Worth upgrading from 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS to 24-70mm f/2.8L II?

I am thinking of upgrading my 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS to 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but not sure I should do it or not. Up until this point I've been using my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 when I needed a faster lens, but since I upgraded to a 5d MIII about a year ago I rarely pull out the 7D (and as such, lost usage of the EF-S 17-55).

While I like the 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS, I can't help but think that I would get better, sharper shots with the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. I am always looking on how I can make my shots better, so this is why I am considering the change.

So, I ask others that may have owned both, what do you think of each when comparing the two? This would become my primary walk-around lens. I shoot indoors and out, and believe (well, know since I've used 2.8 before) that the faster lens will help me indoors. Although I am also considering the fact that I will be losing Image Stabilization on the 24-70mm f/2.8L II.

Any constructive advice or feedback would be appreciated!

How is the 24-105 harming your shots?

Hockeyphoto wrote in post #17513235
I am thinking of upgrading my 24-105mm f/4.0 L IS to 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but not sure I should do it or not.

I'm not sure that I would consider the change to be an upgrade. They are different lenses, used for different purposes.

Check out the replies in this thread, if you haven't already:
https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?p=17466​757&ut=ask

I have both use the 24-105 for travel, the 24-70/2.8 for sports (lots of indoor therefore need 2.8).

Both are great lenses, unless you need the 2.8 speed I think you would be wasting money.

The way your talking I think your first priority would be to sell the 7D and 17-55 lens. I really don't
see any value in selling the 24-105 at this time.

24-70 II yields significantly better image quality. Everything else is about numbers and your needs.

Owing both I would not part with either.

There are times each is better suited to my shooting.

I doubt you could get as much $ as the 24-105 is worth to you.

The 24-70 definitely offers better IQ, but the 24-105 performs well.

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17513279
How is the 24-105 harming your shots?

I like to shoot sports indoors and indoor venues with low lighting. Again, 2.8 vs 4.0 with IS. lol. Plus I like to shoot portraits of the wife and kids while out and about at various places.

Tapeman wrote in post #17513487
Owing both I would not part with either.

There are times each is better suited to my shooting.

I doubt you could get as much $ as the 24-105 is worth to you.

The 24-70 definitely offers better IQ, but the 24-105 performs well.

Yeah I am thinking of just keeping the 24-105... if I end up selling my 7D and EF-S lenses, I'll have the cash to add and not have to sell. But then again, I'll need to add an EF Wide angle lens (most likely the 16-35 but temped to take the plunge on the new 11-24)

Got my bonus at work, so I decided to add the 24-70mm F/2.8L II. Should be here tomorrow! I've always wanted one, so I took the plunge!

For the time being I'm going to keep my 24-105L and see how my Lens lineup shakes out with the new 2.8 as an option. For as little as the 24-105's are selling for, it's almost not worth selling it (and it's a sharp sample).

About a year ago I had to decide as to whether I'd pick this one up VS the 85mm 1.2, and I got the 85MM 1.2 with the thought that I'd just add the 24-70 2.8 II later.. so my plan came to fruition.

Thanks to all that took the time to reply, I appreciate the feedback / comments as I'm always open to constructive opinions.

Hockeyphoto wrote in post #17513713
I like to shoot sports indoors and indoor venues with low lighting. Again, 2.8 vs 4.0 with IS. lol. Plus I like to shoot portraits of the wife and kids while out and about at various places.

It's hard for me to limit myself to 2.8 for indoor sports. Once you go 1.4 you never go back

24-70mm f/2.8L II is a must i think. I was between 24-105mm f/4 L IS II USM and 24-70mm f/2.8L II but due to budget and the need for a walk-around lens as i have so many layovers i choosed the 24-105 II.

Heya,

A better shot is largely not better because it's a little sharper or has better micro-contrast, or has a little less depth of field with a little stronger background blur. Emphasis on little. A better shot largely comes from better lighting conditions and a good strong composition that tells a story or commands the viewers' eyes.

So what are you looking to actually get from the lens change?

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18970292
Heya,

A better shot is largely not better because it's a little sharper or has better micro-contrast, or has a little less depth of field with a little stronger background blur. Emphasis on little. A better shot largely comes from better lighting conditions and a good strong composition that tells a story or commands the viewers' eyes.

So what are you looking to actually get from the lens change?

Very best,

You are absolutely right but the desire to have a better lens always bites my mind.