24-70 II vs 24-105 for Landscape

Just curious, what is the common word among landscape photographers. I know the 24-70II is newer, focuses faster....is sharp.

Anybody taken one of the other to a hike, trip....photo tour and got an opinion? More interested from the practical side.

Thanks!

A buddy and I did a photo trip to the southwest earlier this year (Monument Valley, slot canyons, Santa Fe, etc.). We both used 5D Mark III bodies and shot close to 1000 frames each. I used the 24-70 II, and he used the 24-105. Both produced stunning results. The bottom line is that that 24-105 is nice for having some extra reach, and the 24-70 is slightly faster (f/2.8 vs f/4). And of course the 24-105 saves you a lot of $$$. Either way you can't go wrong. If really torn, rent them both to help you decide. Good luck & enjoy!!!!

The 24-105 is more versatile with more zoom. You aren't typically going to take any landscapes at f/2.8, unless it's star photography. And with that you usually want something that is even faster if possible. Though it would be serviceable with today's ISO performance. I would say only if you primarily do star photography would it be worth it for landscapes.

I may be getting one and getting rid of the 24-105 but only because I do portraits too.

BG Ed wrote in post #17250085
A buddy and I did a photo trip to the southwest earlier this year (Monument Valley, slot canyons, Santa Fe, etc.). We both used 5D Mark III bodies and shot close to 1000 frames each. I used the 24-70 II, and he used the 24-105. Both produced stunning results. The bottom line is that that 24-105 is nice for having some extra reach, and the 24-70 is slightly faster (f/2.8 vs f/4). And of course the 24-105 saves you a lot of $$$. Either way you can't go wrong. If really torn, rent them both to help you decide. Good luck & enjoy!!!!

Thanks for the info! I have 24-105 for 4 years already....all my landscapes are produced with this lens. I was just thinking if 24-70 II will make any noticeable difference. F/2.8 is irrelevant for landscapes....

Here's a good comparison:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

The 24-70 Mk II is ever so slightly sharper at f/8 and a bit sharper in the corner with less CA and distortion than the 24-105. But the difference is so minimal and easily correctable with software. Is it worth the price difference? Not strictly for landscapes.

It was a very short and very productive conversation. Thank you

Numenorean wrote in post #17250098
Here's a good comparison:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

The 24-70 Mk II is ever so slightly sharper at f/8 and a bit sharper in the corner with less CA and distortion than the 24-105. But the difference is so minimal and easily correctable with software. Is it worth the price difference? Not strictly for landscapes.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17250093
Thanks for the info! I have 24-105 for 4 years already....all my landscapes are produced with this lens. I was just thinking if 24-70 II will make any noticeable difference. F/2.8 is irrelevant for landscapes....

Heya,

Stopped down, you're basically going to have zero difference that is truly significant that you can see.

Very best,

I just order a Rok 14mm f/2.8 because my 17-40 isn't wide enough. Depends on what you shoot, I suppose.

Hi

I've owned quite a few 24-105's over the years and enjoyed using all of them. It's a cracking piece of glass. However, my 24-70 Mk2 beats all of them hands down. It's not until you start looking at the images at 100% that you see the difference. The fine detail is just so much crisper and sharper with the 24-70. One thing I will add though is that I had to go through 3 copies of the 24-70 until I found a sharp one. The one I have now is sharp from corner to corner. The previous 2 that I sent back were nowhere near as good.

Cheers
Gary

My 24-104 is/has been a great lens, but the 24-70 II is simply amazing.

For one....I love shooting my 70-200 IS II at f2.8...its always spot on and sharp...I would love the 24-105 quality be as the 24-70 f2.8 II...mainly because I would use it for landscape and portraits..
My landscapes are always f8 and above so rarely do I go down to f4 or f2.8 unless I'm shooting trails or long night exposures...so the 24-105 is my go to lens for landscapes unless I use my primes..
I haven't shot the 24-70 II but its quality is close to prime quality in a zoom and if the 70-200 II is as good as it is for me then the 24-70 II will be just as good if not better.. I have been debating on getting the 24-70 II and just dealing with its max of 70mm...the 24-105 is not to expensive so I'll most likely keep it on hand...

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17250655
I just order a Rok 14mm f/2.8 because my 17-40 isn't wide enough. Depends on what you shoot, I suppose.

And how is this related to 24-70 vs 24-105?

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17250077
Just curious, what is the common word among landscape photographers. I know the 24-70II is newer, focuses faster....is sharp.

Anybody taken one of the other to a hike, trip....photo tour and got an opinion? More interested from the practical side.

Thanks!

still asking the same old tired questions. you're just not going to get anyone to cosign the 24-105L it's crap compared to the 24-70L II and that will become even more evident when the 45mp FF sensor is released.

If you have a 24-105, which is plenty sharp when stopped down, you could consider pairing it with a UWA for landscapes...the 16-35 f/4L IS gets some pretty good rep...

You wont notice much difference between the 24-70 and 24-105 stopped down. Wide open there is an appreciable difference, not so much so stopped down.

That said, the 24-70 II does have much lower distortion at 24mm.

Twister286 wrote in post #17250991
If you have a 24-105, which is plenty sharp when stopped down, you could consider pairing it with a UWA for landscapes...the 16-35 f/4L IS gets some pretty good rep...

You wont notice much difference between the 24-70 and 24-105 stopped down. Wide open there is an appreciable difference, not so much so stopped down.

That said, the 24-70 II does have much lower distortion at 24mm.

I don't agree. much more detail in a 24-70l II image when viewed at 100% even stopped down, imo.