# Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii



## Canon1 (Dec 8, 2013)

Who here has upgraded from the 24-105 to the 24-70 ii? What are your thoughts and was it worth the change?

I have extensive experience with my 24-105. It's my favorite landscape lens and have shot with it for years. Always been a touch soft in my opinion, but nothing I could not get past in post.

I don't care about IS. This is a pretty short lens and most of my shooting with it is tripod mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2013)

There's at least one other long thread on this. The consensus was that most (myself included) who bought the 24-70 II subsequently sold their 24-105.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 8, 2013)

Canon1 said:


> Who here has upgraded from the 24-105 to the 24-70 ii? What are your thoughts and was it worth the change?
> 
> I have extensive experience with my 24-105. It's my favorite landscape lens and have shot with it for years. Always been a touch soft in my opinion, but nothing I could not get past in post.
> 
> I don't care about IS. This is a pretty short lens and most of my shooting with it is tripod mount.



If you don't care about IS...

24-105 PROs
-Goes from wide to portrait range vs 24-70II that doesn't quite make it to portrait range.
-Only ~$700 new, thus if you are travelling or want to bring less expensive gear, it is desirable
-Lighter than 24-70 II
-Can use your existing 77mm filters

24-105 CONs
-Significantly softer than the 24-70 II, especially in corners
-More distortion than 24-70 II, especially at 24mm
-Slower lens


So, optically the 24-70 II is much better. Since you are using tripod, IS is not of use. But, if you are in a case where you only want to bring one lens and you will have both landscape & portrait shots the 24-105 is superior - the 24-70 II simply cannot cover that extra range. Also, the 24-105 is best when you want a lighter, less valuable lens that still takes great photos.


----------



## Canon1 (Dec 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> There's at least one other long thread on this. The consensus was that most (myself included) who bought the 24-70 II subsequently sold their 24-105.



Yeah, but most of the other threads are about people not wanting to sell their 24-105 for the low price it is fetching. I was hoping for a little more input on IQ. Are people happy b/c they are getting better images? Is it noticeably sharper for those who print bigger? IQ discussion anyone?


----------



## R1-7D (Dec 8, 2013)

Canon1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There's at least one other long thread on this. The consensus was that most (myself included) who bought the 24-70 II subsequently sold their 24-105.
> ...



If you can get a good copy of the lens it's much sharper, and the images will be much more contrasty. I, myself, had to get four copies of the lens to finally be satisfied, and even then this copy I have now is not perfect.

The one thing I will say for the 24–105mm is that it is a robust lens that has been around for a long time and has very few problems.

I do regret selling mine, only because I almost completely stopped taking pictures while my 24-70 mm was in for repair at Canon. Unfortunately I had to use the money from it to pay for the new lens.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 8, 2013)

It's noticeably better, much better, at all the apertures I used, in sharpness, clarity, color rendition, contrast, etc. I promptly sold my 24L, 24-105L, 35L, and 50L when I got it, because it produces images that were much better than those lenses could produce, f/2.8 and narrower. It's such an amazing lens, and it really does have the "Wow" factor for me. Try it out and you'll see exactly what I mean.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2013)

Canon1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There's at least one other long thread on this. The consensus was that most (myself included) who bought the 24-70 II subsequently sold their 24-105.
> ...



I sold the 24-105 because the IQ of the 24-70 II was significantly better - enough that I couldn't see reaching for the 24-105 anymore. That also led to me selling the 28-300L - the IQ of that lens is similar to the 24-105, and the combo of the 24-70 II + 70-300L gives me better IQ across the range.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> There's at least one other long thread on this. The consensus was that most (myself included) who bought the 24-70 II subsequently sold their 24-105.


Mine was sold (Craigslist) Yesterday. I hated to see it go, it was a excellent lens, just not getting any use since I got the new 24-70 last Spring.


----------



## BoneDoc (Dec 8, 2013)

Even if you can't cover the 70-105 portrait range, you can frame with cropping in mind, and you'll likely still get better IQ


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 9, 2013)

Canon1 said:


> Who here has upgraded from the 24-105 to the 24-70 ii? What are your thoughts and was it worth the change?
> 
> I have extensive experience with my 24-105. It's my favorite landscape lens and have shot with it for years. Always been a touch soft in my opinion, but nothing I could not get past in post.
> 
> I don't care about IS. This is a pretty short lens and most of my shooting with it is tripod mount.



If you shoot on a tripod then hands down the 24-70 II! I tried the 24-105 a few times and sold or returned each on within a week, never liked 'em. Not so hot near the wide end on FF (not even as sharp as my, back then, FAR less expensive Tamron 28-75). The 24-70 II also has more precise AF for one shot mode if used with a 5D3 or 1DX, although for tripod work that doesn't matter.

Let me put it this way I got the 24 1.4 II because I couldn't find anything else that gave a decent 24mm on FF (back then). That was way better than the 24-105L at 24mm. But my 24-70 II is so close to the 24 1.4 II! It actually even has LESS longitudinal CA and thus less purple fringing and stuff of branches against clouds and such than the 24 1.4 II, never mind compared to the 24-105. I sold my 24 1.4 II!

24-70 II is way sharper and has less longitudinal CA and better AF and less distortion and even better contrast and it's not even really any larger (although I guess a bit heavier). The price is a bit fierce though and there is more copy to copy variation than you'd like for a lens that price (even a below average one is still easily way better than the best 24-105 though).

If you can handle the price and don't mind spending that much money and have no need for IS then yeah heck yeah it's way worth the upgrade. Nobody makes a better 24-70, certainly the Nikon doesn't keep up.

24-70 II + 70-300L makes a totally killer landscape pairing (the 70-300L is another lens that nobody else does better) and add in a 24 T&S II if you really want the ultimate landscape trio (and the 17 T&S and samyang 14mm to go totally crazy ;D). I have the 24-70 II, 70-300L, samyang 14mm. One day I wouldn't mind adding the 24 T&S II.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 9, 2013)

the 24-70 f/4 IS is pretty good too, definitely better than the 24-105 near 24mm and near 70mm, with some macro, better IS, smaller size, less weight, less logitudinal CA, it's not quite as good as the 24-70 II overall though (it also suffers from copy variation, although it's much easier to get one with all four corners set to the same focal plane than the 24-70 II, my second copy was noticeably sharper across the entire frame, especially near all the edges than the first copy)

in your case for the ultimate upgrade the 24-70 II is probably the way to go

the one place the 24-70 f/4 IS does better is FF edges right near 70mm where it actually does better than the 24-70 II, otherwise the 24-70 II is better


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 9, 2013)

There is no comparision between these two. The 24-70 II IQ is not same league as 24-105 - MUCH BETTER of course.

If you plan to shoot f8 to f11, then stay with 24-105. Otherwise, the 24-70 II is wonderful lens from wide open to f8 - at least on my copy.


----------



## Zv (Dec 9, 2013)

With the current rebate program on the 24-70II it's the best time to upgrade your 24-105L. Seems like a no brainer to me.


----------



## pwp (Dec 9, 2013)

I really thought I'd be keeping my excellent 24-105 when I got the 24-70 f/2.8II figuring it would be useful for some event work where the extra reach and IS would be handy, or as a flexible, high quality vacation lens. The fact is it's probably been used once in the past six months. The new zoom is like having a great set of primes all in the one lens. 

How many times have you heard the word "awesome" when describing the use of and output from the new 24-70? It's no exaggeration. Expensive? Yes it is, but worth every penny.

Thanks for your post on the subject, it's a reminder to get the 24-105 onto eBay/Gumtree/Craigslist this side of Christmas.

-pw


----------



## R1-7D (Dec 9, 2013)

Forgive me for bringing this up again, but after being burned and frustrated by the 24-70 II, let me voice my opinion once more:

Just be careful when you purchase the lens, and make sure that you test it thoroughly to make sure it is working properly. It is my feeling, and I am sure some would back me up on this forum, that Canon is suffering from some serious quality control issues with this particular lens.

I, myself, experienced a severely decentered element on my first copy, clicking sounds from the zoom on my second copy, and another decentered element as well as squeaking on my third copy. It wasn't until my fourth attempt that I finally managed to get an acceptable lens. 

I also want to mention that I ended up purchasing the lens twice. My first copy was sent into Canon after less than a month's use (unfortunately I passed the return date for the lens at the store) for the decentered element. Canon kept it for six weeks, twice as long as I had actually had it in my possession, only to return it to me and saying everything was in spec when it clearly was not. I called up Canon's Canada CPS and explained why I was not satisfied with the repair and the lady I spoke with told me Reikan FoCal could not be trusted and that my lens was properly looked at and adjusted by their technician. I told her she was wrong and she replied by telling me (her words) that I could "waste time sending it back in, but chances are the techs wouldn't do anything to it." 

At this point I lost my nerve and went up one side of her and down the other about how awful her service and response was, and that this whole ordeal is unacceptable for such an expensive and brand new piece of equipment. Obviously, coming from her previous response, she still did not care and just said "send it in."


Having sold my trusty 24-105mm to pay for this first 24-70 I was kind of at a loss for having a decent walk-around lens. I was also determined to find a good copy of this lens so I went and bought my second copy from another retailer here in town. Thankfully this time I was cognizant of the problems too look for and returned it as many times possible until I was satisfied. 

Unfortunately I managed to wrack up quite the nice credit card bill purchasing the lens a second time. I still own my first copy and am considering selling it at a massive loss, or sending back to Canon for repair and then trying to sell it. Either way, I've never been more frustrated with a product or the customer service of a company before. 


As far as my working copy goes: the images are fantastic and incredibly sharp. It runs circles around the 24-105.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 9, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> There is no comparision between these two. The 24-70 II IQ is not same league as 24-105 - MUCH BETTER of course.
> 
> If you plan to shoot f8 to f11, then stay with 24-105. Otherwise, the 24-70 II is wonderful lens from wide open to f8 - at least on my copy.



Even if you shoot f/8-f/11 as I often did for landscapes. Both the 24 1.4 II and 24-70 II do hugely better even f/8-f//11 at 24mm than the 24-105mm on FF from what I've personally seen.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 9, 2013)

I am a recent convert to the 24-70 II. Actually, I am still looking for my "good copy." So I'd agree with the QA/QC issues. But, in addition to IQ, I wanted to add that the 24-70 II also has much faster AF, especially in low light, and I believe is focusing in much less light than the 24-105 on my 5DIII. Both of these are likely to be expected as the 24-70 II enables the f/2.8 AF points, but it is a noticeable improvement. 

So, in addition to IQ, I am seeing improvements in AF.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 9, 2013)

docsmith said:


> But, in addition to IQ, I wanted to add that the 24-70 II also has much faster AF, especially in low light, and I believe is focusing in much less light than the 24-105 on my 5DIII.



I'd like to stress the "5d3" part because only 1dx/5d3 are able to make use of the latest lenses (70-300L, 24-70ii) more precise af system, and the 24-70ii is designed in conjunction with the 5d3/1dx af system (lens groups) in mind... there are lensrentals articles on this.

Both means that if buying a 24-70ii for a 6d you're throwing part of your money away and it's a good idea to consider a Tamron as an alternative, I guess that's part of the reason why Canon bundles the 24-105 with the 6d and released a 24-70/4 which doesn't run into the 6d's af problems and at least has IS.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 9, 2013)

This question keeps crossing my mind as well. And I keep watching the price of the 24-70. I think it's still too pricy for what it is. Yes, optically it's great but I don't like the plastic build quality. 

But once it reaches the original price of the version one - maybe. I have the 24-105 and it is a really good lens. My only issue with it that it's f/4 which for what I often do limits its usefulness. IS is pointless in my book. 

So the best use for it is landscape stuff (which I rarely do) and standard studio type portraits. 

For that it is actually very good believe it or not. Maybe I lucked out with a sharper copy but there are are really no issues. Excellent value lens. 

Still thinking to add a good version 1 24-70 at some point.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 10, 2013)

If one can wait, it probably is best to wait on the 24-70 II... I personally am not buying one because of the plethora of QA issues Canon apparently refuses to fix. If they fixed them, okay, but they seem to be refusing repair and stating things are in spec when they clearly are not.

That being said, if you can actually get a good copy that does not squeak, click, is not decentered and does not have a bubble in the element - then you have arguably the best standard zoom out there by far.

Myself, I am going to stick with the 24-105 for now and wait well into 2014 until these QA issues are sorted. Maybe I'll even see a price drop or IS version while I wait.


----------



## Canon1 (Dec 10, 2013)

Thank you everyone for your input. Much appreciated.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2013)

Ruined said:


> If they fixed them, okay, but they seem to be refusing repair and stating things are in spec when they clearly are not.



To what (public) spec are you referring to?


----------



## lux (Dec 11, 2013)

I love my 24-70ii. I was going through the last year of photos to make a book for the grandparents and I can tell looking at the photos when I got the lens. Colors are richer with it than with the 24-105.


----------



## skoobey (Dec 14, 2013)

If it's your only lens, than 24-105 is a far better choice.

If you use 70-105 range for portraits, or like to carry only one lens with you, 24-105 is a far better choice.

*In any other case, 24-70 blows it out of the water.*


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 21, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> *there is more copy to copy variation than you'd like for a lens that price*



Variation regarding what kind of issues? Sharpness or decentering? How does one go about testing for it?
Thanks for the advice, in advance.


----------



## Invertalon (Dec 23, 2013)

I had a 24-105 for years and really enjoyed it... But the 24-70 II is significantly better. Quite a jump in IQ across the entire zoom range.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 23, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > But, in addition to IQ, I wanted to add that the 24-70 II also has much faster AF, especially in low light, and I believe is focusing in much less light than the 24-105 on my 5DIII.
> ...



I don't think that's correct, for two reasons:

First, AFAIK, all cameras benefit from the extra light gathering when it comes to focusing in the dark. Cameras open the lenses up to their widest settings while focusing, and if the widest setting is wider, those AF sensors see more light, which means the camera is more likely to successfully focus when shooting in low light conditions.

Second, as I understand it, the 6D's center point has increased accuracy when used with f/2.8 and faster lenses, so there's a pretty significant benefit to the faster lens even in normal light, assuming you're using the center point.

With that said, YMMV.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 23, 2013)

I really like my 24-105. It's a great lens, but from all I've read the 24-70 is playing a different game. The only reason I don't have it yet is budget. Hopefully next year. After that, my collection will be complete for all the stuff I do today.


----------



## twdi (Dec 24, 2013)

I'm a happy use of a 5DmkII + 24-105 too. I've just finished a photobook from a holiday in which the maximum print size was 30x45cm. The pictures look great.

Offcourse I think the 24-70II produces sharper images but I should you are allowed to expect that from a twice more expensive lens. Which Lightroom I can sharpen my images (or maybe with software like Nik) which gives me pictures I like. I would prefer the spend the saved money on an additional UWA lens or other stuff


----------



## clicstudio (Dec 25, 2013)

There is simply no better lens than the 24-70 II.
It matches most primes in quality and in one package.
It's the ONLY lens I own. Coupled to my 1DX, I have to say I am seeing the best output ever.
The 24-105 has a little more range but I rented one for a week and was very very disappointed. Too many missed focus photos and not the sharpest.
I also rented a 50mm 1.2L, a 135 2.0L, a 35mm 1.8 and nothing could replace my 24-70.
The only other lens I would consider is the 70-200 F2.8L II which I used and absolutely loved. But I have no need for it.
My only complain about the 24-70 2.8L II vs the old 24-70 is the minimum focusing distance. It was shorter before.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 25, 2013)

clicstudio said:


> There is simply no better lens than the 24-70 II.



... unless you try to shoot handhold with longer shutter times  in which case you should get familiar with PS' blur reduction filter. What I'm trying to say: For walkaround photography in verying light, IS does make sense, so there's no linear "better" or "worse".



dgatwood said:


> First, AFAIK, all cameras benefit from the extra light gathering when it comes to focusing in the dark. Cameras open the lenses up to their widest settings while focusing, and if the widest setting is wider, those AF sensors see more light, which means the camera is more likely to successfully focus when shooting in low light conditions.



Correct, your af capability will also drop one stop when using f4 vs f2.8 ... so in theory, there might be situations where you could shoot with the 24-105 using 3 stops of IS, but cannot focus anymore. However, I doubt this situation will occur very often as the newer 6d/5d3 are able to af in very dim light, it might be more of an issue with older af systems like 5d2 or 60d that only focus up to +0.5LV.



dgatwood said:


> Second, as I understand it, the 6D's center point has increased accuracy when used with f/2.8 and faster lenses, so there's a pretty significant benefit to the faster lens even in normal light, assuming you're using the center point.



Afaik you've got that wrong: If you're shooting with slower lenses, you most likely don't profit from the f2.8 precision as your dof is deeper, but the enhanced precision slows down the af. 

Last not least, speaking of the 6d (but not opening the can of worms again) @ f2.8 the af is more precise. but also more unreliable since it isn't a cross sensor anymore just like on the 5d2. Imho that's part of the reason why Canon issued the 24-70/4 which works much better with the af system of the 6d.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Second, as I understand it, the 6D's center point has increased accuracy when used with f/2.8 and faster lenses, so there's a pretty significant benefit to the faster lens even in normal light, assuming you're using the center point.
> ...



Not really. With a lens slower than f/2.8, the high precision but slightly slower AF line(s) aren't active at all, so the less accurate and slightly faster f/5.6 line(s) are used.


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 25, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Second, as I understand it, the 6D's center point has increased accuracy when used with f/2.8 and faster lenses, so there's a pretty significant benefit to the faster lens even in normal light, assuming you're using the center point.
> ...



Sure, with 2.8 being the edge condition, I'd expect it to have the least benefit from the added precision. That said, presumably, they chose f/2.8 for a reason, so if the added precision were only useful at f/1.8 and wider, they would have picked f/1.8 as the starting point. Either way, if a single f/2.8 precision focusing point has no benefit with that lens on the 6D, then I'd expect multiple f/2.8 precision focusing points to have no benefit on the 5Dmk3, so the argument that the 6D doesn't benefit from it is still wrong. Either they both benefit or they both don't. Perhaps the 6D might have more focus misses, but that's a separate argument, IMO. 




Marsu42 said:


> Last not least, speaking of the 6d (but not opening the can of worms again) @ f2.8 the af is more precise. but also more unreliable since it isn't a cross sensor anymore just like on the 5d2. Imho that's part of the reason why Canon issued the 24-70/4 which works much better with the af system of the 6d.



That's certainly plausible, giving the timing, but if true, I would have to question the competence of the management of Canon's camera engineering team for not putting a single high-precision f/2.8 cross point instead of a single diagonal, and thus forcing the lens team to design a whole new lens to work around the camera's inadequacies. That's incredibly wasteful, resource-wise, and for a few extra cents per 6D unit sold, that time could have instead gone towards something more useful, like improving the focus speed of the 85 L II and adding IS to it.

That would be like Apple's laptop team forcing the iPad team to design a whole new model of iPad because of a hardware bug in the USB port on one model of MacBook Pro.... Their answer would almost certainly be "No. Fix your f**king laptop design," only without the self-censorship. 

I think it's far more likely that the f/4 version of the lens was caused by someone trying to hit a price point so that they could have a reasonable alternative kit lens to the 24-105 for folks who cared more about image quality than reach. That's consistent with what they have historically done in the EF-S world, so it makes perfect sense that they would do the same thing for a prosumer full-frame body like the 6D. I'd be shocked if the lack of a cross-type f/2.8 high-precision point factored in significantly, because if it did, the lens team's response should have been, "No. Fix your f**king camera design."

Then again, the camera team's managers could just be @$$holes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Last not least, speaking of the 6d (but not opening the can of worms again) @ f2.8 the af is more precise. but also more unreliable since it isn't a cross sensor anymore just like on the 5d2. Imho that's part of the reason why Canon issued the *24-70/4 which works much better with the af system of the 6d.*



I'm not sure how it makes any sense that an f/4 lens works _much better_ with the 6D's AF, compared to an f/2.8 lens. It's not like, if the high precision AF line can't achieve AF, the system just gives up and fails to take the shot. With the f/2.8 lens, if you're using the center point and if there's a feature with contrast in the correct orientation for the single high precision line's necessary orientation, you get more accurate AF. If you're using an off center AF point or if the feature under the center AF point has contrast orthogonal to the high precision line's necessary orientation, the f/2.8 lens behaves like an f/4 lens, using the f/5.6 cross to achieve focus. 

I suppose you could argue that there's a small time lag if the camera tries with the f/2.8 line, fails, then defaults to the f/5.6 cross and achieves AF, but 1) the lag is _very_ short (probably imperceptible), and 2) the only time a lag that short might matter is with a fast-moving subject, which makes that argument rather specious from the 6D standpoint (particularly considering your past statements on the 6D's utility for action shooting).

So, while it could be said that the f/2.8 lens on a 6D offers an AF benefit only in certain circumstances (reasonably common ones for most shooters, actually), I don't see when an f/4 lens is any better for AF (certainly not _much better_).


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, while it could be said that the f/2.8 lens on a 6D offers an AF benefit only in certain circumstances (reasonably common ones for most shooters, actually), I don't see when an f/4 lens is any better for AF (certainly not _much better_).



You're correct that f2.8 doesn't pose a liability on the 6d if shot @f4+ vs. a native f4 lens, that's why I'd get the Tamron f2.8 over the Canon f4 any day. I still don't quite know how often the +1ev af capability of f2.8 vs. f4 is really necessary, I guess it very much depends on personal circumstances.

What I originally intended to say, but failed to do  was that shooting with a f4 lens on the 6d gives you far less headaches and things to consider, and thus "works better" - that's from a naive usability, and not from a technical standpoint. So from Canon's point of view, packaging the 6d with a f4 lens or even designing one for it is a good business decision, avoiding "Um, 10/11 of my af points don't quite work as I'd expect" service inquiries.


----------



## pensive tomato (Dec 25, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> What I originally intended to say, but failed to do  was that shooting with a f4 lens on the 6d gives you far less headaches and things to consider, and thus "works better" - that's from a naive usability, and not from a technical standpoint. So from Canon's point of view, packaging the 6d with a f4 lens or even designing one for it is a good business decision, avoiding "Um, 10/11 of my af points don't quite work as I'd expect" service inquiries.



I wonder if regional distribution decisions play a bigger role in deciding which f/4 to bundle with the 6D. In the U.S., the 6D is still bundled with the 24-105mm; whereas now we see the 5D3 being offered with either of the f/4 lenses. I would figure that as market and inventory conditions allow, we'll see the newer 24-70mm f/4 being the lens of choice for bundles in the U.S. as well.

FWIW, I tested my 6D with the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, the 24-70mm f/4, and the f/2.8 Tamron when I bought my current f/2.8 copy. In my limited testing at the store, the f/2.8 had faster and very accurate AF with the 6D. Of course, that was by no means a thorough evaluation. Other with significant experience using both lenses with the same camera can elaborate further in this direction.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> ...avoiding "Um, 10/11 of my af points don't quite work as I'd expect" service inquiries.



Sorry, still not getting it...

Why would they get those complaints? 10/11 of the 6D's AF points are f/5.6 lines, which behave identically with every lens with a max aperture from f/1.0 to f/5.6. The only AF point on the 6D that behaves differently with an f/2.8 or faster vs. an f/4 or slower lens is the center point. Since that point defaults to the f/5.6 cross if the f/2.8 line can't achieve focus, I doubt anyone not well-versed in the technical details of AF systems would even notice.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would they get those complaints? 10/11 of the 6D's AF points are f/5.6 lines, which behave identically with every lens with a max aperture from f/1.0 to f/5.6.



... meaning you're getting worse results the faster your lens is. If you have a f4 lens, you won't notice the lack of precision say vs. the current Rebel/60d af systems, but with f2.8 you will. So I speculate that from Canon's point of view the ideal obfuscation of the mediocre af system is to let users shoot with f4 lenses, they even did the 6d samples with a 17-40L/4... the light loss is mostly compensated with the good iso capability of the 6d.



neuroanatomist said:


> Since that point defaults to the f/5.6 cross if the f/2.8 line can't achieve focus, I doubt anyone not well-versed in the technical details of AF systems would even notice.



This is indeed the matter of discussion, and I have to admit reading a lot of users' posts you seem to be correct, people don't notice. On the other hand shooting with my 100L/2.8 I find it very hard not to notice that the 6d lacks af precision on low-contrast surfaces, but of course it's mostly noticeable at 100% crop and it very much depends on what you're shooting.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 25, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > There is simply no better lens than the 24-70 II.
> ...



I agree IS is useful, though from my testing less so at wider angles. However, the gap between the 24-70 II and 24-105 IS is so huge... If they came out with a 24-70 II IS that would be a different story, but as of now you are better off with a 24-70 II and maybe a 35mm F/2 IS USM prime for the assignments that may call for IS. Plus the 35mm f/2 IS USM has a faster aperture than all three making it useful to have in general... Next year we will likely see the 50mm f/1.8 IS USM as well which would similarly compliment that 24-70 II depending if you prefer the 35 or 50 walkaround range.

One thing I noticed with IS that is interesting... Even with IS longer shutter speeds start to have a "mushy" look in my testing and often still end up blurry, even on the new 35mm w/ IS - a wide angle with latest generation IS. While it is true that without the IS it would likely be an unusable photo at slow shutter speeds, I seem to get better results with faster shutter speeds and pushing the levels up in POST. This may not apply to all situations, but seems to be something I run into a lot even with the latest implementations of IS.

So while 24-70 w/ IS would be ideal, I think 24-70 II is much better than the 24-105 despite lack of IS. The 105 focal length probably needs IS more because 1/60 would be tougher to handhold at that focal length without IS. (1/60 is generally as slow as I want to go if I want to be safe with an all around sharp picture due movement of tree leaves, people, etc.)

There is also the Tamron 24-70 VC, but I am not convinced with a pretty terrible QC issue lens rentals ran into with the 2nd lens element falling off. 24-70 II has its own issues with some experiencing a noisy zoom barrel, but having a lens element fall off is a pretty catastrophic failure. Also, the autofocus is not as snappy as on the Canon.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 25, 2013)

Ruined said:


> One thing I noticed with IS that is interesting... Even with IS longer shutter speeds start to have a "mushy" look in my testing and often still end up blurry, even on the new 35mm w/ IS - a wide angle with latest generation IS.



Indeed, this is exactly my experience - IS doesn't replace fast shutter speeds, if I want crisp images @100% crop from my 70-300L I shoot with 1/500+ ... but IS is nice to stabilize the frame and terrific for low light.



Ruined said:


> Also, the autofocus is not as snappy as on the Canon.



+1, this is the decisive difference and it's up to everyone to decide if this is "worth" double the price esp. on systems with a mediocre af like the 6d.



Ruined said:


> There is also the Tamron 24-70 VC, but I am not convinced with a pretty terrible QC issue lens rentals ran into with the 2nd lens element falling off. 24-70 II has its own issues with some experiencing a noisy zoom barrel, but having a lens element fall off is a pretty catastrophic failure.



I'm not a Tamron press spokesperson, but I cannot help but to quote what lensrentals actually writes: 



> _First and foremost, this is just a point of information - something worth knowing about if you own this lens or are considering buying it. The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is an excellent lens, but as with so many new products, early adopters are always serving the role of beta testers. *I wouldn’t be surprised if Tamron hasn’t already fixed the problem quietly, but just in case it happens to some of you, we thought it worth posting.*_


----------



## DaveMiko (Dec 25, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Maybe I'll even see a price drop or IS version while I wait.



If there is a 24-70 f2.8 II IS version in the making, it will probably cost in excess of 3500$ (my guess). So, there's no price drop here.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 26, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> If there is a 24-70 f2.8 II IS version in the making, it will probably cost in excess of 3500$ (my guess). So, there's no price drop here.


Likewise, not long after the 70-200 came out, they did similar rebates (got it down in the $1800 range), and then when Feb/March hit they went away. You had to wait a full year for those to come back. Waiting around for another $100 drop or so is likely gonna backfire. Cheapest prices are almost always Nov-Feb

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/02968/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f2.8L-IS-USM-II-price.html


----------



## sanj (Dec 26, 2013)

I have both lenses and find the 24-105 far more practical because of the zoom range and IS. If I had to pick one of the other I would have the 24-105 for sure. 
This is based on my thoughts that getting the picture is more important and the sharpness difference is not that much between the two lenses when it comes to real life photography. IMHO.


----------



## David Hull (Dec 26, 2013)

I have both and the 24-105 is the one I use the most. That extra reach comes in handy sometimes.


----------



## Ruined (Dec 26, 2013)

I owned both and sold the 24-105 because the quality gap was too far. I like to shoot without flash when possible and the f/4 of the 24-105 made it more difficult to get good pics. While the 24-105 is a great lens, since it was so similar to the 24-70 II that I liked better I sold it. While it is good to have backups, I generally use primes as my backup lenses. For zooms I have 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200.

And, I know this is subjective, but there is just something about the "look" of the 24-105 I did not like. I can't pinpoint what, but similar to the 17-55 IS I used to have on crop the pics coming out of the camera just did not quite look as natural as with other lenses I have.


----------



## Sanaraken (Dec 26, 2013)

I just got the 24-70mkii and sold my 24-105. Never really have a use for it. I like using prime and got the 24-70mk2. Thinking I would not need to use my prime lenses any more. I was right I havent use any of my primes. The 24-70 never leaves my camera, but lately Ive been disappointed on the AF on my 6D. While it was good using the center AF only and just started using the outer af as my baby starts to walk. I also get inconsistent focus on the center unless my subject is completely still. So I end up ordering the 5D mk3 and will be getting rid of the 6D. Hope its all worth it.


----------



## Ripley (Dec 26, 2013)

Sanaraken said:


> I just got the 24-70mkii and sold my 24-105. Never really have a use for it. I like using prime and got the 24-70mk2. Thinking I would not need to use my prime lenses any more. I was right I havent use any of my primes. The 24-70 never leaves my camera, but lately Ive been disappointed on the AF on my 6D. While it was good using the center AF only and just started using the outer af as my baby starts to walk. I also get inconsistent focus on the center unless my subject is completely still. So I end up ordering the 5D mk3 and will be getting rid of the 6D. Hope its all worth it.



I haven't used the 6D in the field, but coming from the 60D to the 5Diii I can tell you the difference is night and day. All of my autofocus complaints disappeared when I made the upgrade.

As far as the 24-70ii versus the 24-105, there's no comparison. I've owned several copies of the 24-105, one of which was very sharp. But I just got the 24-70ii and it's the clear winner in IQ and AF speed.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 26, 2013)

I owned a 24-105 for 18 months before buying a 24-70 II in July. I kept both lenses for several months and ended up selling my 24-105 in the fall. I found I always reached for the 24-70 for its sharpness and "look" of the pictures. The IQ of the 24-70 II is just much, much better.



Marsu42 said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > But, in addition to IQ, I wanted to add that the 24-70 II also has much faster AF, especially in low light, and I believe is focusing in much less light than the 24-105 on my 5DIII.
> ...



I don't agree. Auto focus with my 24-70 II on my 6D is super fast and accurate, even in very low light. I did some unscientific side-by-side IQ and auto focus comparisons with both lenses and felt the 24-70 II AF performed better.


----------



## Sanaraken (Dec 26, 2013)

Yes only accurate on the center AF just like I said. And thats about it. Its total crap using the outer AF specially in low light.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 27, 2013)

Sanaraken said:


> Yes only accurate on the center AF just like I said. And thats about it. Its total crap using the outer AF specially in low light.



I find the outer AF points to be usable in decent light. It's not a great AF system, but certainly good enough for my purposes and many others. If you need a better AF system than the 6D, Canon has some good options (1D series, 5D3, 70D).


----------



## Canon1 (Dec 27, 2013)

Update: Purchased a 24-70ii. Have used it for a couple weeks now. 

Here are my thoughts: ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Will be selling my 24-105....


----------



## Ripley (Jan 3, 2014)

Awesome, congrats on your new lens!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 3, 2014)

Sanaraken said:


> I just got the 24-70mkii and sold my 24-105. Never really have a use for it. I like using prime and got the 24-70mk2. Thinking I would not need to use my prime lenses any more. I was right I havent use any of my primes. The 24-70 never leaves my camera, but lately Ive been disappointed on the AF on my 6D. While it was good using the center AF only and just started using the outer af as my baby starts to walk. I also get inconsistent focus on the center unless my subject is completely still. So I end up ordering the 5D mk3 and will be getting rid of the 6D. Hope its all worth it.



I used to recompose my shots with 5D II(on/off focus results). Now with 5D III, I only use 41 combination of dual and cross AF points. Recompose shot is almost down to none. Nail it every times.

Once you shoot with 5D III, I don't think you want to shoot anything else - except 1D x ;D

To me, putting extra $1000ish to get much better AF system is worth every penny.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 3, 2014)

Canon1 said:


> Update: Purchased a 24-70ii. Have used it for a couple weeks now.
> 
> Here are my thoughts: ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
> 
> Will be selling my 24-105....



"Will be selling my 24-105...." ==> I'm not surprised at all :

Congrats...post some pics ;D


----------



## Northstar (Jan 3, 2014)

I've had my 24-70 for 6 months now....sold the 24-105. The 24-70 is much sharper, and the AF seems quicker.

Shot some basketball in pretty bad light recently.

6400 ISO
2.8
1/640

Sharp


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 3, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Sanaraken said:
> 
> 
> > I just got the 24-70mkii and sold my 24-105. Never really have a use for it. I like using prime and got the 24-70mk2. Thinking I would not need to use my prime lenses any more. I was right I havent use any of my primes. The 24-70 never leaves my camera, but lately Ive been disappointed on the AF on my 6D. While it was good using the center AF only and just started using the outer af as my baby starts to walk. I also get inconsistent focus on the center unless my subject is completely still. So I end up ordering the 5D mk3 and will be getting rid of the 6D. Hope its all worth it.
> ...




Interesting how experiences can vary. I sent the 5diii back with the feeling that there was no real life difference over my 5dii. After reviewing the results from an event I shot with both cameras I had no desire to upgrade at all. 
Yes, the focus of course is faster. But especially having all these extra AF points in the same confined area around the center provided no benefit in my book. If anything it slowed emu down having to scroll through too many of them. 
I'd like to see fewer AF points but further spread out across the screen. 

But then again I have a feeling that future models will have even more "features" that I have no use for.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 3, 2014)

7enderbender said:


> Interesting how experiences can vary. I sent the 5diii back with the feeling that there was no real life difference over my 5dii. After reviewing the results from an event I shot with both cameras I had no desire to upgrade at all.
> Yes, the focus of course is faster. But especially having all these extra AF points in the same confined area around the center provided no benefit in my book. If anything it slowed emu down having to scroll through too many of them.
> I'd like to see fewer AF points but further spread out across the screen.
> 
> But then again I have a feeling that future models will have even more "features" that I have no use for.



Yes, they will, and perhaps include sensors so overloaded with pixels as to be of little practical use for most people. And I agree with you about AF points. I added a 6D to my 5DII for the better image quality and then replaced my 5DII with a 5DIII mainly to be better able to avoid focus/recompose and there seems little doubt that, as dslr focusing experiences go, the 5DIII/1Dx are still the best (better, anyway, than the Nikon equivalents in my limited - rental - experience). But the focus points still take up a small portion of the screen. I've also bought an Olympus OM-D, whose focus points are almost edge-to-edge and which focuses very fast and accurately and, as I have little interest in photographing things that move, must say that from that point of view it beats any dslr I've used. (Such coverage may require the camera to be mirrorless, but it's obviously the case that not all mirrorless cameras are good at it; I've recently been trying a Fuji X-e1 which has worse coverage and shockingly inaccurate autofocus - except for fairly large things close-up I've given up and resorted to manual focusing instead.)

As for the two lenses, I'm sure the new 24-70 is sharper, and for all I know it does windows too. It's not for me, though, and I don't think it would be if it were half the price. Perhaps I'm weird, but I find the range limiting at both ends, prefer to have IS and while there are obviously types of photography where maximum sharpness is important, I seldom take photos myself where minor differences in sharpness matter (sure, I often look at photos I've taken with some lenses and say to myself "wow, that's sharp", but the nagging question "so what?" is never that far away). Maybe I have an unusually good copy of the 24-105, but on all three FF Canons I've owned the images it makes are sharp enough that I'm disinclined to complain and I've had no problems at all with either speed or accuracy focusing in very low light; even though I have much faster lenses, and even though it's certainly not my favorite lens, it's probably my go-to lens for wandering around town at night - like the Energizer Bunny it just works....


----------



## hksfrank (Jan 3, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Canon1 said:
> 
> 
> > Who here has upgraded from the 24-105 to the 24-70 ii? What are your thoughts and was it worth the change?
> ...


24 70 II are too good
i have 5D3 kit come with 24 105 and it not always sharp , i usually doing at F8 / F5.6 . for narrower DOF i have sigma 35 , sigma 50 ,canon 85L prime and a 70 200 2.8II . it is sad that my 24 105 was like T stop 5.6 , darker than i expected , overall going with F5.6 are quite good . also i have decent DOF by 105 @F4 which aperature was like 25mm same as 24 70 2.8 @70 2.8 . btw 105 i will have different view angle and for macro shot ,older 24 70 2.8 I blew me away while we both using F8 

24 105 are cheap now , get one and it is a good lens (only without fast aperture , muti-purpose lens )


----------



## fotonunta (Jul 18, 2014)

I just bought Canon 24-70 f2.8 II - and it's super sharp! Almost like my 70-200 L II.
_________________________________________________________________
Foto Nunta Brasov | Fotograf Nunta | Foto video nunta | Foto video Brasov


----------



## seamonster (Jul 18, 2014)

A lens that is 7 years newer and costs 3x as much should be superior in every way. 

24-105 is all the general purpose zoom I need. Don't forget the price of the 24-70 II (or 70-200 2.8 II for that matter) = a 24-105 + 70-200 f/4 IS + 85mm 1.8 and those are all rock solid lenses.


----------

