# Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II vs Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS



## josephz1994 (Aug 3, 2015)

Having trouble deciding whether to purchase the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II or the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS to go along with my 5D Mark 3. They are quite a big price difference, and i have seen third party lenses eg Tamron etc. but i always liked the Canon L lenses.
I currently do birthday, christening and engagement photography gigs and might be doing weddings in the future. I have a Canon 650D rocking with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 600EX flash, and wanted to upgrade to FF, but at the same time keeping the my 650D as a backup.
I also take photos on the dancefloor of people dancing and group photos with the flash, however i'm worried that getting the 24-70mm without IS would create the photos to be blurry.
I was also thinking of purchasing the 24-105mm and adding prime lenses for example the Canon 50mm 1.8, thoughts?
If you guys need anymore information let me know
Thanks


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 3, 2015)

Hi Joseph!

I own the 24-105L, it's my to go lens and I wouldn't sell it for a 24-70whatever for two reasons:
1. at FF I (personally) want and need the extra 35 mm at the long end and
2. I want to keep the IS

I would only buy a 24-70L f2.8 II if I need the zoom and f2.8. 

But here is the problem for you:
looking at your subjects you'll seem to need the f2.8 for two reasons: 
Low light and shallow DOF for the event photography.
As you need to be fast in reaction to get the right pic at the right monent as well (e.g. engagement) you do not have the time to change lenses. You'll need to work with two bodies or you'll need the fast zoom.
A lot here really like the Tammy 24-70. That would save you money and give you the IS. 

About IS:
When you shoot moving subjects (kids, dancing, catch the bridal bouquet etc.) and you don't want motion blur IS won't help you. Here only the exposure time is relevant. And therefore you need fast apertures and good high ISO performance. f4.0 will make it more difficult here IMHO. 

Tough decissions though...


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 3, 2015)

Agree with Maximilian. The f/2.8 is more useful indoors for moving subjects than IS. I never found the IS of the 17-55 that useful. It only started making a difference when the shutter speed dropped to 1/15s or slower, and that is just too slow for people shots. And if you're using flash on the subject and want good ambient lighting for the background, the option of f/2.8 will increase shutter speed and give you cleaner results.

If you can afford it, you really can't go wrong with the 24-70 f/2.8 II. The 24-105 on FF is more than a match than the 17-55 f/2.8 IS on crop in equivalence terms, but who would buy into a more expensive system merely to get similar results? 

And yes, you should try the 50 f/1.8 no matter which midrange zoom you choose to get. Fast primes give you more DOF and control than zooms can provide, and the 50 f/1.8 is an inexpensive way to experiment. Unfortunately the faster the lens, the more critical it may be to have bodies that have AFMA, which means that you're 5DIII will be used a lot more than the 650D.


----------



## josephz1994 (Aug 3, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Agree with Maximilian.



Whats your thoughts on the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC?



And, great Responses! Appreciate the help guys


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 3, 2015)

I have a 5d3 and the kit 24-105, I got the 24-70 2.8 mk2 as wanted better IQ, I've never used the kit glass since, never misses IS and love the fact it drops down to f2.8.

Also if sunstars are your thing the 2.8 is the nuts!


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 3, 2015)

josephz1994 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Agree with Maximilian.
> ...



From what I've read, the Tamron slots between the original Canon and the new version. I had the 17-55 when on crop, then switched to a 50 prime rather than get the original 24-70, and then got the 24-70 II. People (including Dustin who does reviews featured on this site) use the Tamron for weddings, and it works for them. The 24-70 II focuses faster, and it works well with bodies designed for moving subjects. I've used the 24-70 f/2.8 II for indoor basketball and indoor volleyball with the 5DIII, and the AF performance is great with the combo. Basketball was more challenging because the players are running toward you (shooting from the baseline or sideline), but the combo delivered.

It also depends on what other lenses you have or will have. If you plan on getting or have the 16-35 f/4 IS and a 70-xxx with IS, then having IS in the midrange is not as critical. However, it all comes down to how you plan to use it. Try using your 17-55 with the IS off and see if you miss it enough to matter.


----------



## josephz1994 (Aug 3, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Try using your 17-55 with the IS off and see if you miss it enough to matter.



Did that before haha, i usually take photos on my 650D with more than 1/100+ and usually sits on f2.8
I turned the IS off, and hardly found any blurry, then i lowered it down to 1/20, and Woah a massive difference!
But as I said before, i hardly use it below 1/100. Think i might go for the Canon.
I've read a few people say that they have returned the Tamron numerous times until they found the perfect one, I hate to do that.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 3, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> If you can afford it, you really can't go wrong with the 24-70 f/2.8 II. The 24-105 on FF is more than a match than the 17-55 f/2.8 IS on crop in equivalence terms, but who would buy into a more expensive system merely to get similar results?



I agree with the others and this sums it up nicely. I also echo the thoughts of having a fast prime for evenings/dance floor scenarios. I also think IS/VC should not figure into your decision as it will not be useful for event photography. I don't think you would want to be shooting much slower then 1/125th on a dance floor. Also you mentioned flash. Keep in mind that flash will help freeze the action. You could definitely be doing some dragging of the shutter to help keep some ambient light to see context, background while the flash should expose and freeze your subjects.

Unfortunately I cannot comment on the the 24-70s (Canon or Tamron) as I have no first hand experience with either. I can only echo what others have said, and the Tamron (3rd party) does seem to be well liked and hold it's own again Canon's L.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 4, 2015)

Cheap-ish to hire, maybe hire one for an event and see how you go, or any local clubs where someone may lend you a try for a few shots..

I love my 24-70Mk2, amazing glass..super IQ.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 8, 2015)

josephz1994 said:


> I also take photos on the dancefloor of people dancing and group photos with the flash, however i'm worried that getting the 24-70mm without IS would create the photos to be blurry.



IS does nothing to help with moving subjects, a faster shutter speed or a flash to freeze the action is needed.

You should not need IS for a group photo on a FF Camera either.

Remember, a crop camera has the effect of a 1.6X longer focal length, so at 50mm, a faster shutter speed is needed.

With a FF body, you can use a faster shutter speed and bump up ISO and still get less noise.

Many photographers want IS on their 24-70 lenses, but there are few cases where its a advantage on a FF body.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Aug 9, 2015)

For what you're looking to get into, I'd go with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II. I've had the Tamron, and while it's a nice lens, the zoom ring operates in the opposite direction, and when you need to react quickly, that can be an issue. The 24-70mm II is faster (and has better IQ than the 24-105) which will be appreciated in low light situations.



josephz1994 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Agree with Maximilian.
> ...


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 9, 2015)

I recommend splurging on the 24-70 II for what you intend to shoot. Having that extra stop of light indoors can be nice - especially when flash isn't permitted.


----------



## Chris Burch (Aug 21, 2015)

The 24-70 f/2.8 II is an exceptional lens from a quality standpoint, blows the 24-105 away. I wasn't happy about the extra expense until I bought and started using the new 24-70 and now wouldn't trade it for anything. The extra stop will allow you to do some very nice subject separation and is invaluable in very low-light situations. I can certainly appreciate the appeal of the extra focal length and IS on the 24-105, but I own both lenses and I never even touch the 24-105 unless I just need a backup, even though I spend most of my time event shooting at f/5.6. The Tamron version of the 24-70 is probably better quality than the 24-105, but can't touch the Canon 24-70 II.


----------



## RobertG. (Aug 22, 2015)

josephz1994 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Agree with Maximilian.
> ...




I got the Tamron first and shot with it for more than 1.5 years. A few weeks ago I bought the Canon EF 24-70 L II. All in all the IQ of the Tamron is OK. On both ends, wide and tele, the IQ of the Tamron is mediocre at best. The IS might be useful but I had little use for it. The IQ of the EF 24-70 L II is definitely better and so I bought it to replace the Tamron. IMO the current street price of the Tamron reflects what this lens is worth. 

I also have the EF-S 17-55. The IQ of the Tamron is similar IMO. But on both ends, wide and tele, the IQ of the Tamron is slightly worse or maybe I became more concerned about IQ over the years... I hardly ever use the EF-S nowadays.


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 22, 2015)

I have both, both are great lenses. The 34-70 gives me superior images, and the is isn't missed. IS would be nice, but this is an awesome lens.

Good luck.

Sek


----------



## Drum (Aug 22, 2015)

My opinion would be that If you are making money from your photography you should make the investment in the best lens you can afford as your customers will pay it back. For what you state as your photography business / goals you should only really consider the F2.8 lenses and from a quality standpoint (pictures as well as build quality)the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is the lens you should be aiming for. The Tamron build quality seems to be the most criticized thing about that particular lens.
Also you should consider the 50 f1.4 instead of the f1.8ii (Better build quality)I don't know much about the new stm 1.8. However if you have used a 50mm on the 650d maybe you should consider the 85mm f1.8 instead of the 50.


----------



## pwp (Aug 23, 2015)

josephz1994 said:


> Having trouble deciding whether to purchase the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II or the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS to go along with my 5D Mark 3.


I have a great copy of the 24-105 f/4is plus the 24-70 f/2.8II; and like you, shoot with the 5D3. I loved the 24-105 but when I got the 24-70 f/2.8II about 18 months ago the 24-105 has been sitting largely unused. This thread is a reminder to sell it. The 24-70 f/2.8II is so good I've sold my 35 & 50mm primes, keeping just the 24 f/1.4II which is also getting so little use it's hard to justify its existence. The 24-70 f/2.8II just blows the doors off just about anything else that exists. To me it's well worth the high asking price.

-pw


----------



## TeT (Aug 23, 2015)

In my opinion you need to decide first between f2.8 v f4 IS. Base this upon your shooting style. ie. Low light action = 2.8 

Once you answer that question the rest is easy; if its 4 IS then possibly the 24 70 4 IS creeps in for the better IQ (opinion) and the macro v. the extra 35mm on the long end...


----------



## deleteme (Aug 23, 2015)

josephz1994 said:


> I also take photos on the dancefloor of people dancing and group photos with the flash, however i'm worried that getting the 24-70mm without IS would create the photos to be blurry.


If you are using flash the issue of IS is irrelevant. The flash freezes motion.
As for choosing between the two, I have owned the 24-105 since I bought a 5DmkII several years ago. When the 24-70mkII came out and I heard reports of its general excellence I rented one from LensRentals.
The lens was brilliant. However my 24-105 was not that far off. More importantly, when using flash in the studio I saw almost no difference in center sharpness. 
The 24-70 was the better lens, however my clients were never going to see the difference. I also REALLY like the extra length of the lens that I own and is paid for!
For available light shooting at weddings they are about the same except you can get_ slightly_ shallower DOF with the 2.8 lens. Again, the length trumps (for me) the speed of the shorter lens. 
With the money you save you could buy the new 50 1.8 and something else but I scarcely know why as a wedding will not give you time to fumble with lens changes if you want to stay on top of the action.


----------



## triggermike (Aug 24, 2015)

The 24-105 gets knocked around, but personally I think it's a great lens. I have never been disappointed with it and I have been pretty disappointed when it wasn't with me and I wish I had that extra reach. Any chromatic issues can _easily be corrected in LR.
It is virtually a steal when you buy it in a kit with the 5D3. You have your crop camera and the 17-55 f2.8 which is also a fabulous lens. You would be best to get the 5D3/24-105 combo and keep the crop + 17-55!_


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 24, 2015)

If you asked 100 working photographers, PPA members, the kind who make money from local editorial and portraiture...The 24-105mm is likely STILL the overwhelming favorite! Because most use lights, and the extra reach trumps the extra f-stop. Lower light they'll switch to a favorite prime or the 70-200mm 2.8 IS.

Photojournalists and available light wedding photographers might go the other way, preferring f-2.8 for 24-70mm.

Y


----------



## tpatana (Aug 24, 2015)

Some time ago I was wondering the same. I used to have the 24-105, and after reading reviews, especially one from Ron Martinsen, I decided to go for the 24-70 F4.

Why:
-price ($800 from B&H new)
-Sharper than 24-105
-0.7x macro(ish)
-IS

Why not:
-Not F2.8
-Not as sharp as 2.8 II
-Lose 70-105mm on my old lens.

The why category weighted more than the why nots, so bought one. Couldn't pay ~$1000 more for the 2.8 II.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 24, 2015)

josephz1994 said:


> Having trouble deciding whether to purchase the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II or the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS to go along with my 5D Mark 3. They are quite a big price difference, and i have seen third party lenses eg Tamron etc. but i always liked the Canon L lenses.
> I currently do birthday, christening and engagement photography gigs and might be doing weddings in the future. I have a Canon 650D rocking with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS + 600EX flash, and wanted to upgrade to FF, but at the same time keeping the my 650D as a backup.
> I also take photos on the dancefloor of people dancing and group photos with the flash, however i'm worried that getting the 24-70mm without IS would create the photos to be blurry.
> I was also thinking of purchasing the 24-105mm and adding prime lenses for example the Canon 50mm 1.8, thoughts?
> ...



24-70 II is radically better. It's more than a stop faster (the 24-105L has a poor T-value). It has better AF due to f/2.8 AF and when paired with 5D3 it uses the high precision AF slip measurement correction. The edge performance is much better, especially near 24mm so it works a lot better for landscape work. It resists longitudinal chromatic aberration much better (the purple in front/green behind type that can occur anywhere in the frame).

I'd also easily get the Tamron 24-70 VC over the 24-105 IS. Also much better.

I'd also get the Cnaon 24-70 f/4 IS over the 24-105 IS, much better, cost isn't that much more, very small and light.

If price, weight, IS matter a ton maybe go for Canon 24-70 f/4 IS.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 24, 2015)

Although it seems your primary uses are actually more events and weddings, rather different from mine, but for these actually the f/2.8 helps too and so does the AF. For this I might look 24-70 II and if you can't manage it then I guess the Tamron.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 24, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> josephz1994 said:
> 
> 
> > Having trouble deciding whether to purchase the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II or the Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS to go along with my 5D Mark 3. They are quite a big price difference, and i have seen third party lenses eg Tamron etc. but i always liked the Canon L lenses.
> ...



Those fancy AF enhancements sound good on paper. Not sure how noticeable in action or on a print.

And, while I do find the overall feel of the 24-70mm 2.8 II images to be slightly more dynamic, pleasing, it falls down a bit with detail shots from 50-70mm. Working at close to MFD guarantees images that are a bit soft--even under controlled conditions with a tripod. With good lighting, if going back and forth from portraits, modest action, and detail shots, let me have the good old 24-105.

Still, you have a point, and if I had only one lens to take pics of my little daughter in available lighting, it would be the 24-70 2.8 II.

I'd say the 24-70mm f/4 IS is not a contender. Not even close in terms of usefulness, IQ edge or not. 

The 24-105 vs 24-70 is surely one of Canon's more complex dilemmas!


----------



## PhotoOp (Aug 24, 2015)

It is a tough decision. Back in the latter days of the 24-70 v1, this user opted for 24-105. The decision was based on the extended range, IS and a $300 lower price tag. Up to that point, nothing faster than f3.5 was in his bag, so a constant f4 seemed to be a no brainer. It was a good decision until the lens went to my new 5d Mk iii 6 months later. Within one month there was a felt need for the 24-70 f2.8ii. The specs on the new lens were excellent so it was purchased and replaced the 24-105 on the 5diii. 

Both lenses were carried around the world. Frankly, in that range, the 24-70 never left the 5dii. The 24-105 was always there but never used. The pictures from the 24-70ii are just better. The faster lens usually outweighs the added focal length because in most situations I was able to get closer anyway. The limitations of f4 over f2.8 are more significant especially with a steady hand and multiple techniques that usually work stabilizing a hand-held camera. Even though it is hard to describe, there is a definite reason that the 24-70 f2.8Lii is more than double the price of the 24-205L. If cost isn't a factor get the 24-70 f2.8ii. Save a little longer if you need or buy a used 24-105 to resell when you can afford the other. 

Now if you are considering the original 24-70L, the 24-105L makes more sense. 

One final thought. On the last trip the 7d with the 24-105L was the only gear taken due to concerns about theft in that particular country. The daylight pictures were great and I enjoyed the extended focal range but the indoor pictures and the evening\night pictures were so lacking in so many ways. I so missed the 5dii and the 24-70 f2.8ii lens. This user won't make that mistake again. 

My point: owning both, the 24-105 is almost always in the camera bag. And with a few more exotic L lenses (T&S fisheye and macro) it has been so replaced. Just my two cents from experience.


----------



## triggermike (Aug 24, 2015)

The OP has a 17-55 2.8 IS lens which is an L quality lens which can be used on his APS-C camera in low light. He can get the 24-105 in a kit with his 5D3 for $600!


----------



## FTb-n (Aug 25, 2015)

I upgraded from a 7D/17-55 f2.8 IS to a 5D3/24-105 f4 IS kit lens and found this move to be a nice improvement. The 24-105 on a current FF is very similar to the 17-55 on crop, but the former offers a little better reach, slightly smaller DOF, and about a one stop improvement in clean high ISO. With the same focal length, f2.8 on crop offers a DOF similar to f4.4 on FF. Since FF bodies tend to offer a two-stop improvement in high ISO (for RAW images), even at f4, the 24-104 still offers better low light performance than f2.8 on crop bodies. In addition, the FF body offers sharper images with greater color depth. 

I have since added the 24-70 f2.8 II to my kit. Unlike many on this site who made this upgrade, I'm unable to part with the 24-105. It is still my preferred general purpose lens, especially for travel. The extra reach is nice when I want to leave longer lenses home and the IS enables hand-held slow shutter motion blur for shooting landscapes with moving water.

However as a short zoom for events and sports, the 24-70 f2.8 II can't be beat. I shoot a lot of both and typically carry two FF bodies, one with the 24-70 and the second with the 70-200 f2.8 II. The lack of IS on the 24-70 was a concern. But, with event photography, the faster f2.8 is an asset because it enables the faster shutter speeds necessary to prevent subject blur. At events, I rarely shoot slower than 1/100 sec, which is fast enough to prevent blur from camera movement with the 24-70.

I have also noticed that the 24-70 focuses quicker than the 24-105 because it can take advantage of f2.8 focus points. Plus, this 24-70 is a particularly bright lens. Wide open, it is at least 1/3 of a stop brighter than the 70-200 2.8.

I can't give the OP a definitive answer. The 24-70 is the better event lens and a great compliment to the 70-200 (which is, by far, my most used lens). But, the 24-105 is no slouch. On a FF body, it is a nice step up from the 17-55, it's a great general purpose lens, and it's cheap.


----------



## Robert Welch (Aug 25, 2015)

I find the 24-70/2.8 II will focus more consistently than the 24-105L. Especially in difficult light conditions with subjects in motion (i.e., at most events such as weddings), I can get more keepers with the 24-70 II. That said, the 24-105L is a good lens, just in a direct comparison the 24-70 II is better IQ. Also, as was stated, you get more light with the 24-70 II, at f/4 it's brighter than the images from the 24-105L at f/4.

One other thing, in combination with the 24-70 I like having the 85/1.8. Would love to have the 85/1.2, however I've heard it doesn't focus as quickly as the 1.8, so I've not ventured there yet, plus the additional size and cost. But having the 85 on one body with the 24-70 on the other is a stellar combination for weddings and other events. I am waiting to see if Sigma releases an 85 Art lens, and see how the performance is on that. Will be worth considering, we'll see.


----------



## martti (Sep 28, 2015)

You probably have made your decision already.
My findings thus far. My Canon 5DIII does not want to focus in bad light with lenses less than f/4.0
The L-lenses f/1.4 it is a different story totally.
the Old version 24-70 f/2.8 picture quality jus was not anymore 'there'.
the 24-105 f/4.0 picture quality is not there any longer, either.
With all of the 24-70mm's tested, the pisture quality of the 24-105mm was inferior to the -70 lenses cropped to the same viewing angle.

After hesitating between thebest of middle range zooms and the one with the stabilizer, I got the stabilizer.
The pictue quality is more than acceptable. Even low-light pictures aree turning out as keepers and sellers.

Surprised am I.


----------



## ben805 (Sep 28, 2015)

The Versatility of the 24-105 is very hard to beat, I sold and bought it 3 times and keep coming back to it, I'd rather have the extra range than an extra stop. In low light condition where speed is really needed I'd rather use primes. range is small from the 24-70 and f/2.8 isn't all that fast so it is one of those lens that I never get attracted to. ;D


----------



## unfocused (Sep 29, 2015)

ben805 said:


> The Versatility of the 24-105 is very hard to beat... I'd rather have the extra range than an extra stop...



And that's my dilemma. I expect that 90% or more of the time, I'm shooting this lens at either 24mm or 105mm. I need that extra reach. Yeah, I wish the 24-105 were faster, but I just can't see a 24-70 for my purposes.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> ben805 said:
> 
> 
> > The Versatility of the 24-105 is very hard to beat... I'd rather have the extra range than an extra stop...
> ...



I've shot with the older 24-70L mark 1 and 24-105L. Versatility and weight brought me back to 24-105L. It's my favorite lens and most used lens for events. Using strobes, I always use my primes. For events, the high ISO capability of my 6d is mostly enough.


----------

