24-70 II vs 24-105 for Landscape

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17253004
I am not collecting lenses

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17250093
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....

The reason I recommended the 24-70 f4 IS if you don't like the 24-105. Having owned both, the 24-70 (both f2.8 II and f4 IS versions) are better.

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

I agree, it's unusable for architecture at that focal length. Moustache distortion that is not correctable.

I don't own the lens and shoot only primes at this time but i have a good buddy that does, and has owned the 24-105 in the past. In my opinion the image quality of the mk2 is in a different class than the 24-105 and in fact it is more on par with the 24tse of which i do own and shoot often. i truly envy and admire the image quality of that lens and have been thinking of making it my next purchase. not just the sharpness but the color and micro contrast separates this lens from most if not all other zooms. again IMHO..

bob

a911s wrote in post #17253378
I agree, it's unusable for architecture at that focal length. Moustache distortion that is not correctable.

I've never noticed any significant distortion after correction, though honestly i'm not looking that hard for it.

op was talking about landscape anyway, and I've used it for that purpose many times without noticing any problems with the horizon after correction.

if you wanna see moustache distortion, check out the Samyang/rokinon 14mm. now that lens is a pain in the ass.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17253620
I've never noticed any significant distortion after correction, though honestly i'm not looking that hard for it.

op was talking about landscape anyway, and I've used it for that purpose many times without noticing any problems with the horizon after correction.

if you wanna see moustache distortion, check out the Samyang/rokinon 14mm. now that lens is a pain in the ass.

I've used it for landscapes and if there are any vertical objects like trees on the edges...the LR distortion correction does not totally remove the distortion. Also, once you apply this distortion correction, the image quality on the edges becomes even more lousy than before.

It's a convenient walk around lens because of its nice range and IS...but for landscape photography I'd choose other lenses.

Hogloff wrote in post #17253651
I've used it for landscapes and if there are any vertical objects like trees on the edges...the LR distortion correction does not totally remove the distortion. Also, once you apply this distortion correction, the image quality on the edges becomes even more lousy than before.

It's a convenient walk around lens because of its nice range and IS...but for landscape photography I'd choose other lenses.

I see. Guess I never had any vertical straight lines in my landscapes before. Well anyway I use other lenses for that purpose now.

To add jrscls I just ordered a 24-70 f4 to replace the 24-105. I think the op shouldn't have knocked that suggestion--tests show it's an awesome lens. Just missing the f2.8.

Have to say this move I do not understand 100%.

For a landscape photographer, when you mostly operate between F/8 and F/14...what is the big deal to get this lens? You are cutting 35 mm, not gaining any additional light and is it really such a fundamental difference in sharpness at F/10?

Talking practical landscape examples....

Xyclopx wrote in post #17253685
I think the op shouldn't have knocked that suggestion--tests show it's an awesome lens. Just missing the f2.8.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17254142
Have to say this move I do not understand 100%.

For a landscape photographer, when you mostly operate between F/8 and F/14...what is the big deal to get this lens? You are cutting 35 mm, not gaining any additional light and is it really such a fundamental difference in sharpness at F/10?

Talking practical landscape examples....

yes, at f10 there probably isn't a huge amount of difference in sharpness straight out of the camera. however, don't forget that the 24-105 has extremely heavy distortion at certain focal lengths as people have pointed out. that means after correction your sharpness is going to be affected. the 24-70 f4 has best in class distortion figures, and is basically sharper in all respects.

that said, i'm sure you're gonna use whatever lens you get for more than just landscape right? like i mentioned before, at apertures > f5.6ish the 24-105 gets very unsharp fast, to the point now that I can't really use it for anything serious. and i believe my copy to be one of the best--when stopped down it is quite sharp.

i also own a 24-70 2.8 ii which is probably the sharpest 24-70ish 35mm lens ever made by any company i know of. so the f4, for me, is just supplemental, mostly for low-light, hand-held, situations.

you know............... if i were you, i'd just get the 24-70 2.8 ii and call it a day knowing you have the best there is. then all this is moot.

Sometimes I think I am from a different planet....I honestly do not know what is this huge distortion that people are talking about and I do not know how to find it in my photographs. We anyways spend a lot of time editing photographs, cropping, etc. I have never used 24-105 for anything else other than landscape....

In any case - all is good))

Xyclopx wrote in post #17254173
yes, at f10 there probably isn't a huge amount of difference in sharpness straight out of the camera. however, don't forget that the 24-105 has extremely heavy distortion at certain focal lengths as people have pointed out. that means after correction your sharpness is going to be affected. the 24-70 f4 has best in class distortion figures, and is basically sharper in all respects.

that said, i'm sure you're gonna use whatever lens you get for more than just landscape right? like i mentioned before, at apertures > f5.6ish the 24-105 gets very unsharp fast, to the point now that I can't really use it for anything serious. and i believe my copy to be one of the best--when stopped down it is quite sharp.

i also own a 24-70 2.8 ii which is probably the sharpest 24-70ish 35mm lens ever made by any company i know of. so the f4, for me, is just supplemental, mostly for low-light, hand-held, situations.

you know............... if i were you, i'd just get the 24-70 2.8 ii and call it a day knowing you have the best there is. then all this is moot.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #17254229
Sometimes I think I am from a different planet....I honestly do not know what is this huge distortion that people are talking about and I do not know how to find it in my photographs. We anyways spend a lot of time editing photographs, cropping, etc. I have never used 24-105 for anything else other than landscape....

In any case - all is good))

4-6% barrel distortion. It's obvious. Take a picture of a door or a bulding at 24mm.

here is lensrentals on exactly what we are talking about (same lens)--how distortion affects sharpness after correction:

http://www.lensrentals​.com …an-correct-it-in-post-but

and yeah, it is all good--if you don't see it, no need to worry about it. better on your wallet.