I spent my morning pixel peeping! (24-70mm vs 24-105mm pictures)

I spent my morning pixel peeping! Im no expert at this, I was doing it for my own benefit but decided to post my findings...I'm only posting a small fraction of all the tests I did. I tested various focal lengths etc, but the tests were similar throughout. Here are my findings:

24-70 slightly sharper @ f4, identical from 5.6 onward
24-105 very slightly better colors
24-70 noticeably less distortion

If you were taking normal pictures, these lenses would be absolutely identical....if you want 2.8 get the 24-70, if you want IS, lighter weight, longer range, and cheaper get the 24-105. I'll be sending my 24-70 back and keeping my 24-105.

24-70 pictures first
24-105 pictures second

Sharpness:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Colors: yes, I put a bottle of shaving cream next to dvds, I was looking for colorful stuff :P

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Good job. Fist bump.

You didn't address the difference in depth-of-field that you can only get shooting at f2.8 or shooting in lower light situations.

Wouldn't those two things factor into the decision process somewhere?

oh wow, I didn't even think to do that as I always shoot stopped down with lights.

I'll try and do that test tomorrow when I have time.

ZenFox wrote in post #11009825
24-70 slightly sharper @ f4, identical from 5.6 onward

This shouldn't be a big surprise. As a general rule, most lenses do not perform at their best as far as sharpness when shot wide open, and get better when stopped down. The 24-70 is stopped down at f4, whereas the 24-105 is wide open at f4. Given you're comparing two lenses of similar quality, I'd expect the one that is stopped down to perform better.

Pictures from the 24-105 seem brighter.
Assuming the exposure was the same... any PP done?

Great work, this should help a few people on the fence about these two lenses.

Nicely done. Thanks for sharing.

juanpafer wrote in post #11011996
Pictures from the 24-105 seem brighter.
Assuming the exposure was the same... any PP done?

Nope, no PP...just cropped. The pictures were brighter and the color slightly more vivid as well.

Even though the photos are gone I recently traded some gear for a 24-70mm and have a little more input for this thread.

I found that the 24-105mm worked better for my shooting style for the range and IS, weight doesnt bother me, infact a little more weight from the 24-70mm for short periods of time help to steady the hands.

I havnt tried any shots yet where I could use thinner DOF or stop motion in lower light but I dont see those two factors as being worthy enough to sell my 24-105mm over this one.

So, I hope that helps some.

I came to many of the same conclusions about the lenses. 24-70 is excellent, and I loved f2.8, image quality, and the lower distortion. But I felt the 24-105 offered me more with IS, more range, and smaller/lighter package (I travel a lot so it helps to save size/weight), so I chose the 24-105. Now if the 24-70 got IS, that might push me to give it another try and learn to deal with the size and weight.

marcus riley wrote in post #11557894
I came to many of the same conclusions about the lenses. 24-70 is excellent, and I loved f2.8, image quality, and the lower distortion. But I felt the 24-105 offered me more with IS, more range, and smaller/lighter package (I travel a lot so it helps to save size/weight), so I chose the 24-105. Now if the 24-70 got IS, that might push me to give it another try and learn to deal with the size and weight.

a redesign that loses the bucket hood would have to happen for me. i have years of experience with both lenses and i agree with the OP. the 24-104L is a better walkround and the 24-70L is a better working lens.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #11557910
a redesign that loses the bucket hood would have to happen for me. i have years of experience with both lenses and i agree with the OP. the 24-104L is a better walkround and the 24-70L is a better working lens.

ed rader

You can get a smaller aluminum hood for it for $75 off ebay..

ed rader wrote in post #11557910
a redesign that loses the bucket hood would have to happen for me. i have years of experience with both lenses and i agree with the OP. the 24-104L is a better walkround and the 24-70L is a better working lens.

ed rader

Yes and yes!