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

What I'd be curious about is how these and other 24-70 or 24-105ish options compare to my 24-105 4L (version 1) when used at f/5.6 to f/11, because that's where I use it the most. Sure the 24-70 might be sharper overall, but is there a big difference at smaller apertures? And some types of distortion get better when stopped down so again, how much difference am I seeing? The longer reach plus IS has made the 24-105 a steady workhorse for me since I got it 5 ish years ago. Be very curious to see if there's something that would really be a better option for me if I had to replace it.

Colorblinded wrote in post #18401399
What I'd be curious about is how these and other 24-70 or 24-105ish options compare to my 24-105 4L (version 1) when used at f/5.6 to f/11, because that's where I use it the most. Sure the 24-70 might be sharper overall, but is there a big difference at smaller apertures? And some types of distortion get better when stopped down so again, how much difference am I seeing? The longer reach plus IS has made the 24-105 a steady workhorse for me since I got it 5 ish years ago. Be very curious to see if there's something that would really be a better option for me if I had to replace it.

The-digital-picture.com has a nice lens comparison tool. Be aware that the differences you see on the test charts might not show up in the real world. Here's the 24-105 II vs the 24-70 II at f/5.6:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

Colorblinded wrote in post #18401399
And some types of distortion get better when stopped down

Nope. You probably meant "aberration".

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18401407
Be aware that the differences you see on the test charts might not show up in the real world.

Also be aware that some issues you do not see in test charts might show up in the real world.

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18401407
Be aware that the differences you see on the test charts might not show up in the real world.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18401682
Also be aware that some issues you do not see in test charts might show up in the real world.

Both good points! I'm all for objective testing (objective as possible), but most times I think it just comes down to buying/renting the lens and seeing for yourself.

I'm also intrigued by johnf3f's comments against IS. I put a lot of trust into it, but I may start switching it off on occasion for moving subjects, just to see if I notice a difference. I wouldn't be surprised if the IS was in fact screwing up some shots, since it's not meant to do anything for moving subjects.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18401681
Nope. You probably meant "aberration".

Good catch, distortion is a type of optical aberration. I was thinking in the general sense when I said "some types" and got the hierarchy of the two terms backwards which lead the whole thing astray

Most correct would be to say it improves spherical aberration, coma, and astigmatism.

I actually own both the 24-70L II and the 24-105L.

I got the 24-105L in a kit with my 5D a little over ten years ago. Then I got the 24-70 L II about two years ago because I wanted a fast zoom with excellent optics in that range. I figured that I would sell off the 24-105L after getting the 24-70, but I didn't because it doesn't fetch much used and I still find a use for the lens.

There are a lot of vacation situations where I'm shooting f/11 all day long and the range and IS of the 24-105L are just perfect. Other than the distortion at the wide end, I find the 24-105L to be a pretty good lens in general and excellent at f/11. So I kept mine and I use it a few times a year to good effect. Really handy....it's my 'kit' lens.

I owned both but just sold the 24-105 to my cousin. It was 10 yrs old and I was greatly disappointed with the new 24-105V2....little to no difference in these 2 lens and appears Canon just put a new label and marketing campaign on the new version 24-105.

My needs were totally different than most. I need the stop. I shoot primes mostly for weddings but I just got sick and tired of switching primes at receptions. So I got the 24-70 and have been very happy with the results. F/2.8 is very prime like sharp, it keeps 2 in focus for table shots and DOF is just good enough.....so I went with good enough and got the 24-70

A 24-105 going on 11 yrs old was something I felt needed to be upgraded for what I do. I dam sure was not going to buy the new 24-105 after using it

It is highly likely that the 24-70 II is better than the 24-105 I or II. I have no personal experience, just the reviews and charts. The question is - is it a $1000 or so better? Of course it is for those who have to have the right tool to do the right job. But what about the rest of us?

Lbsimon wrote in post #18407496
It is highly likely that the 24-70 II is better than the 24-105 I or II. I have no personal experience, just the reviews and charts. The question is - is it a $1000 or so better? Of course it is for those who have to have the right tool to do the right job. But what about the rest of us?

Of the samples I've tested (and on TDP if I recall correctly) the 24-70II is sharper at f/2.8 than the 24-105 is at f/4. Basically day and night difference in image quality.

However, if you mostly shot static subjects at f/8 in low light there would likely be little visible difference in real world shots, and IS would be a bonus (i.e. the right choice would be the 24-105).

As with any lens, it's hourses for courses; you get what suits your shooting needs the most.

sploo wrote in post #18407512
Of the samples I've tested (and on TDP if I recall correctly) the 24-70II is sharper at f/2.8 than the 24-105 is at f/4. Basically day and night difference in image quality.

However, if you mostly shot static subjects at f/8 in low light there would likely be little visible difference in real world shots, and IS would be a bonus (i.e. the right choice would be the 24-105).

As with any lens, it's hourses for courses; you get what suits your shooting needs the most.

So we basically agree - you need the tool, you pay for it. The fastest thing I shoot with the 24-105L are twin 20 month old grandsons, so it suits my purpose well. But I need a range of the longer lens for travel when I do not want to load a bunch of lenses in the bag.

As recently as a month ago I needed a new normal zoom lens, and I was considering one of those four: 24-70 I, 24-70 II, 24-105 I, and 24-105 II. A $600 brand new 24-105 I won, even though I have resources to buy any of them.

Now my wife wants a new super telephoto...

I did a little more testing. Tripod, no adjustments (out of Faststone preview only).

I don't agree with the distortion. Here is a shot at 24mm with both lenses both wide open. 24-105 II on left...24-70 II on right. They look the same to me. Well, the chair legs me be a little wider on the 105, but not as big of a deal as most make it out to be on this lens.

https://c1.staticflick​r.com …97705570_2d79a1​93ef_h.jpg


But here is a shot at 50mm indoors. Towards the upper left corner of the image, but not the very corner. Both on a tripod and wide open. I take back my opinion of these being the same IQ. The 24-70 is clearly better. The titles on the books are clearly sharper, and of course you have the benefit of less noise with lower ISO, all other setting being the same.

https://c1.staticflick​r.com …18744392_703c95​5158_h.jpg

Sorry, not the right subject to test distortion.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18408489
Sorry, not the right subject to test distortion.

Sorry, brick walls and tiles are not on my menu of subjects in day to day life. Not that flower pots are, but a little more realistic. If I don't see it here, I honestly don't see it. I get the test charts for objectivity, but honestly if you can agree with others that say the 24-105s distortion sucks, then I'm all ears for more info after you compare these two images.

Never spoke about brick walls.
I have a few architectural shots spoiled by the 24-105 v1 at the wide end, but I am now on vacation with no access to my library.