24-105L vs 24-70 f2/8 v1

Currently using the 24-105 with a 70-200 f2.8 IS, have considered the 24-70 v1 because the price is lower, and it still has pretty great reviews, not as good as the v2 of course.

I mainly use the 24-105 when filming. The IS is really good. Any advise on one or the other, if I were to make a choice to stick with my 24-105, of switch to the faster glass?

I've owned all three, and my 24-105L is my current oldest lens which I've had for nearly a decade.

I'm not much of a video guy, so my comments will be biased towards stills. As such:

24-70/2.8 II - The best of the three, this lens is just incredible as far as optical performance goes. The only reason I still have the 25-105L along with this lens is for travel where the range, IS and weight of the latter lens makes a compelling case.

24-105L - A really sharp lens that is just perfect as a travel / walkabout lens. The IS is handy and the range is great. The weakness of this lens is distortion and vignette in the range of 24mm to 28mm. If you are a serious landscape or architecture photographer then these issues may be decisive.

24-70/2.8 - Great lens and a great performer. But not that this lens has a curved focus plane on the wide end and seems to have more copy variation than most. Roger Cicala suggests that this lens has performance shifts in heavy use as a result of the design.

I'd stay with the 24-105. It is one of my most used lenses. Going to the 24-70 you lose more than you gain IMO.

I own both, and the 24-105 gets far more use due to the IS and longer tele f.l. The 24-70 is occasionally nice to have when shooting sports in dark venues, because AF can be more accurate with some bodies. But the 24-105 is amazing with my 7D mk ii, regardless of the light.

Thanks for the advise everyone! I'll stick with the 24-105; but will be upgrading to a newer one. I think for my portrait work I'll be adding an 85 f1.8 for now, eventually head to a 24-70 f/2.8 v2.

JeffreyG wrote in post #18036506
I've owned all three, and my 24-105L is my current oldest lens which I've had for nearly a decade.

I'm not much of a video guy, so my comments will be biased towards stills. As such:

24-70/2.8 II - The best of the three, this lens is just incredible as far as optical performance goes. The only reason I still have the 25-105L along with this lens is for travel where the range, IS and weight of the latter lens makes a compelling case.

24-105L - A really sharp lens that is just perfect as a travel / walkabout lens. The IS is handy and the range is great. The weakness of this lens is distortion and vignette in the range of 24mm to 28mm. If you are a serious landscape or architecture photographer then these issues may be decisive.

24-70/2.8 - Great lens and a great performer. But not that this lens has a curved focus plane on the wide end and seems to have more copy variation than most. Roger Cicala suggests that this lens has performance shifts in heavy use as a result of the design.

Tend to agree with Jeffery here

1- My 24-105 is my most used lens. I use it for just about everything I do. I have a very sharp copy and I get around the lens distort issues with Lightroom and the lens distortions corrections that the programs offers...So its a mute point for me..I know how to shoot around this after using this lens for the past 9 yrs

2- Optically the new 24-70 is great but the build is NOT as good as the original

3- I am not a fan of the 24-70 focal length. Much prefer the 24-105L and when you start to get 2-3 people in a shot its a mute point. You need to be at F/3.5 to keep them in focus anyway, and the advantages of IS far outweights the extra stop your going to need for the majority of people

4_ Im a wedding photographer and fast primes and shallow DOF greatly outshine a fast zoom which makes the 24-70 a useless lens for my needs. Until I get to a reception then I opt to use 2 cameras instead. I think most people would be better served buying an 85MM 1.8 and a siggy 35 fine art f/vs a 24-70.

5- Canon has made a huge mistake by discontinuing this gem of a lens...they should have updated it like they did everything else. I love My L lens from canon but Im not about to buy some of this garbage they are putting out. If and When Sigma updates their 24-70 and out it in the fine art category, canon will have really serious problems. For the most part, Sigma primes are on so close that its foolish to spend the $$$ for professional or serious amateur needs.

I believe they are updating the 24-105, it is supposed to be released as a lens with the new 5D Mark 4. Could still be rumor-land though!

http://www.canonrumors​.com …ming-with-5d-mark-iv-cr3/

I have both, the 24-105 F4 L and the 24-70 2.8 L II (had the V1 of the 24-70 for years and its at least 95% as good as the V2). While the 24-70 is better in low light and over all, the IQ is a bit better, I still use the 24-105 a LOT. Its always on one of my camera bodies when I shoot a wedding. Here is what I love about the 24-105:

-Great focal range
-Can be had for as low as 350.00 used!
-Very good IQ.

So I wouldn't sell my 24-105 to get a 24-70 V1 (at least double the cost of the 24-105 used). But if you can end up having both you will be happy and simply have more options in your bag.

I recently had a talented student of mine ask what would I buy for low bucks that would be a full on pro camera rig. I told her to look for a classic 5D used and a 24-105 F4 used. What a great camera / lens combo for under 1K!

Hope that my .02 worth of ramblings help

umphotography wrote in post #18040179
2- Optically the new 24-70 is great but the build is NOT as good as the original

The Lens Rentals teardowns I've seen of the two lenses suggest very differently. These guys pull apart and repair these things pretty regularly and have large sample sizes of a great many different lenses.

smythie wrote in post #18042946
The Lens Rentals teardowns I've seen of the two lenses suggest very differently. These guys pull apart and repair these things pretty regularly and have large sample sizes of a great many different lenses.

Yes, the v1 has a tendency to wear the guide pins which align the zoom collar and therefore AF becomes inconsistent over the zoom range. A heavily used v1 is likely to require a rebuild to fix this. The v2 is much sturdier and incidentally has less field curvature thanks also to the redesign. Luckily my v1 was not abused by its original owner and still works well. But I have no illusions that it will last too many more years.