My take on the 24-70II & 24-105II

We all know there are billions of arguments on the web between these two lenses. Pros/cons are hard to settle on paper, so I decided to finally try the 24-70II after owning the 24-105 since 2006. I just recently got the 24-105 II, so I compared that with my new 24-70II.

Obviously the focal lengths are too close to justify keeping both in my opinion. Size and weight are close. Build quality is the same. So the bought the 24-70II for:

1. Highest image quality
2. f2.8 for better low light performance

After using both, and then doing some side-by-side comparisons, here is a quick summary:

- I miss the 70-105 range of the 24-105II
- I certainly miss having the IS. Looking at some of the photos I took, I think I'd rather have a little more noise/sharp photos than less noise and a little blur (happened about 50% of the time). That could just be my hands though.
- Image quality was the big eye opener. At 100% I cannot tell a difference. Both lenses are extremely sharp with good contrast and color right out of the camera. There was obviously nothing wrong with the version 1, but I think the 24-105II is a real winner (but totally underrated due to the ver. 1 being sold so cheap now)

In one example, using the same settings with auto ISO, the 2.8 gave me ISO 640 vs. 1250 on the 4.0 as expected. That's substantial but not a deal breaker. The light was fairly dim in my basement but both images were nice and sharp with little noise. That was on a tripod. Handheld is another story where I definitely benefit from the IS.

Here's a random shot of some stuff on a shelf. I meant to use 2.8 on the 24-70, but switched to 4.0 somehow. But as far as IQ goes, is this still a fair comparison? I'll try to do more tonight so I can make up my mind on these lenses.

Full size link

3) less distortion at 24mm
4) 18-point stars (vs 10-point)

ed rader wrote in post #18400379
3) less distortion at 24mm
4) 18-point stars (vs 10-point)

Definitely not on my list personally, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

Starting to lean more towards the 24-105II, but trying not to jump to conclusions too quickly.

you are well on your way to justifying your purchase. if I believed that IQ was close between the two lenses -- I don't -- there are too many other negatives that come with the extended range.

I've always though that if canon wanted to improve the IQ of its FF kit lens it would shorten the range to say 24-85. but little things like number of aperture blades lead me to believe convenience and cost are more important. that said I think the 24-105 is a great kit lens and for most people would be the best choice.

ed rader wrote in post #18400385
you are well on your way to justifying your purchase.

I'm trying, but I'm just not 100%. I have a feeling I will be selling it shortly.

I recently had this decision to make and chose the 24-70 f2.8 II over the f4 version and the 24-105 II. Its for the new 6D mk II (when it gets here). It is my first L lens for my first FF camera. It should make a nice combo.

Uhm... testing at 50mm ? Too easy for these zooms.

What about 24mm ? Check sharpness and distortion.

Ascenta wrote in post #18400214
But as far as IQ goes, is this still a fair comparison?

ISO 100 would be a better choice, as the noise from higher ISO settings may begin to mask differences in the lenses. That said, if you mostly shot at higher ISOs and didn't see a difference between the lenses at those settings then it would be a valid comparison.

Personally I've never been a fan of the 24-105, and this comparison (http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0) matches my testing. What's obvious on an ISO test chart of course may not be particularly important for real world images.

For me, the excellent AF of the 24-70II is a big factor (especially when the light levels drop).

if you dont own a 70-200 of any kind, the 24-105 certainly makes more sense, however since they are similar size and weight, I'de just go with the 2.8

I chose the 24-105 II. It's AF and IS are both in the same league as my 100-400 II; much better than my now departed 24-105 v1. The closest lens I had to the 24-70 f/2.8 II (in terms of zoom range) was the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, and it just didn't have enough range for my habits.

The 24-70 f/2.8 II is the better lens in terms of IQ. Primes are even better. We all make decisions about our gear all the time. For me, the additional 70-105 zoom range and the excellent IS were more important than the modest increase in IQ of the 24-70.

It's nice that Canon gives us choices -- there's something for everyone.

I haven't tried the 24-105 Mk2 as I bought my 24-70 F2.8 V2 before it came out!

The 24-70 Mk2 was certainly a step up from my 24-105 Mk1. I have never really pixel peeped but the images from my 24-70 Mk2 certainly look better both on the screen and in print - better enough to justify the price difference? That is another question! One attraction, to me, is the lack of IS on the 24-70 F2.8 Mk2 - yes I know this is heresy but IS just costs me too many shots - more so at longer focal lengths.

Just my observations.

johnf3f wrote in post #18400691
One attraction, to me, is the lack of IS on the 24-70 F2.8 Mk2 - yes I know this is heresy but IS just costs me too many shots - more so at longer focal lengths.

Defective lens... or defective user

I like my 24-105 v2.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18400568
Uhm... testing at 50mm ? Too easy for these zooms.

What about 24mm ? Check sharpness and distortion.

I always notice the distortion on the 24-105 II but doesn't bother me. I will try some comparison shots at 24mm, preferably outside.

AHH!! Why did I buy this...the decision is torture! I'm going to have to keep both. Lots of cash tied up in two similar lenses, but they're just that good!

Good question!

Certainly the "user" is photographically challenged - no denials there! A defective lens is certainly a possibility but if this is the case then Canon have a LOT of explaining to do as every Canon IS lens that I currently own or have owned performs better with IS off under virtually all circumstances and all circumstances if the subject moves.

I should say that "Circumstances" are the circumstances that I, personally, have encountered so we are looking at lenses between 16 and 200mm inside churches/cathedrals to 800/1120mm on small birds in dodgy light. Note I am not talking about tripod use here as IS can cause even more issues with many lenses when a tripod is used.

Certainly there are circumstances where IS can be handy - I just can't find them so far, hence my preference for non IS lenses when there is a viable alternative available.

This is just what I have found to be the case.