Canon 24-105 f/4 Compared to 24-70 f/4 L IS

Have been using the 24-105 f/4 L IS on the Mark III for a year now. Previously on a 7D for years. One of the things that I do not like is the distortion at 24mm. as well documented The 24-70f/4 L IS seems to do better for this situation. I am not looking to get rid of the 24-105 anytime soon. Looking to see if anyone else has added 24-70 f/4 L IS to their 24-105 and whether it is worth adding.

i added the Tokina 16-28 which is pretty much perfect at 24, and really close to perfect between 20-28. Plus it is 2.8 and goes down to 16mm. I'm very happy with it. I needed to go wider but like you was disappointed in the 24-105 at 24, it's basically unusable for anything but landscape pics.

I have both, and since getting the 24-70 I never use the 24-105. I may have had a bad copy as I was never satisfied with the IQ at the edges - and not just at 24mm. No such problems with the 24-70 and it's much smaller and lighter. I use it almost exclusively when hiking up the mountains (small and light!) - actually I'm on my second one as my first one went rolling down a hill on the 6D and was a write-off. (The camera just needed some small replacement parts by Canon.) I can't live without it.

OK, you lose 70 to 105 fl but you appear to have plenty choice to cover that. Another bonus to using the 24-70 is that 77mm diameter filters fit a lot of your lenses so no need for the 82mm filter.

Lefty.
I too have found that my Wide Angle 17-40 L is better at 24 mm as well. The second part of my "I'm a thinkin'" is adding the new 16-35 f/4 L IS. Supposedly sharper in the corners and yes IS.

AnnieMacD wrote in post #17362127
I have both, and since getting the 24-70 I never use the 24-105. I may have had a bad copy as I was never satisfied with the IQ at the edges - and not just at 24mm.

probably not just a bad copy, my 24-105 is weak in the corners too. The other day I was set up for a copy shot with my 85mm and when i needed to go wider for a larger piece decided to just switch out the lens and go with the 24-105 @ 55mm. Even shooting at f/8 the corners were noticeably softer than the center. At f/11 there was little noticeable difference, but i went ahead and went up to f/16 to get the best image I could.

I was shooting fabric samples and filling the frame so it was a really hard test, but one that clearly pointed out the limitations of the lens. It also distorts at pretty much every focal length other than 35. I'm coming back to my roots as a prime shooter, so i'm still happy with the zoom as a walk around lens.

Nick5 wrote in post #17362128
Lefty.
I too have found that my Wide Angle 17-40 L is better at 24 mm as well. The second part of my "I'm a thinkin'" is adding the new 16-35 f/4 L IS. Supposedly sharper in the corners and yes IS.

yeah, i didn't read your gear list until after i posted. Seems like you need a wide prime (something simpler than TS-E), my 35mm has been my go-to lens since purchasing it a few months ago.

Looking at the lens reviews on LensRentals, Photozone and TDP, the 24-70 doesn't seem to be dramatically better at 24mm. If you use a post-processing application that compensates for lens characteristics, it ceases to be a problem anyway. Considering you can get a 24-105 brand new for about half the cost of a 24-70 f/4, I wouldn't sweat it.

I have a 24-70 f/2.8, and honestly it only gets used when I need that extra aperture - it beats the f/4 for focus accuracy and speed in low light. For landscapes, once I get them into Lightroom or DPP, I don't see any difference.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17362168
I'm coming back to my roots as a prime shooter...

Food for thought.

Lightroom cleans up most of the 24-105L's issues, and I have the 16-35L f/4 IS if I want that little extra quality at 24mm, so the 24-70 f/4 IS has not really interested me. I would rather have the extra focal range for a lens that I use as a single, general purpose walk around.