# Question for owners of EF 24-105mm who also acquired EF 24-70mm II



## Triggyman (Sep 10, 2013)

Hi there. 

I'm pretty sure there are people here who had a 24-105mm before and bought the 24-70mm II. I have some questions:

1) Does it make sense to own both lenses (in case it will be difficult to sell the 24-105mm). I also have the 100mm f2.8L Macro for little subjects.
2) If you sold the 24-105mm, did you miss it later on?

At the present my 24-105mm has 98% utilization rate on the 5D3 because it's the only one I have, it's a versatile general purpose lens. But I *want* better with the 24-70mm II despite the lack of IS (I can get around that). Not need. Want! (haha). 

I heard that the 24-70 II at f/4 gives much better image quality than the 24-105mm at f/5.6. Is this true?

I am not a professional photographer, just a serious amateur who loves cameras, pictures, and photography for more than 30 years. 

Thank you!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

The 24-105L was my most-used lens until I got the 24-70/2.8L II. Whether or not it makes sense to have both depends on what you shoot. The IS of the 24-105 makes it useful for static subjects in low light with no tripod. In a studio situation, where you have lots of light and a backdrop, meaning you can stop down to f/8 or narrower, the IQ differences are minimal (the 24-105 is very sharp stopped down), and the longer tele end is very useful - you can go from a group portrait to an individual headshot with one lens. 

Having stated that, after a few months of not using my 24-105L, I sold it...and haven't regretted it at all.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 10, 2013)

I basically did what Neuro did. I was very fond of my 24-105, but I wanted more than f4 and the lens is not very good wide open. Stopped down it produced great results. After I got the 24-70 f2.8L II the 24-105 stayed on the shelf collecting dust. Some people say they miss IS on the 24-70, but that has never been an issue for me. Something is moving in my images almost all the time, so I need a respectable shutter speed anyway. 

I thought I would be missing the 70-105 range, but that has actually not been an issue. The 24-70 2.8L II is a phenomenal lens in every way. Only thing I would want is the magnification you get on the 24-70 f4 IS. That would make it the perfect walkaround lens for me.

I sold the 24-105 after a couple of (unused) months.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 10, 2013)

I have both and still use both. The usage of the 24-105 is now restricted to travel situations where I am without a tripod and/or need the additional focal length. 

In any controlled or reasonably lit environment (till the time IS is not required), the 24-70 II certainly trumps the 24-105 in ways more than one (except that it doesn't shoot at 71-105mm). 

I'm not considering selling the 24-105 anytime soon.


----------



## candyman (Sep 10, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I have both and still use both. The usage of the 24-105 is now restricted to travel situations where I am without a tripod and/or need the additional focal length.
> 
> In any controlled or reasonably lit environment (till the time IS is not required), the 24-70 II certainly trumps the 24-105 in ways more than one (except that it doesn't shoot at 71-105mm).
> 
> I'm not considering selling the 24-105 anytime soon.




+1 (though I don't have the 24-70 MK II but instead the Tamron 24-70VC)


I find the 24-105 to be excellent urban walk around lens and so not considering selling the 24-105.


----------



## ForumMuppet (Sep 10, 2013)

If you use the 24-105mm as your primary lens I would troll back through your images and see how many of them are in the 70-105mm range from that lens. That would tell you how much you would miss it if you were to sell it.


----------



## candyman (Sep 10, 2013)

ForumMuppet said:


> If you use the 24-105mm as your primary lens I would *troll* back through your images and see how many of them are in the 70-105mm range from that lens. That would tell you how much you would miss it if you were to sell it.






What was going through your mind? ;D


----------



## RC (Sep 10, 2013)

I'm in the same boat as the OP. It's just a matter of time until I get a 24-70 II, probably when the next rebate pops up. For those of you who sold your 24-105s, what percentage did you recover since CL and eBay are flooded with so many "new" kit lens. I'm inclined just to keep my 24-105 (as a backup / travel lens) since I'll lose so much on the resale.


----------



## Triggyman (Sep 10, 2013)

This is great, being given advice out of valuable experience. Thanks! 

Neuroanatomist and Eldar: What I see is that despite the loss of 71-105mm and IS you preferred the 24-70mm II as a general purpose lens. That is encouraging. When I do take the plunge (sometime next Spring) I will see how much use (or lack thereof) for the 24-105.

JR and Candyman: Thanks for the counter argument. You give a good reason for keeping the 24-105mm along with the 24-70. What I see is keeping both doesn't look like it's a bad idea after all. This will fall in the "look and see" period after acquiring the 24-70.

ForumMuppet: I know a vast majority of my shots are 24-35-50mm. I occassionally used 85 for headshot (not too much bokeh) and 105mm if I'm lazy walking to a far away subject (but still too short)


----------



## dhachey77 (Sep 10, 2013)

OK, I have both lenses (and an older 28-135). Originally I was ambivalent about the 24-70 II and had it listed on the FM B&S forum, but retracted the sale. I decided to keep it for landscape work. My early testing showed the keeper rate was lower than I liked, probably due to lack of IS, and I had trouble accepting the cost. So I decided to dust off my old pre-IS shooting skills and practice a bit with it. Now I use both lenses. The 24-70 II is used for landscape and artsy stuff, while the 24-105 is used for environmental shooting and as a general walk about lens. Overall I really like the 24-70, it's one of the sharpest lenses I have (except for the 70-200 II and 200-400), and I'm using it more now for all work in that FL range. When I really need a wide angle landscape lens I do a 3 shot vertical pano and stitch. The 24-70 takes a bit of practice to use if you have become reliant on IS, but it's worth every penny I paid for it. Good luck with your decision. 

P.S. As others have said, the resale value of the 24-105's has plummeted, so it's worth keeping as a backup lens.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 10, 2013)

I have both. I got the 24-70 to replace my 17-55 as a social event lens when I moved up to FF. The lack of IS is less of a concern since people move around, but still, it was nice to be able to "drag the shutter" to lower ISO whenever people posed. 

As for the difference between it and the 24-105, the 24-70 is better at 24 and distorts a little less. I find it has sharper corners at the wider apertures. However, 70mm (lack of sufficient reach in large spaces) and lack of IS prevent it from fully replacing the 24-105 for me, which still has a use (general outdoor photography, travel). But the 24-70 wins in the indoor, tight environments of events.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 10, 2013)

I still have my 24-105L. For outdoor use in bright sun, its great as a walk-around lens. I haven't used it since I bought my 24-70L though. I just can't part with it.


----------



## ForumMuppet (Sep 10, 2013)

I had originally bought the 24-105 last summer for around $1100. Then I bought a 5D3 w/ 24-105 as the kit. The difference in price of the kit and non-kit was $800. A coworker was looking at getting that lens so I sold him my "old" one for the kit price difference of $800 and I kept the one that came with the 5D3 in the kit. You could either look at it as I took a $300 loss on the sale, or that I just traded it for a newer one and the price was a wash. If I now sell the 24-105 that came with the kit is where I would see taking the loss because no way I would get $1100 for it. So, what I have decided to do is keep it for a backup camera that I keep in my desk at work for those days I want to go shooting at lunch. That also gives me an excuse to buy a work camera body to keep in my desk with this lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

ForumMuppet said:


> I had originally bought the 24-105 last summer for around $1100. Then I bought a 5D3 w/ 24-105 as the kit. The difference in price of the kit and non-kit was $800.



That's why I'm not a fan of buying a kit lens as a standalone purchase. I bought a 24-105L for use with my 7D, but I bought it used, for $800. When I bought a 5DII, I got it with the 24-105L kit for $800 more than body only, kept the new copy, and sold the used copy for....$800. So it was truly a wash. I was also fortunate enough to buy my 24-70/2.8L II and then sell my 24-105L before the price drops of the 6D/5DIII kits, so I was able to sell it for...you guessed it...$800.


----------



## terminatahx (Sep 10, 2013)

I purchased the 5d3kit (24-105l) and liked the image quality the few days I had it. However, when a photog buddy came over with his 24-70 2.8L mk1, I was quickly reminded that I value IQ far more than range for a general purpose zoom. I think the 24-105 is not worthy of the L distinction and sold mine on Ebay. Either 24-70 2.8l and the 100 2.8L are clearly better in IQ, imho.


----------



## Triggyman (Sep 10, 2013)

Thanks to the responses, I can see a much wider picture of the pros and cons of keeping both lenses or not. 

I initially thought of selling the 24-105mm right after getting the 24-70 II (the replacement), but will hold on to the 24-105mm either to assess its continued value or make it a back-up (like forum member RC). I feel better knowing that having both at the same time is getting less impractical. I'm kind of like Mt Spokane, it will be hard for me to part with the 24-105, it's "one L of a lens". 

I agree with Act444 - I could drag the shutter longer with the IS but I frown each time there is motion blur when people walk by or when they are just plain restless. More reason for me to get the 24-70! ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 11, 2013)

Sell it and use that money toward 70-200 f2.8 IS II or 135L 

I have x2 5D III. Guess what lenses I have on both bodies most of time? 24-70 II + 70-200


----------



## Triggyman (Sep 11, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Sell it and use that money toward 70-200 f2.8 IS II or 135L
> 
> I have x2 5D III. Guess what lenses I have on both bodies most of time? 24-70 II + 70-200



Excellent, Dylan777! That's the most ideal FF setup many of us would agree (or wish upon) on, 2 FF bodies and 24mm-200mm constant 2.8 without having to change lenses (and that means significantly lesser missed shots and sensor cleaning). 

My short term goal would be these three lenses:
1) 16-35mm II
2) 24-70mm II
3) 100mm 2.8L macro

Having the 24-105mm would almost overlap all three if I will still keep it. I will give the 24-105mm more time to see if it will still have more use, but it won't look like it.


----------



## Invertalon (Sep 11, 2013)

I have owned a 24-105 for two or three years straight prior to upgrading to the 24-70 II.

1.) Makes no real sense to have both... Unless you need IS for video and whatever. It will just collect dust.

2.) Not at all... The 24-70 II is a much superior lens. The 24-70 II is sharper at the edges/corners wide open then the 24-105 stopped down to f/8. It has considerably more sharpness. 


The 24-70 II is a stunning lens... The IQ is incredible. Wide open at 70mm, it even surpasses the IQ of the 70-200 II (two different copies I compared against). And you know how highly regarded that lens is...

I did not miss the 24-105 one bit though... What is the 24-105??? ;D


----------



## zlatko (Sep 11, 2013)

I preferred the 24-105 to the original 24-70 version I, but I prefer the new 24-70 version II to the 24-105. Each has some strengths, but I don't see a point in owning both. The 24-70 II is quite excellent.


----------



## Triggyman (Sep 12, 2013)

Invertalon said:


> I have owned a 24-105 for two or three years straight prior to upgrading to the 24-70 II.
> 
> 1.) Makes no real sense to have both... Unless you need IS for video and whatever. It will just collect dust.
> 
> ...



Thank you very much for answering my questions point for point. 

I'm now even more stoked for the 24-70 II! ;D

January 2014!!! I don't know what I'm missing until then.


----------



## Triggyman (Sep 12, 2013)

zlatko said:


> I preferred the 24-105 to the original 24-70 version I, but I prefer the new 24-70 version II to the 24-105. Each has some strengths, but I don't see a point in owning both. The 24-70 II is quite excellent.



Thanks, about every post here say a lot of positive things about the 24-70 II. Your response is very helpful.


----------



## Triggyman (Oct 12, 2013)

Not that I think many people are following this thread, but I have get this out of my system.

I picked up the 24-70mm II yesterday...January couldn't wait as it's on sale.

I am so floored with the IQ of this lens! 

I seem to be lucky to get a copy that is apparently bang on the focus with my camera body, and the results are so...WOW! Out of camera JPEGs show a pop that I have not seen with the 24-105mm that I have. With RAW on Lightroom it's even better. 

The lens is so sharp where I want it to be, at 2.8 the area within the plane of focus is full of detail.

The 24-105mm will be jealous, I hope they don't fight inside the cabinet. 

I want to thank all those who responded to this thread! ;D ;D ;D


----------



## sulla (Oct 13, 2013)

I also upgraded my 24-105 to a 24-70 II.

I really miss my 24-105, or rather: its IS. It happens ever so often that I shoot something and I want to close the aperture to f/8 or so, for the DOF needed. In those situations the IS really shines. I could shoot static objects like architecture or flowers at 1/10s without issues, whereas now I need to shoot at 1/100s or so. A huge difference. I took sooooo many photos I really like with the 24-105 in dim light, at dawn or a bit afterwards, and I found IS to be a great asset. The 24-105 IS really shows its best sides during the blue hour. The 24-70 is hopeless (in comparison only!) during that very attractive time of day. Bumping up ISO is not an acceptable option, IMHO. So, I really miss IS but I don't miss the reach.

Having said that, the 24-70 shines when anything moves in the scene. 1 stop of Tv is a huge difference when shooting people in available light, also a very attractive situation. There I usually want to shoot at 1/80s or so, and for this type of work IS doesn't help too much. I can improve so many shots now that would have been motion-blurred a lot more with the 24-105.

In all, I do not wish my 24-105 back. When I set out to do high quality architecture during the blue hour, I compensate for IS with a small tripod. The side effect is, that it also helps composition.

I hope to have been useful, have fun with your new 24-70!!


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Oct 13, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Sell it and use that money toward 70-200 f2.8 IS II or 135L
> 
> I have x2 5D III. Guess what lenses I have on both bodies most of time? 24-70 II + 70-200



Enjoy your new 24-70 II !!! +1 on the recommendation, above. Given your shooting needs, I'd rec'd selling the 24-105 and picking up the 135mm f/2L, which is a nice, fast lens that renders beautiful bokeh.


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 13, 2013)

What do you say to those who claim this eliminates the need for primes? (Other than for shooting narrower DOF than f/2.8?). Exaggeration?


----------



## Triggyman (Oct 13, 2013)

sulla said:


> I also upgraded my 24-105 to a 24-70 II.
> 
> I really miss my 24-105, or rather: its IS. It happens ever so often that I shoot something and I want to close the aperture to f/8 or so, for the DOF needed. In those situations the IS really shines. I could shoot static objects like architecture or flowers at 1/10s without issues, whereas now I need to shoot at 1/100s or so. A huge difference. I took sooooo many photos I really like with the 24-105 in dim light, at dawn or a bit afterwards, and I found IS to be a great asset. The 24-105 IS really shows its best sides during the blue hour. The 24-70 is hopeless (in comparison only!) during that very attractive time of day. Bumping up ISO is not an acceptable option, IMHO. So, I really miss IS but I don't miss the reach.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Sulla! Indeed this will be fun. I'm keeping the 24-105mm for now since the price of second hand fell, sellers on the classifieds are offering nothing higher than $750. But if that's the price it's settling on then I might have to accept it and sell at that price if I need a longer telephoto.

I'm a klutz with the 24-105mm (I use a tripod in low light to help lower the ISO on at least f8) because I keep forgetting to turn off the IS. 

With the one-stop wider aperture, that can help with scenes involving moving people that I often find myself taking pictures of. I think both lenses will be a good combo depending on the subject. 



ScottyP said:


> What do you say to those who claim this eliminates the need for primes? (Other than for shooting narrower DOF than f/2.8?). Exaggeration?



Hi Scotty, I don't know what to say to them, because I had not collected a set of primes except for the 100mm macro (which is also great) so I haven't really seen how good the wide and short telephoto primes are in my own experience. My last prime within the 24-70 range was an FD 50mm f1.8 for an AV-1.  

But if the 24-70mm II approaches the sharpness/color/contrast of the primes very closely, then I'd rather have this - it will save me from changing lenses often. I can just set the focal length and zoom with my feet. Then again, I might wish for a wider aperture.


----------



## mwh1964 (Oct 13, 2013)

Very useful tread. I only have the 24-105 and actually like it a lot. It is very useful as a general purpose lens which it was also designed for. Of course the 24-70 II should be better. It is more than double up in price. However you loose 77mm filter compatibility, IS and gain extra weight. So probably this also comes down to budget, shooting stile and objectives.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 13, 2013)

I used the 24-105 for a long time for street work; decent speed, decent IQ. Then got the 24-70 II. I noticed the increase in IQ immediately. Superb glass, as distinct from 'very very good glass.' That said, I kept the 24-105; I use it for street work in bright sun, in difficult situations where I may not want to risk the 24-70, or if I need just a bit more length. For events on the street I use FF only and the 24-70 and 70-200 OR the 24-70 and 70-200 are a good kit. I don't miss IS on the 24-70 at all. Both are very useful lenses.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 13, 2013)

The 24-105L IS is really good for general purpose video. f/4 is pretty shallow for video and the IS takes out the micro shakes in hand-held /shoulder-support work.

If I didn't do any hand-held video I'd probably sell the 24-105


----------



## pwp (Oct 13, 2013)

I thought for sure I'd be keeping my 24-105 after picking up the new 24-70II. The IS, the extra reach which is handy for events work, it's flexibility as a travel lens and it's sharp-wide-open performance just had to make it a keeper. But like other posters here, it's been sitting on the shelf gathering an ominous sheen of dust. 

Next time I'm feeling inspired to do a Gumtree session, I'll be putting my three least used lenses up for sale. The 24-105, the 135 f/2 and an older non-USM 100 f/2.8 macro and pushing the $$ towards a 17TS-E.

But that's my experience. You may find totally valid reasons to keep both. Just wait a few months and see how it goes. As they say, time will tell....

-pw


----------



## Sony (Oct 13, 2013)

My 2 cents: sell the 24-105mm after having a 24-70mm II; then save money and jump to a 70-200mm II. That was what I did and am very satisfied now along with a 5DMKIII.
Actually, we don't need IS with focal length under 70mm.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2013)

Triggyman said:


> Hi there.
> 
> I'm pretty sure there are people here who had a 24-105mm before and bought the 24-70mm II. I have some questions:
> 
> ...



In marginal lighting without a tripod the 24-105 IS certainly delivers better IQ. In all other cases the 24-70 II blow it away.

Very center frame, my 24-70 II is sharper at f/2.8 than all three 24-105 I tried at ANY aperture across the entire 24-70mm range (definitely not true at the edges near 70mm though).

It focuses better too.

But say you need some f/7.1 landscape hand-held or more DOF for in museum work without tripod or something then you may need high ISO and end up with worse overall quality (especially compared to the 24-70 f/4 IS which is better than the 24-105 IS in terms of image quality and it has even more effective IS, although a bit much $ to have as an extra for many granted and the 24-105 IS can be had for $600 now at least).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> (the 24-105 is very sharp stopped down),



I've got to differ. Especially if you are landscape shooter. The 24-105 is much maligned for that sort of work near 24mm on FF, f/8, f/10, it's still often mush at the edges and it still tosses spades of PF on branches against clouds and such. 24-70 II is just about APO so forget any hint of PF on branches against clouds and it is quite a lot sharper at the edges at f/8 near 24mm.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2013)

ForumMuppet said:


> If you use the 24-105mm as your primary lens I would troll back through your images and see how many of them are in the 70-105mm range from that lens. That would tell you how much you would miss it if you were to sell it.



I'd more check how many were in IS territory. The 80-100mm can be covered with much better quality (plus much more added range) with a 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L or whatnot.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2013)

Triggyman said:


> Not that I think many people are following this thread, but I have get this out of my system.
> 
> I picked up the 24-70mm II yesterday...January couldn't wait as it's on sale.
> 
> ...



nice, cna't say i'm surprised


----------



## M.ST (Oct 13, 2013)

The 24-105 IS lens has not the same outstanding image quality of th 24-70 II lens, but hold both lenses.

IS is very usefull in some situations and the aperture rays from small light sources had less rays and better to sell.

I was not happy with the 24-105 lens and sold it a few years ago after only 3 days using ist, but after the new 24-70 4.0 IS hit the market, I buy another 24-105 IS. The big problem with the 24-105 IS are the visible CA´s and the image quality between 85 up to 105 mm.

The 100 IS Macro do a better job at 100 mm, but you have to carry another lens. Sometimes it is more usefull to walk only with the 24-105 lens. 

But I carry almost all the time the 16-35 II 2.8, 24-70 II 2.8, 100 IS Macro, 70-200 II 2.8 IS and both TC´s with me.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 13, 2013)

I've had been using the 24-105 inspite of having the 24-70 II. The uses were restricted though to situations where I needed the longer focal lengths and/or IS. However, after getting the 70-200 II, the lens has not been used at all. 

I am using the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II now. I've put up the 24-105 for sale.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 13, 2013)

I just got the 24-70 2.8 II last week. Ready to sell the 24-105.

Reason I replaced it: For me, on my 5DIII, only works under perfect conditions of light and distance. On cloudy days, unpleasant contrast issues, similar to Clarity slider being too far right. Also, faces at medium distance simply don't resolve well if I want to crop, so forget about further back. Distortion, making group shots always problematic. Occasionally mutinous IS.

Only reasons I consider keeping it: 1) Wife is sometimes a second shooter, and she, I hate to say, has butterfingers.

2) If I go into crime ridden areas, I'll bring it and my 60D.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 13, 2013)

M.ST said:


> The 24-105 IS lens has not the same outstanding image quality of th 24-70 II lens, but hold both lenses.


+1 ... until I bought the 24-70 f/2.8 L II, the 24-195 f/4 L IS was the most used lens on my 7D ... after my 24-70 f/2.8 L II was stolen, I bought Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC lens (couldn't afford the 24-70 L II again) but I still have the 24-105 in my camera bag unused for over a year now ... I don't want to sell it, because it serves as a backup lens, just in case I have another misfortune of losing a lens or dropping a lens (I dropped my 17-85 lens, many years ago, which got completely destroyed) and the lens also reminds me of some very lovely memories, it has traveled to 12 countries with some beautiful images to show for (maybe I'm just an emotional fool) also, the resale value of 24-105 has really dropped quite a bit, coz you can now get a brand new 24-105 for around $700 (sometimes even lower) ... so I see no point in selling it for a small amount, especially when it is such a fun lens ... so I've decided that I'll never sell it.


----------



## RC (Oct 13, 2013)

Triggyman said:


> Not that I think many people are following this thread, but I have get this out of my system.
> 
> I picked up the 24-70mm II yesterday...January couldn't wait as it's on sale.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the update and starting this thread. Now that the rebates are on, it's time for me to get off the fence and make a decision. Got a few days off next week so I'm going to rent the 24-70 II even though I'm 90% sure I'll buy it before this current rebate ends. I guess my only hang up is having both the 24-105 and 24-70 II. Like I said in an earlier post, I'd rather keep the 24-105 as a back up than sell it for such a low price but I sure could use the cash towards the pricey 24-70.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 13, 2013)

RC said:


> I'd rather keep the 24-105 as a back up than sell it for such a low price


+1 ... I kept mine and would recommend anyone else to do the same ... I think I'm way too attached to that lens :-[


----------



## Triggyman (Oct 13, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> +1 ... until I bought the 24-70 f/2.8 L II, the 24-195 f/4 L IS was the most used lens on my 7D ... after my 24-70 f/2.8 L II was stolen, I bought Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC lens (couldn't afford the 24-70 L II again)



Sorry to hear that. I know how that would feel when that will happen to me...knock on wood and praying it won't. That lens on a gripped 5D sure is a temptation for snatching.

Which comes to mind that it's almost necessary to buy a second body (a less pricey one) to make it the one to bring to crowded places where we are not comfortable going around with.


----------



## Pixel (Oct 13, 2013)

I LOVE the optical ability of the 24-70 2.8L II but the build quality leaves a lot to be desired. 
•The button on the lens hood is malfunctioning and requires that I tape the lens hood to the lens
•One of the rubber grip rings has become stretched and is barely holding on to the lens
•There's a stringy, velvet material that has worked it's way out of the lens barrel now

It's going in tomorrow


----------



## Pi (Oct 13, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I've got to differ. Especially if you are landscape shooter. The 24-105 is much maligned for that sort of work near 24mm on FF, f/8, f/10, it's still often mush at the edges and it still tosses spades of PF on branches against clouds and such.



The corners at 24mm are soft, indeed, even at f/11 (lenses are not the same at f/11 ) but PF is almost non-existent on my copy.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2013)

Triggyman said:


> Which comes to mind that it's almost necessary to buy a second body (a less pricey one) to make it the one to bring to crowded places where we are not comfortable going around with.



Less expensive to just buy some insurance.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2013)

Pi said:


> but PF is almost non-existent on my copy.



hmm try shooting fine branches edge to edge across the top against white clouds

It's hard to imagine your copy wouldn't show lots of PF then. I've never heard of one that didn't, even from those who say they got an unusually sharp copy.


----------



## Pi (Oct 13, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > but PF is almost non-existent on my copy.
> ...



Here are two crops, 24/16 and 24/11. Not from the center but not from the corners either.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/10252514275/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/10252319154/#

A bit soft because the focus was much closer in both cases.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 13, 2013)

I just sold my 24-105 via Craig's List. I purchased a 24-70 2.8 II in July and planned to keep both. But, the 24-105 was not being used and I figured I could use the money toward something I would use, like a 100L Macro or 24mm TS-E.

The 24-70 2.8 II is sharper at all common focal lengths, especially at the very important (for me) 24mm length. Lack of IS has not been a significant issue for me.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 13, 2013)

bholliman said:


> I just sold my 24-105 via Craig's List. I purchased a 24-70 2.8 II in July and planned to keep both. But, the 24-105 was not being used and I figured I could use the money toward something I would use, like a 100L Macro or 24mm TS-E.
> 
> The 24-70 2.8 II is sharper at all common focal lengths, especially at the very important (for me) 24mm length. Lack of IS has not been a significant issue for me.



You not the only one 

There is no comparison between these 2.


----------



## curtisnull (Oct 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 24-105L was my most-used lens until I got the 24-70/2.8L II. Whether or not it makes sense to have both depends on what you shoot. The IS of the 24-105 makes it useful for static subjects in low light with no tripod. In a studio situation, where you have lots of light and a backdrop, meaning you can stop down to f/8 or narrower, the IQ differences are minimal (the 24-105 is very sharp stopped down), and the longer tele end is very useful - you can go from a group portrait to an individual headshot with one lens.
> 
> Having stated that, after a few months of not using my 24-105L, I sold it...and haven't regretted it at all.



Same here.


----------



## Triggyman (Oct 14, 2013)

Pi said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



The first pic shows a lot of purple. Oh, they're purple plants, not fringing. 

My 24-105mm copy had a problem with CA. You will notice on the upper left hand corner branches 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7785241096/#

So far I have not seen CA on the 24-70 II, which helps preserve sharpness around tree branches against the sky. The more I'm using it, the more I'm not missing the money I spent for the lens. 

Still, I could probably keep that lens for a second body. I've got a soft spot for it since it's my first L lens. I'm thinking of something like a T4i/T5i or 70D. Nooooo!


----------



## Pi (Oct 14, 2013)

Triggyman said:


> My 24-105mm copy had a problem with CA. You will notice on the upper left hand corner branches
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7785241096/#



It is pretty obvious, even at that size. I would not be happy with that. 

The 24-105 I rented years ago had some pretty bad CA (but no visible PF). I was using an 8mp crop body then, same pixel density as the 5D3/3. My (newer) 24-105 has much less CA, which LR corrects nicely.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 16, 2013)

I sold my 24-105L for a used Tamron 24-70 VC. It was an equal trade $$$ wise and the Tamron is sharper. (Even though so far Its been used only a handful of times  ) I ended up valuing that stop more than the 35mm of reach when I can crop in.


----------



## hwoarang5 (Oct 17, 2013)

i have a 5dmkIII with 24-105kit , sold it for tamron 24-70F2.8 VC.. then sold it for canon ef 24-70mm f2.8II... and been loving it so far.. and now im planning to get a used 24-105 f4 again... for the purpose of wider coverage when im travel on holiday and not working... and even for work, shooting on day time or with strobe will be great... eg... day time sport.. events.. etc..

indoors.. and critical work, ill go back to my 24-70f2.8II + 85mm f1,8 + 135mmf2... +2nd body

ps: i sold off my "TAMPON" 24-70 because i exchange about 3 units in the terms of 4 months time, it just doesnt have a good QC on the batch of stock i have, gen 1 & 2 stock all potential have problems like front/back focus problem, battery drain, broken VC, after a period of time using it, 3rd gen stock i got have solve the issues according to tamron, i tested it for months between canon mkII before decide to sell it, and stick with canon..


----------



## Triggyman (Oct 17, 2013)

hwoarang5 said:


> i have a 5dmkIII with 24-105kit , sold it for tamron 24-70F2.8 VC.. then sold it for canon ef 24-70mm f2.8II... and been loving it so far.. and now im planning to get a used 24-105 f4 again... for the purpose of wider coverage when im travel on holiday and not working... and even for work, shooting on day time or with strobe will be great... eg... day time sport.. events.. etc..
> 
> indoors.. and critical work, ill go back to my 24-70f2.8II + 85mm f1,8 + 135mmf2... +2nd body



Yes, the 24-70mm II is proving to be stellar IMHO, I've been getting to know its strengths and weaknesses (vignetting, etc.) and how to deal with it, I'm just raving about it I think my friends and cousins are getting tired of me :

I still do have high regard for the 24-105mm, I have found the best settings for my style of flash photography with it that I will keep it.  

Nice combo of lenses.


----------



## kennykodak (Oct 17, 2013)

24-105 for outdoor work such as little league individuals and team shots. also the longer reach is pleasing for indoor activities such as ballet and school dances. i use the 24-70 II for commercial and weddings.


----------

