Move from 24-105 F4 IS to 24-70 2.8II - will I miss IS ?

I have that twitching feeling again for new glass (and it's Xmas!). My main workhorse is the 24-105L that I use as a general purpose, jack of most trades lens. I'm a hobbyist and shoot mainly landscapes, overseas trips, family and friends etc. I suppose my biggest let down with the lens is sharpness and speed, although the length is great if you just want to cart around one lens. I would say, skill wise, I'm OK but not in the same league as many of the posters of this forum and don't have the steadiest of hands. Have those that have moved to the 24-70 2.8II ever missed IS ? Also, I assume that many team this lens with the 70-200 2.8II and as two lens rig for general shooting?

Keep the 24-105. Feel the need to spend some money? Get a 24L II & 85L. Or, if you are cheap (like me), get a 28 1.8 & 85 1.8. The move from f/4 with IS to f/2.8 without IS gains you very little for a $1700 investment. You can get the 28 1.8 & 85 1.8 for about 1/3 of that. And you still have the zoom if/when you need it. The 50 1.4 and 35IS are also a lot less costly than the 24-70 II.

If you have a well-performing copy of the 24-105, I'd stick with it; I like Bassat's idea above, that if you are going to spend the money on something, go for a more specialized prime. You already have the 50L, so know what a fast prime brings to the table. The 24-70II is a perfect performer, but you may find that you regret dropping that much $$ on a lens you will grow bored with rather quickly. Your 24-105 already captures your "every day" photos, so a little more sharpness or slightly larger f/2.8 aperture isn't going to change things all that much, whereas a prime just adds a more dynamic aspect to your experience.

Having recently added the 24-70 f/2.8 II to my line up, I flat out say that it was the last lens that I wanted to buy, but a sort of necessary evil for event and general shooting (I equate it to buying socks and underwear, when I'd rather spend money on anything but that). If I had to liquidate assets, it'd be the first lens to go.

If you are wanting a better performing general use lens, check out the 24-70 f/4 IS instead. For walk around/travel/general use compared to the 24-105, it's lighter, smaller, sharper, better distortion control, and adds a macro capability. And, it can be had for a great deal refurbished (I might still return the 24-70II and get one).

I sort of agree with MatthewK, above. The general point he and I are trying to make is, you only need one general-purpose zoom. You already have a 24-105L. I use the 24-105 STM. MatthewK uses a 24-70 LII. Adding another GP zoom to any of our collections doesn't offer much. Consider a big-hole prime, if you want to do something different.

all that really matters is how you shoot.

i've had 24-70II lust for a couple of years, but the fact is that my 24-105 does the job I ask of it just fine. Last week at an event I shot at f/4 all night blending flash with ambient at about 400 ISO and 1/160. f/4 for small group shots, and shots of people where i don't have time to pose them within DOF works great for me.

But, there were a number of shots where there were no people in the shot and I wanted to use ambient or just a tiny bit of flash. For those I was shooting at ISO 800 and 1/15 of a second at 50mm or so. IS was a necessity.

so for my needs, i would rarely shoot at 2.8 (for those I would go with a prime) and often need IS. YMMV.

Oh man did I debate the hell out of this question last spring. After viewing the forums and seeing the amazing image quality coming out of the 24-70mm f2.8 MKII I was convinced it was time to up my 24-105mm's game. If the f2.8 had IS or was $500 cheaper I would have done it; no questions asked. But $2,000ish to lose IS and get better image quality for a focal length I have covered a few times already.... the principle of the matter was blocking my purchase. I have to echo a bit of what Bassat and MatthewK are saying, but state that I did end up getting the 24-70mm f4L IS because the buying bug was too strong.

After owning that lens for about 6 months I can say that the 24-105mm f4L IS has stuck around for my fiancé's use in her learning photography. The 24-70mm f4 has certainly replaced it as the one lens that is always in my bag.

I'm actually hopping on a plane in a few hours to spend some time with my little brother who is in college and becoming a decent photographer. Because the trip is more about family I wasn't planning to bring any photography gear (except the iPhone), but he asked me to bring some specialty stuff he could try. The last leg of the trip will be on a puddle jumper, so I'm taking a small bag that left me with 3 lens choices. He wanted me to bring a macro, tilt-shift, and f1.2 lens to try, but I said hell with the 180mm macro... if I'm lugging gear the 24-70mm f4L IS is coming because I might want to get some general shots for myself. My gear list is up to date, so you can see I have a lot to play with, but the 24-70mm f4L IS never gets left behind!

P.S. Aside from wildlife and racing, you and I do a lot of the same kind of shooting

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC

I'm in a similar boat. I just picked up a 1D IV and bought the 16-35 f/4 IS for a landscape lens. That takes care of interiors too but I don't have a decent walk around lens for family shots, etc.

I don't know if I'd prefer the 24-70 II for that or would the range and IS of the 24-105 IS end up being a better choice. I'm a bit fussy when it comes to lens quality, hence my dilemma.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17820964
I'm a bit fussy when it comes to lens quality, hence my dilemma.

I am too.

But i believe the lens is worth every penny (assuming going price of 550 USD), but so is the 24-70II. In a pinch I had to use the 24-105 in the studio. With a very controlled environment i could easily tell that it wasn't until f/11 that the corners were about as sharp as the center, f/8 was pretty darn sharp. My copy is very slightly decentered so it is just one corner that needed to go from 8 to 11 to get sharp. I suspect that with the 24-70II you would be sharp before f/8.

Center sharpness is fine.

Lens distortion at the wide end is pretty bad, but at 35mm it is near perfect. Pincushion above 50 is not a huge issue.

Having the extra reach has saved me lots of hassle.

tough choices up in here.

yeah.... I'll have to decide which compromise will be better for me in the long run.

I shoot birds more than anything else... or macro in botanical gardens, etc. I don't do studio work or weddings so this need isn't critical for me.

I am toying with the idea of getting a 1Ds III to accompany my 1D IV. That would make the 24-70 II move valuable, I think, as it would do double duty... landscape with the IDs and walk around with the 1D IV.

Nickoff wrote in post #17820729
I'm a hobbyist and shoot mainly landscapes, overseas trips, family and friends etc.

The Canon 24-70 F2.8 II is a Pro Event Lens - period. That is why it is optimized to shoot wide open - it doesn't really get much better stopped down.


I mainly shoot landscapes
- this lens is not necessary
- your 17-40L at F8 shot at 20mm is perfect

Overseas Trips
- do you want to bring a $2000 lens with you?

Family & Friends
- it is a great lenses for this but often F4 is a better DoF
- IS on the 24-105 also makes for a great video lens during family events

The 24-105 F4 IS at $500-$600 is not likely to depreciate much over the next 3 years so holding it won't cost you anything
- Canon may come out with a IS version of the 24-70 for the 5DSR crowd (I own one and I do not use non IS lenses on the 5DSR)

If you are seriously thinking of spending that kind of money, take a look at the new 35L II - that is a modern, state of the art, Canon masterpiece, it is built like a f'ing tank and will blow away your 50L in every aspect

If IS is valuable to you then stick with what you have. For me, I don't miss the IS, I don't miss the added reach and I definitely don't miss the lesser IQ over the 24-70mm. Before making my upgrade I read many reviews, nobody has any regrets leaving the 24-105mm behind. Like MatthewK I need f/2.8 for events, unlike MatthewK it would be the second-to-last lens I ever sell.

I switched from the 24-105 L IS to the 24-70 F2.8 V2 early in 2015. I do, occasionally miss the 70-105 range but, other than that, there is simply no downside for me. The 24-70 F2.8 V2 is simply a better lens in all respects at all apertures - though whether it is worth the extra only you can decide.
To me it was a worthwhile upgrade, I would suggest that you try/rent one first and see if it's worth it to you. I have read that Canon purposely did not put IS in this lens for IQ reasons. I cannot state, with any authority, if this is true or not but the IQ is simply superb for a zoom lens and I have no use for IS at these (or any other focal lengths) so I don't miss it. You may miss IS so look back at some of your previous images and see what sort of shutter speeds you mainly use and consider how steadily you can hold a camera!

I went through this exact concern about a year ago - the difference being I already had a 24-70 but really wanted the extra range at the high end. Finally a pro friend showed me a portfolio he'd done with the 24-105 and left it at that. I bought the 24-105 soon after.

The number of times I've actually needed f/2.8 (instead of just IS for slow shutter speed) have been counted on one hand since then, and were greatly outnumbered by the times I tried the 24-105 and found out that it gave me just what I needed - often that extra ability to frame a distant subject and the steadiness while trying to hold it in frame. I initially feared that the focus accuracy of the f/4 max aperture (which doesn't activate the high precision focus points on my bodies) would suffer, but now my first choice when I reach into the bag is quite often the 24-105. I've shot sports, events, and portraits with it, and it just keeps delivering. Incidentally, the IS helps with autofocus when the camera is not mounted rigidly and the shutter speed is low - it stabilizes the image in the viewfinder, which is essentially the same image the AF sensor sees. I think this is part of why AF with my 7D2 is so repeatable when shooting sports.

Nick.
Like in name, we are in the same situation.
Have been using the 24-105 for seven years now, with the last two on a 5D Mark III. I also have the bug to ADD a 24-70 to my kit. Although I have rented the 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II for wedding gigs, the lack of IS has kept me from biting the bullet and investing. Since Nikon released their 24-70 f/2.8 VR (Vibration Reduction) version, hopefully Canon will introduce their 24-70 f/2.8 L IS.
In the meantime, the 24-70 f/4 L IS has been giving me the twitching feeling of new glass. Maybe a word into St. Nick may do the trick.
With the instant rebate price, this may be too good not to cash my good deeds.
And of course the tried and true experiences of Santa's Elves, MatthewK and Poindexter are appreciated.
Better distortion at the wide end, brighter improved glass and did we say Image Stabilization.
With the savings as compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II, St. Nick can spread more Christmas cheer.
However the 24-105 will not leave the sack, or should I say my camera bag.
It really is a great lens not only as a back up, but for those situations when you only want one lens and being able to get a nice tight portrait without swapping.
Hopefully we are NOT on the Naughty list.