Canon 24-70 or 24-105 as portrait lens

I had a sigma 24-70 F2.8 and I used it a lot for full body portraits. I sold it a while ago now im wanting to re get this time with canon.
My 2 options are the 24-70 or the 24-105. Im not fussed over the 1 stop difference or the IS.

What I need to know from others which is the sharpest and better optics.
There has been reviews I have read on FM regarding the 24-105 and getting a good copy.

Thoughts comments advice. It will be on my 5D.

I could be wrong but the days of getting a bad copy of the 24-105 should be rather slim if you get one dated after the flaring recall on the first released copies.

I have a 5D and a 24-105 never used the 24-70. For portrait I like my 85/1.8. I would think for a zoom the 2.8 is going to give you better DOF control. They both have 8 blade aperatures (come on cannon make some 10 blade or 12 blade portrait lenses). And you were happy with the sigma as far as focal length I presume.

Don't have the 24-70 to compare, but the 24-105 bokeh isn't spectacular -- nice enough but not as nice as my 70-200. Still, I love the reach and the sharpness is great. But if you want nice bokeh, go with the 2.8 (at a guess).

People will complain about there being bad copies of both. I'm not a pro, but I've managed to have multiple copies of both due to pure indecisiveness. My end conclusion, which probably is only relevant to me, is:

1. 24-70 is a bit sharper, with better contrast, when wide open.
2. 24-70 has nicer bokeh, but by no means the bokeh of a 135L or 85L.
3. f2.8 makes a big difference, both in isolating a subject, and with a 5D being able to sometimes shoot without a flash indoors.
4. the extra 105 mm is nice of the 24-105.
5. when carrying the lens of a long time, the size of the 24-105 is nice compared to its f2.8 counterpart.
6. despite the f2.8 versus f4.0, I have noticed no difference in autofocus speed or accuracy.

So, I generally believe a 24-70 is a better lens for portraits -- which is what I was using it for -- friends, family, etc. But, that said, I now have a 24-15 because, as someone already said, a prime does much better. And for me, the range of the 24-105 was more important.

what is this Deja Vu??? wasn't this done just a few days ago???

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=226139

Quad wrote in post #2117526
I have a 5D and a 24-105 never used the 24-70. For portrait I like my 85/1.8. I would think for a zoom the 2.8 is going to give you better DOF control. They both have 8 blade aperatures (come on cannon make some 10 blade or 12 blade portrait lenses). And you were happy with the sigma as far as focal length I presume.

Remember head to toe indoors with studio lights (woops forgot to add that ) . The range is 30-50 that I miss. I aslo hate swaping glass all the time. When I had the Sigma it was always used, I sold it and got the 50mm and 85mm.

I also do a lot of landscape/ waterfalls and the extra reach would come in handy. I tested a frenids 24-70 and found closeups to be soft i.e flowers may have just been his copy.

The IS will be turned off due to tripoding most of the time.

PS the 35mm "L" did cross my mind

If it is between those 2 lense definately the 24-70. There is nothing that the 24-105 does better, except go from 71-105.

except be able to handhold it down to 1/3 of a second.

You will want the 2.8 for portraits, so this one is easy!

f 2.8 is better to have for portraits.

incendy wrote in post #2117835
You will want the 2.8 for portraits, so this one is easy!

Curse you and your faster typing!!!

30 words per minute=D It's ok, I make up for it with my fast glass

incendy wrote in post #2117866
30 words per minute=D It's ok, I make up for it with my fast glass

I hunt and peck 5 words per minute!

hehe, I teach second graders that would shame you Dante=D.. Most of my friends are the same way though. I love the 1 finger typers the best! So painful to watch