Canon 24mm zoom lenses

Which do you like better? 24-70..f4 or 2.8, 24-105.. Is their much difference between first version of the 24-105 and the version ii?? let's hear it. thanks!!

James Crockett wrote in post #18446177
Which do you like better? 24-70..f4 or 2.8, 24-105.. Is their much difference between first version of the 24-105 and the version ii?? let's hear it. thanks!!

By my own experience:

24-70/2.8 v2 > 24-70/2.8 v1 > 24-105 v1

That's when you don't need IS, as Canon is still maximizing revenues by keeping us out of IS with 24-70/2.8, which is one of the reasons I am mostly shooting Sony now.
I haven't tried the 24-105 v2 yet, and I am not losing my sleep because of that

Is it that much difference between the 24-70 v1 and the 24-70 v2?

Eh, hard to compare a bunch of different tier tools with different constant focal-ratios without knowing what you're looking to do with them.

The 24-70 F4L IS and the 24-105 F4L IS can be compared even though their focal lengths are a little different on the long end because they share so much. The unless you need the extra 71~105mm focal length, the 24-70 F4L IS is better in every way.

Mean while, having constant F2.8 means you get a 24-70 and it will cost an arm & a leg, and not have any stabilization. So if you need that focal-ratio, you're only option is this one as there is no alternative from Canon at F2.8. Your alternative would only be 3rd party, like a Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC G2.

The 24-70 MK II is actually crazy good (very prime like sharpness, the old MKI is softer).

Personally I'd want the 24-70 F4L IS. Very flexible lens. I'd rather have modern IS than 1 more stop of focal ratio speed. Also it's ability to focus very closely. It's just a handy, smaller, light weight lens that is great for its flexibility and versatility. If I wanted F2.8, I'd get a Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC because I'd want the image stabilization regardless of being F2.8 (and its affordable).

Very best,

good stuff!! thanks!

It'd be used for portrait photography.

you should read some reviews. try the digital picture

CheshireCat wrote in post #18446187
Canon is still maximizing revenues by keeping us out of IS with 24-70/2.8

How is it maximizing revenue to not offer a more expensive option?

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18446263
How is it maximizing revenue to not offer a more expensive option?

the 24-70ii came out over $2000 and has been selling well for a long time. Prices have gone down since, and they can add IS to it years later after sales of the 24-70ii has declined, and get people to buy the IS version for $2000+ with minimal R and D.

you think it'll be as simple as just slapping IS on the existing 24-70l II? I doubt it.

James Crockett wrote in post #18446211
Is it that much difference between the 24-70 v1 and the 24-70 v2?

On a modern hi-res sensor: yes. Colors are better too.
On an average photo at average viewing distance: no.

ed rader wrote in post #18446297
you think it'll be as simple as just slapping IS on the existing 24-70l II? I doubt it.

Oh, it definitely is.
Add some marketing BS like super-atomic-phantom-coating and aberration-resistant-nano-silent-USM-dispersion-barrier, and you'll get $2k again.

ed rader wrote in post #18446297
you think it'll be as simple as just slapping IS on the existing 24-70l II? I doubt it.

ok, it's not that simple, but they do have a patent for an IS model going many years back. They simply didnt think they needed it as competition was always lackluster.

It's only a matter of time, the 24-105 and 24-70 mk 1 lived very fruitful lives, I'de expect the 24-70 f2.8 ii to live a very long life before being replaced, likely 2022? the 28-70 and 24-70 mk1 both lasted 10 ish years I think.

Charlie wrote in post #18446323
I'de expect the 24-70 f2.8 ii to live a very long life before being replaced, likely 2022?

I think it will happen faster or not happen at all. You see, Canon is being eaten alive by phones and mirrorless cameras.
The 24-70 IS may be the swan song.

Happy with the 24-105 STM.