes? I have yet to see this. Serious inquiry, not intended to start a fight.

Well, from some MTF numbers, the 24-70 II at about f/4 and up, has center sharpness close to a lot of nice primes and border sharpness rivals good primes from f/2.8. Edge resolution numbers at 70mm is just so so. It's like a slow prime with the added convenience of a zoom. :P

After a quick look (gotta run to dinner)... What's interesting from this is just how similar they are.

In the corners... the 24-70II is very slightly sharper at f/8 but to my eyes, the large birch looks sharper through the 24-105 at f4 than the 24-70II at f4.

-f2.8 on the 24-70II compared very similarly to f4 on the 24-105 in most cases so I will be saving myself the additional work by not posting those.

thanks for the test but I respectfully disagree. I think the 24-105L may be getting close at F5.6 but no way at f4, and I've owned at least three copies of the 24-105L. one of the strongest points of the 24-70L II is its performance wide open, which is stunning.

Now I'm getting into pixel peeping madness. At f4 there is very little difference. However just to continue to be a pain in the butt after close examination I think the 24-70 just edges out the the 24-105 at f4 by an insignificant margin. "Just" This will never make difference in the real world at any level.

On my screen the circled areas the 24-70 look sharper to me at F4.

gnome chompski wrote in post #16812343
they look very similar to me. CA is better on the 24-70, and fine details seem to be a bit better. Basically, the 24-70 is a tad bit superior. I wonder if the improvements would be easier to see if this test was done on say an A7R or something with an uber sensor. All of the latest comparisons support my belief that the 24-70 II is slightly superior, but hardy worth the price jump.

What I dont get is the few owners of the 24-70 II who claim this lens is the greatest zoom ever. When does the 24-70 II completely annihilate every other lens, including primes? I have yet to see this. Serious inquiry, not intended to start a fight.

I think you and virtual rain see what you want to see, and that's because of price. and that's okay too.

we saw a similar scenario with the 35 f2 IS when I first bought it close to full pop. there was plenty of hating on that lens but now that the price has dropped its a forum sweetheart .

I've owned both lenses and have used them extensively and I would never own the 24-105L again for any reason.

digital paradise wrote in post #16812623
Now I'm getting in pixel peeping madness. At f4 there is very little difference. However just to continue to be a pain in the butt after close examination I think the 24-70 just edges out the the 24-105 at f4 by an insignificant margin. "Just" This will never make difference in the real world at any level.

On my screen the circled areas the 24-70 look sharper to me at F4.

that's just crazy right there but I've seen it all in my time here