Canon 24-105L vs 24-70L - some questions

Hi all, first time poster. I've been browsing through and have gained a lot of knowledge through this forum. I appreciate everyone sharing their insight on my troubles here.

I have a 6D and recently purchased two lenses, the first being a 24-105L, which was purchased used, separate from the 6D. Upon receipt of the lens, I took some test shots and noticed it was soft and had sort of a halo glow effect to all the edges in autofocus. I tried it on my 40D and it was tack sharp in both autofocus and manual, all the same lighting and landscape conditions. I tried micro adjusting and it helped a small amount. So I went out and grabbed another brand new 24-105 for testing purposes and had the same exact problem, so I returned the new lens I had bought since I ruled out that I had a "bad" lens (unless the new lens too was a "bad copy"). It's not the camera either because my 15mm Sigma fisheye is flawless as well as my 70-200L 2.8. This is not really a problem in manual focus, but I need my autofocus! In my opinion, used or not, it should work as an L lens should straight out of the box.

Anyway, onto my second statement/question:

The autofocus leaves a little to be desired in my opinion. It's not as fast as I would like it to be though it's pretty fast. I purchased the 70-200L 2.8 about two weeks after I got the 24-105, so now I have an overlapping focal length in lenses between 70 and 105mm. Should I purchase a 24-70L 2.8 to replace the 24-105 to see if it yields more favorable and satisfying results in terms of autofocus and speed? I haven't tried the 24-70L yet but I hear it's the best you can buy. I don't have money for the 24-70L 2.8 II, but the first model I would consider.

What are your opinions?

Heya,

I'd definitely get rid of the 24-105. Not worth it in any way really, especially for it's cost. I don't see it as an `L lens. It's just a nicer built zoom than the plastic smaller stuff. It's an ok lens. But definitely doesn't have the qualities you'd expect from today's L's. Plus, F4 is just... meh upon meh at this focal ranges. On a long zoom, that's great. But on something that goes wide to just telephoto starting out, F4? Meh.

The 24-70 F2.8 would be great for you.

Take a look at the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC. Everything you want for $1k less than the Canon.

Very best,

Thanks so much for your insight!

Would the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC more closely mirror the first or second version of the Canon 24-70? I understand the second model of the Canon is faster, but I can't justify the extra $ over version 1.

the 24-105 is a fine lens. you just cannot expect it to optically perform like a more modern lens, such as the 24-70 Mk2. Its a jack of all trades, master of none lens. I have seen some fantastic images created while using the 24-105 "kit" lens so dont let any one tell you its a bad lens. If you use Lightroom, the lens profile correction helps a lot. its not perfect but it helps with the vignetting and the chromatic aberrations as well as the distortion.

The Tamron 24-70 rivals the never 24-70 Mk 2 from Canon. Both will out perform the 24-105, its just a matter of how much you pixel peep.

emfinite wrote in post #17119147
Thanks so much for your insight!

Would the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC more closely mirror the first or second version of the Canon 24-70? I understand the second model of the Canon is faster, but I can't justify the extra $ over version 1.

Heya,

It's more like the MK2 version, but has VC (image stabilization). It's AF is not as fast, as the USM of the MK2, but it's still fast. And the lens is sharp wide open. It's a fantastic lens. If I were buying a zoom in these ranges, I'd get the Tamron. If I needed a faster lens, I'd be shooting a prime over a zoom anyways.

Very best,

Thanks guys! I am going to pick up the Tamron and give it a whirl. Hopefully the results are satisfying!