24-70 f2.8L or 24-105 f4L

I have various non-L lenses that I've used with an Eos 5 and Eos 1n, but I'm considering replacing some of them with appropriate 'L' lenses that may be better quality and more versatile to use on a 5D.
Current line up is:
24 f2.8
50 f1.4
28-105 f3.5-4.5
100-300 f4.5-5.6
100 macro
100-400L
x1.4 extender II

I intend keeping the 100 macro and the 100-400 for wildlife/sport. Probably the 50/1.4 for low light indoor and discreet use. I need something for general use, landscapes and architecture. I don't do portraits, weddings or glamour.

If I were to buy just one 'L' lens to go with those I'm keeping would you go for the 24-70 f2.8 or the 24-105 f4? With either of these would you bother going for the 17-40 f4L or the 16-35 f2.8L just for the wider angle (if so which?).

I am, of course, just waiting to get the 400 f2.8L and/or the 600 f4L

You probably won't get very helpful input here because both are well-liked lenses and there are fans of both. There have been lots of discussions on this issue, and mostly all for naught. Maybe flip a coin? Both are good. Me personally, I'd go with the f4 IS on a 5D.

I guess my main quandry is: should I go for the faster lens, or one that has the additional focal length. Normally I' think of the 70-105 range as being mainly for protraits and I'm wongering if the 70mm of the lower zoom coupled with the 100mm of the higher zoom would give me an adequate coverage?

I would definatly hang on to the 100mm macro, 50/1.4 and 100-400 if its a good copy, not sure how useful you find the 1.4X with the 100-400.

For general use, landscapes and architecture are not shutter speed intensive so I think I would put the 24-105 ahead of the 24-70, you will always have your 100mm macro and 50/1.4 for depth of field control and good bokeh.

You might want to consider keeping the 24/2.8, the 24-105 may be as sharp or not but a prime should have less distortion than the zoom - important for archetecture and some landscape work.

As for the 17-40 f4L or the 16-35 f2.8L for your application the 17-40 would seem to be fine unless you do handheld interiors where you are not allowed to use a tripod perhaps. Not wishing to start a war my personal research suggests the 17-40 has more consistently good IQ.

I your are seriously into archetecture you might want to consider the 24mm T&S lens at some point.

Good point about not needing the faster lens for landscape/architecture​, I'm so used to low light and/or fast creatures that habitually think in terms of speed. I'm assuming that both lenses are comparable in terms of quality, image and colour.

Phideaux wrote in post #2280525
I'm assuming that both lenses are comparable in terms of quality, image and colour.

Basically, yes.

I would go with the 24-105. The advantage of the 24-70L IMO is f/2.8, and when I tested them I liked the 24-70L better upto about f/5.6. But you don't need the speed, the 24-105L is an excellent lens and it'll be more versatile with a longer focal length. Also the 24-70L has a little learning curve due to it's weight.

You really can't go wrong with either.

Definitely the 24-105mm f/4L IS to replace the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5...

24-70 will be better at low light shooting if you want to stop motion. You get f/2.8, which gives you better bokeh and allows for better isolation of subject.

24-105 will be better at low light if your objects are relatively still. You get IS, a lighter lens, and more zoom.

I was faced w/ this same dilemma, as many are, not too long ago... but it really came down to the aperture at the end. The f/4 just bothers me... I want the faster glass. f/2.8

IS would not sell me on a lens one way or another. If it has it, great, but I'm not going to sacrifice the speed.

Who knows, 5 years from now, they may have the IS built into the camera. (I doubt it, but Canon my follow suit), but I'll still have the faster glass.

No matter what anyone says, this will be your own quandary until you decide, and no amount of rehashing of this dead horse topic will ever change that, for you or anyone else trying to choose.

OK. My last question on these two lenses, aimed mainly at those of you lucky people who own both. For the same focal length and at f4, which lens gives the best image in terms of sharpness, CA, contrast and bokeh? Have you any examples you could post?

Thanks to all of you that have helped so far.

Wow,
Maybe I had a bad 24-105 but it was not even close in sharpness and bokeh to the 24-70 I just lost in a fire(thats why I posted looking for a new one) I got the improved version 24-105 from badger graphics and made the mistake of shooting most of last Years Christmas pictures with it. It was so noticeable that My older Son,Girlfriend and even My Father picked up on the differances.I like warm lenses but the 24-105 had almost an orange warmth to it and it just was not in the same league with the 24-70L.
Again I have to replace My lens in that range and I'm not even considering the 24-105 because I disliked the results that much. Another thing is build quality.The 24-70 is just better built. See if a camera store near You has both and go try them in person,especially test shots.If You know what Your looking at I don't think You'll buy the 24-105.
I have all L lenses along with the 50 f1.4 ,85 f1.8, and the 35 f2 in addition to the L's in those sizes so I've at least owned almost all the differant L's. I highly recommend Anyone making this decision to try both if they can. Personally I buy L's for their optical capabilitys and the 24-70 in My opinion is much better in that department.
Please don't kill the messenger here! Just speaking from My experiance.

Previous thread about the subject
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=237799

i'd get the 24-70 hands down. That is because I have it already... I think a lot of people debate between those two. For me it wasn't too hard to decide. The 24-70 is a 100% professional lens.

http://www.dataxy.com