24-70 II vs 24-105 for Landscape

ed rader wrote in post #17251009
I don't agree. much more detail in a 24-70l II image when viewed at 100% even stopped down, imo.

For landscapes you're talking about f/8....and you'll be at the wider end of the lens (the 24-105 takes a performance hit after 50-70mm, but even that improves a fair bit on stopping down).

If OP already has a 24-105, for landscapes it's likely he's using it in its "good" range...I suggest the 16-35 f/4 IS is a better lens to complement it for landscapes.

I have both the 24-105 and 16-35. I was only thinking about replacing 24-105 with 24-70 II if it is a day and night difference, but if it is very close at F/8-F/14...then I will simply not bother. I will use the money to finance the upcoming high MP 3D or 5D MKIV

Twister286 wrote in post #17251031
For landscapes you're talking about f/8....and you'll be at the wider end of the lens (the 24-105 takes a performance hit after 50-70mm, but even that improves a fair bit on stopping down).

If OP already has a 24-105, for landscapes it's likely he's using it in its "good" range...I suggest the 16-35 f/4 IS is a better lens to complement it for landscapes.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17251066
I have both the 24-105 and 16-35. I was only thinking about replacing 24-105 with 24-70 II if it is a day and night difference, but if it is very close at F/8-F/14...then I will simply not bother. I will use the money to finance the upcoming high MP 3D or 5D MKIV

If you shoot landscapes, you could also consider the Tamron 24-70 perhaps? Its AF isn't going to set the stage on fire, but quote a lot of landscapes would be focused using LV/magnified view so it would be rather moot...

Don't get me wrong, there is a difference between the 24-70 Mk II and 24-105...whether it's noticeable without 100% pixel-peeping at f/8-14 is another story.

The price difference between them is substantial, and the 24-105 also doubles up as a walk-around where needed because of the additional reach and IS.

I myself am in two minds for this very same reason. I have the 24-105, and when I'm shooting cityscapes (UWAs aren't my thing), I find myself around the f/5.6-f/11 range most of the time. Which negates the main selling point of the 24-70, which is the faster aperture.

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.

Yes, the 24-105 is weakest at 24mm with it's distortion being quite horrible.

Hogloff wrote in post #17251307
Yes, the 24-105 is weakest at 24mm with it's distortion being quite horrible.

That, and the jump from 24-35mm is way too quick. It's incredibly hard to use focal lengths like 28mm, it jumps from 24 to 35 in almost a millimetre of rotation.

If i had to choose between the two, I would without hesitation go for the 24-70II unless cost was the prime issue. The 24-105 is a decent lens and as mentioned, at f/8 and in the center of the frame there is little difference, but get more wide open than f/8 and the differences become quite a bit greater. At f/4 the 24-70 has noticeably better contrast and sharpness.

Pilgrim, I realize your looking for a lens for landscape application but I'd be looking more for universal use.

Do you own a 16-35L f/4IS?? or mk1 f/2.8? mk2 f/2.8?? If you own the newest 16-35mm f/4 version I think your set for an extremely capable landscape lens.

If you looking into top notch image quality across the entire FL of a zoom the 24-70Lmk2 is undeniably a zoom that gives you prime lens quality. The 24-105 cant touch that at all.

If there is no discussion about budget and simply choosing a lens for pure high quality images there is no doubt the 24-70Lmk2 trumps the red L ring "kit lens".

As far as funding for a 5dmk4????? Your better off buying the superior 24-70Lmk2 for a large jump in image quality VS buying a new full frame camera that WILL NOT make noticeable IQ differences for typical prints. Even if Canon slaps together a higher mpx camera to 36 or 45 megapixels the image quality will not surpass a 5dmk2 or 5dmk3 for portrait work....unless your shooting for billboards or huge posters.

If landscape isn't your true passion you can use any decent lens on the market. If your putting great efforts in shooting the best landscape photos possible even a sony A7R would surpass most Canon dlsr's due to higher megapixel count. Yes off topic but the point is using the eyepiece to the world (24-105L) isn't the best set of eyes

rent/borrow a 24-70Lmk2 and you'll be able to use that for portraiture and landscape. If the reach isn't long enough and you want at least a 100mm and light form factor the 100L macro lens produces similar lush 3d imagery and micro contrast like many new generation Canon lenses. Slightly off topic but something to think about.

Alan, thank you very much for taking time!
I have to confess that I am not overly obsessed with gear even though I enjoy using good quality cameras and lenses. If you will check my photographs then you will see I am 50% landscapes and 50% portraits. I tried many different lenses for portraits (35 mm, 50 mm, 85L and 70-200 II) and today I know that 70-200 II is my go to portraits lens. It covers 85L for me. So far I do not feel any gap when it comes to portrait set up, I am fulfilled.

When it comes to Landscapes, 24-105 was my only lens for many years and I simply invested money in travelling - I went to Tuscany, Iceland, Chamonix Mont-Blanc, Costa Rica. I decided to spend money on traveling rather then on new lenses. I am mostly into practical usage...I have never done any pixel peeping. I know that 24-105 has limitations and I wanted to check if landscape photographers that travel a lot....spend time in the field....do they see a day and night difference.

There are things that I care about....I checked that 24-70 II is 20% heavier and I think it also has the extendable zoom ring....this one thing that I dislike about 24-105.

I could go to 24-70 II and it would have been for landscapes only. I do not need F/2.8. If at F/8 - F/14 there is not going to be a significant difference, I would not even bother. Yes, I do have 16-35 F/4...I purchased it a couple of weeks ago. It is a nice lens, I am happy I got it.

I went to the-digital-picture.com and read the review of 24-70 II. Bryan says that when it comes to landscape photographers, it is not a very easy task to say which way to go (24-104 or 24-700 II)....so there can't be such a big difference, I think.

As for the high MP and better DR camera body- I personally think it will make a difference. Looking at Nikon D810 files....there difference is there.

AlanU wrote in post #17251459
Pilgrim, I realize your looking for a lens for landscape application but I'd be looking more for universal use.

Do you own a 16-35L f/4IS?? or mk1 f/2.8? mk2 f/2.8?? If you own the newest 16-35mm f/4 version I think your set for an extremely capable landscape lens.

If you looking into top notch image quality across the entire FL of a zoom the 24-70Lmk2 is undeniably a zoom that gives you prime lens quality. The 24-105 cant touch that at all.

If there is no discussion about budget and simply choosing a lens for pure high quality images there is no doubt the 24-70Lmk2 trumps the red L ring "kit lens".

As far as funding for a 5dmk4????? Your better off buying the superior 24-70Lmk2 for a large jump in image quality VS buying a new full frame camera that WILL NOT make noticeable IQ differences for typical prints. Even if Canon slaps together a higher mpx camera to 36 or 45 megapixels the image quality will not surpass a 5dmk2 or 5dmk3 for portrait work....unless your shooting for billboards or huge posters.

If landscape isn't your true passion you can use any decent lens on the market. If your putting great efforts in shooting the best landscape photos possible even a sony A7R would surpass most Canon dlsr's due to higher megapixel count. Yes off topic but the point is using the eyepiece to the world (24-105L) isn't the best set of eyes

rent/borrow a 24-70Lmk2 and you'll be able to use that for portraiture and landscape. If the reach isn't long enough and you want at least a 100mm and light form factor the 100L macro lens produces similar lush 3d imagery and micro contrast like many new generation Canon lenses. Slightly off topic but something to think about.

Light Pilgrim,

I'll be honest and say I'm not into landscape.

Since you say your fulfilled in the "portrait" category I guess your 24-105 or 24-70Lmk2 will be a niche lens specifically for your "task".

I guess you can analyze your FL you typically shoot for landscape.

I've seen Nikon d810 files and will admit they are highly detailed. When regular size print is concerned your splitting hairs if you compare it to a lower MPX of a canon full frame. It's certainly nice to have more mega pixels though......also who wouldn't like more dynamic range

if you rent/borrow a 24-70Lmk2 you may fall in love with it..... I use my 16-35L alot more then my dusty covered 24-70Lmk2. However when I do use the 24-70 I absolutely love the IQ it gives me. Its on par to a 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 imo.

Having the 24-105 as my workhorse, landscape lens; it's a perfectly capable lens but certainly doesn't reproduce the most detail out there. Center sharpness/detail is great but it drops off pretty drastically at the edges. If you need that sharpness across the frame, I'd look into the Tamron 24-70 VC, the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS.

If you don't need f/2.8, check out the 24-70 f/4 IS. I picked one of these up after Canon reduced the price, and it is a very nice lens- compact with great IQ including less distortion. The macro function is also a nice bonus.

Snydremark wrote in post #17252220
it's a perfectly capable lens but certainly doesn't reproduce the most detail out there. Center sharpness/detail is great but it drops off pretty drastically at the edges.

I agree with this.

Like the 17-40, the 24-105 is IMO 'acceptable' in the very far corners at f11+ for landscapes.

I would bet the 24-70 is much better whatever the test chart comparison shows.

You could say the same thing about the 16-35 f4 vs. 17-40. How much difference is there really at f11. Some comparisons show not much and for many people it would not be worth the extra. For me though it is and it's still considerably better at f11 in 'real world' shots. It is also a lot better across the frame than the 24-105 where they overlap.

Personally I take the 'all lenses are OK stopped down' with a huge grain of salt. But of course it totally depends what you find acceptable and what you consider a 'significant' difference. And of course i still used the 17-40 and do still use the 24-105. But not more open than f11 and the corners are still not great - you can make them a lot better by focus stacking a shot focused close though so the corners are at least not near the edge of the DOF. That helps quite a bit.

EDIT: Actually the 24-105 is not so bad around 50-60mm. The very far corners are not so bad in this FL range either. I just remembered this because I tested against the 50 1.4 at f8 and they were quite similar (one was a bit better at one distance from the center, then the other would be a bit better). Basically I concluded it was not worth choosing one over the other for landscapes (f8+) at 50mm. So when someone says the 24-105 is 'sharp' across the frame, it might be they are tending to shoot close to 50mm. I still tend to take the 16-35 f4, 50 1.4 and 70-200 if I want a really wide range of FL though, just because the 50 is so much lighter and smaller.

I have both, and my opinion:

under f5.6-8 or so, the 24-70 ii is clearly sharper. it's night and day. absolutely no question. no pixel peeping required.

< f8, then you see less of a difference and the 24-105 is pretty sharp. however, there is still a difference. how much?--I cannot say since once I got the 24-70 ii everything was sharper and I had no reason to use the 24-105 at < f8 (it's still useful for low light when you need IS)

overall, the 24-70 ii beat the 24-105 enough that I recently ordered a 24-70 f4 to replace the 24-105 for those instances I needed IS, cause I just need sharper now.

so, for landscape, you almost always have it stopped down. the 24-105 is a sharp lens stopped down. so... if it's between getting a little sharper vs getting a new body, i'd probably get the new body. but of course, i'd rather have both.

I am not collecting lenses

jrscls wrote in post #17252388
If you don't need f/2.8, check out the 24-70 f/4 IS. I picked one of these up after Canon reduced the price, and it is a very nice lens- compact with great IQ including less distortion. The macro function is also a nice bonus.

I own both and refuse to sell the 24-105 because it is such a good travel lens.
My 24-70 f/2.8L II does get a bit more use, and if I could only have one that would be it.