24-105L vs 24-70 f/4

The wife upgraded to the 6D from a crop camera, and now she (or I) need a general purpose zoom for it. I have the 24-105L. I can get her the same, or I can get a 24-70 f/4, they are close in price on Canon refurbished lenses store. I like the long range of the 24-105, but I heard also that it is inferior to the 24-70 f/4. We both like to shoot landscapes, architecture, and our little grandsons. My concern is that 70 mm would be too limiting for vacations when we travel light, only with one lens.

What do you guys think?

Lbsimon wrote in post #18350323
The wife upgraded to the 6D from a crop camera, and now she (or I) need a general purpose zoom for it. I have the 24-105L. I can get her the same, or I can get a 24-70 f/4, they are close in price on Canon refurbished lenses store. I like the long range of the 24-105, but I heard also that it is inferior to the 24-70 f/4. We both like to shoot landscapes, architecture, and our little grandsons. My concern is that 70 mm would be too limiting for vacations when we travel light, only with one lens.

What do you guys think?

I'm interested in the responses here myself - I'm torn between the 2.8ii, the 4IS, and just keeping my 24-105. If the 2.8ii had IS and panning that would be the easy choice, but no dice. The f/4s at least have IS (but the -105 lacks panning, and so I think does the -70/4). The 2.8ii will light up all the AF points, but I'd better have a steady hand.

Eff me.

Good luck with your decision, I'm interested to see what you do.

I've owned both and both are good. I find the 70 has a little better image quality and less distortion on the wide end. I also like the smaller size and macro function but the extra range would be nice. You can probably find a used 105 for a lot less too. I guess you just have to decide what you value most.

Does the 24-70/4L have focus shift? Or am I misremembering?

Lbsimon wrote in post #18350323
The wife upgraded to the 6D from a crop camera, and now she (or I) need a general purpose zoom for it. I have the 24-105L. I can get her the same, or I can get a 24-70 f/4, they are close in price on Canon refurbished lenses store. I like the long range of the 24-105, but I heard also that it is inferior to the 24-70 f/4. We both like to shoot landscapes, architecture, and our little grandsons. My concern is that 70 mm would be too limiting for vacations when we travel light, only with one lens.

What do you guys think?

I'd probably take the 24-70 F4L IS. I too have gone over this a few times.

It was 24-105 F4L or 24-70 F4L IS or the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC. Similar price ranges. I'd prefer the Tamron, but I also know I don't have any interest in lugging around that heavy of a lens for general stuff, making it less fun. The 24-105 is a fine lens, but a little long in the tooth. The 24-70 F4L IS is optically very good, light weight, smaller, and has modern stabilization and close focus range. I'd go with it just for the stabilization probably.

Then again, I consider my 17-40 F4L to be my walk around lens, as I prefer ultrawide and wide, compared to telephoto for walking around and travel. An old 70-200 F4L to compliment when the reach is needed.

I'd rather have the 16-35 F4L IS and 70-200 F4L IS probably as a "do it all" kit if I were buying all over again today.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18350341
I'd probably take the 24-70 F4L IS. I too have gone over this a few times.

...

Then again, I consider my 17-40 F4L to be my walk around lens, as I prefer ultrawide and wide, compared to telephoto for walking around and travel. An old 70-200 F4L to compliment when the reach is needed.

I'd rather have the 16-35 F4L IS and 70-200 F4L IS probably as a "do it all" kit if I were buying all over again today.

Very best,

I do have both the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4. Maybe this should be a combination for my travel, and the wife will take my 24-105... And that will also mean that I do not have to buy another lens! But I would rather have lenses with overlapping FL's rather than having a gap.

Need to decide soon, the prices for refurbs are low now.

Lbsimon wrote in post #18350352
I do have both the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4. Maybe this should be a combination for my travel, and the wife will take my 24-105... And that will also mean that I do not have to buy another lens! But I would rather have lenses with overlapping FL's rather than having a gap.

Need to decide soon, the prices for refurbs are low now.

Up to you, personally I've never felt that there's a gap that cannot be solved by taking one or two steps sometimes. It's generally in our heads that we're missing something. One thing I've always found true though is that if I had to choose between having it too wide, compared to too long, I'll take too wide any day because I can crop.

Really though, what kind of difference, to you, does it make going from 40mm to 50mm, let alone to 70mm?

Then again, I'm happy going from 35mm to 85mm, and haven't felt the need to have a 50mm between them either.

If you think about it in terms of real world appearance and magnification, you'll find that really, having anything less than double the focal length really is just splitting hairs. So I'm happy at 40mm and leaping to 70mm if I really need to reach out. I've yet to feel a gap, where I'm just changing the FOV by a slight amount, nothing substantial.

All personal preference of course.

Very best,

Lbsimon wrote in post #18350323
The wife upgraded to the 6D from a crop camera, and now she (or I) need a general purpose zoom for it. I have the 24-105L. I can get her the same, or I can get a 24-70 f/4, they are close in price on Canon refurbished lenses store. I like the long range of the 24-105, but I heard also that it is inferior to the 24-70 f/4. We both like to shoot landscapes, architecture, and our little grandsons. My concern is that 70 mm would be too limiting for vacations when we travel light, only with one lens.

What do you guys think?

A great one lens solution for travel is the 24-105. Certainly more reach.
However there is a reason we have a DSLR........to change lenses as we see.
I still have my 24-105.......
More on this in reply to LonelyBoy quote below.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18350330
I'm interested in the responses here myself - I'm torn between the 2.8ii, the 4IS, and just keeping my 24-105. If the 2.8ii had IS and panning that would be the easy choice, but no dice. The f/4s at least have IS (but the -105 lacks panning, and so I think does the -70/4). The 2.8ii will light up all the AF points, but I'd better have a steady hand.

Eff me.

Good luck with your decision, I'm interested to see what you do.

Eff Me......sounds like me a few years ago myself LonelyBoy.
Having used a 24-105 on a 7D for years, I really liked the range and quality of the images.
When I moved to a 5D Mark III in 2013, the 24-105 really showed its ugly head in Wide End Distortion.
So my choices were the 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II and the 24-70 f/4 L IS.
Twice the price and NO IS vs. Half the price, one less stop, with IS.....and of course Focus Shift.......
With a trip to Rome in 2015, I added the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Since my 17-40 f/4 L did not have IS, I decided that shooting Hand Held in the Basilica's, where tripods are prohibited, was the reason (excuse) to add the new 16-35 f/4 L IS.
Since I travel light....I mean heavy.......my two Gripped 5D Mark III's were attached to either two of the three lenses, the 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS and the "Big Heavy" 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II.
Most of the trip had the 16-35 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 Big Heavy attached ready to go. Having IS in the 16-35 allowed me to capture razor sharp at 1/10".....1/15" Hand Held. No way my old 17-40 could do that.
A great investment in the 16-35 f/4 L IS if I say so myself.
Plus this combination had more consistent color and sharpness through out then when paired with my "Old Trusty" 24-105.
Hmmmmmmm.
24-70 f/2.8 Mark II vs. 24-70 f/4 L IS....
With a return trip to Italy a few months later, this time Venice and Florence, I decided it was time to choose.....
Which 24-70?
So after weighing between the two, I followed my "When in Rome" experience. If f/4 and IS was great for me in the 16-35 range, why not carry through to the 24-70?
So I bought the lesser expensive option...........suppo​sedly less quality image as wellas Focus Shift issues and all that...
However, the Wide End Distortion on the 24-70 is much, much more tolerable. When I need critical, that is why I have the 24mm TS-E, which I took as well.
And the color and sharpness was a nice fit between the 16-35 and 70-200. A nice "Flow".
Considering the rebates available when I purchased the 24-70 f/4 L IS, How could I lose?
Considering the f/4 L IS available through the 16-70 range, how about through to 200.
Upon return from Florence and Venice, my back and shoulder really took a beating. So what did I do for a trip last summer to Iceland....left the "Big Heavy" at home and replaced it with the smaller lighter, equally impressive 70-200 f/4 L IS. Did not feel the need for f/2.8 nor the discomfort associated with it. My "Greek Trilogy of the Canon f/4 L IS" proved smooth and comfortable in image quality as well.
Like others have said, and my trip to Rome backs this up, if I am forced to bring only two lenses, the 16-35, 70-200 combination is my choice........why limit to only one lens when we do not have to?