# Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM vs Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM



## Isaac (Oct 21, 2011)

Which lens do you prefer and why?

*Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM *OR* Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM
*


----------



## JR (Oct 21, 2011)

I am not a big fan of zooms at thos focal lenght but would go for the 24-70 2.8 because of low light application - IS does nothing to stop subject motion ). If however your need are for travel and plan to make mostly outside picture the 24-105 might be better suited (lighter and longer focal lenght).


----------



## lukaszb (Oct 21, 2011)

Isaac said:


> Which lens do you prefer and why?
> 
> *Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM *OR* Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM
> *



Canon had QC issues with 24-70mm... My copy had that problem and ended up returning it and getting the 24-105. True that 24-105 is soft in the corners but this isn't an issue when you're doing small/medium prints. Maybe I had a bad copy of 24-70, but I didn't like what I saw so I changed lenses completely.


----------



## xiff (Oct 21, 2011)

I had 24-70 before and bought 5d2 + 24-105 as kit lens, what I found most interresting is that 24-105 is wider at 24 than the 24-70. For video I prefer 24-105 for the IS, but since I take pictures most of the time I ended up selling the 24-105. I really liked the 24-70 alot better and lucky me I got a good copy of the lens and not some crapola.


----------



## smirkypants (Oct 21, 2011)

This is just a terrible conundrum... you are faced with either f4 and stabilization or one stop better and none. Don't let the macho "I don't need stabilization" types kid you, in low light it helps a lot, and if you swing it around to get a quick shot, it helps tons. On my 7D I use the 2.8 17-55 with IS and I love it, but it won't fit on my 5D2.

Right now Canon forces us to choose amongst the lesser of evils.


----------



## zhap03 (Oct 21, 2011)

I have both of these lenses. Both are super amazing and tack sharp. My F2.8 needed calibration from Canon Canada but returned to me tack sharp. My F4 was incredibly sharp out of the box.

In short, for me:

F4 for travel and fun because it's relatively compact and light weight. IS is amazing too.

F2.8 for serious event work where portraits are required in low light.


----------



## niccyboy (Oct 22, 2011)

I have both.

24-105
I've had two 24-105's as I returned one, one was very soft, and the replacement is still pretty soft in the focus. But i know some people that have had razor sharp copies. I'm sure if i was patient enough to microadjust it It would be perfect. But I have been lazy and busy so i bought a 24-70 instead. 

The IS is a big plus, the side by side comparisons in video of with and without IS on Digital Rev's site are pretty interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-ARFgNCeAo

The reach of the 24-105 is also excellent, I really miss it when I'm shooting with the 24-70.

24-70
MY VERSION is razor sharp compared to my version of the 24-105.

The extra full stop of light really comes in handy. What you can do with a 2.8 compared with a 4 is great.

It doesn't have IS though and the zoom reach!


It is a tough call! I definitely recommend mounting the actual lens you are buying ON the camera you are shooting on. Just to make sure your version is tack sharp. I didn't and i regret it!


----------



## thejoyofsobe (Oct 22, 2011)

if i did much low-light event photography the 24-70mm would be it. but as I don't and have a 50mm f/1.4 for those rare occasions when i need something like that, the 24-105mm wins it for me with its versatility. it is lighter, more compact, reaches further, is sharper and has IS for handheld video and dragging the shutter. it's even decent for close-up portraits as i can get more background blur at f/4 on its long end than I can with the 24-70mm at any focal length.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2011)

thejoyofsobe said:


> i can get more background blur at f/4 on its long end than I can with the 24-70mm at any focal length.



Then you need to get closer with the 24-70mm. From a practical standpoint, aperture determines DoF. While you certainly can get decent OOF blur with the 24-105mm, if you frame shots with both lenses the same, you'll have more background blur with the f/2.8 lens.


----------



## CHL (Oct 22, 2011)

I bought the 24-70 for my 40D but I have just recently in addition also bought a 5DMK2 kit with the 24-105. I am now trying to find out for myself which of the two lenses to keep (no - I will not keep both. There are other lenses on the wish-list) and both are sharp. I am leaning towards keeping the 24-105 for it's IMO greater versatility and it is great on the 5D. The 24-70 is also a bit heavy and I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS so I think I carry enough anyway


----------



## smithy (Oct 22, 2011)

CHL said:


> I bought the 24-70 for my 40D but I have just recently in addition also bought a 5DMK2 kit with the 24-105. I am now trying to find out for myself which of the two lenses to keep (no - I will not keep both. There are other lenses on the wish-list) and both are sharp. I am leaning towards keeping the 24-105 for it's IMO greater versatility and it is great on the 5D. The 24-70 is also a bit heavy and I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS so I think I carry enough anyway



...And with the 5D's great low light performance, you can just change the ISO up a couple of stops and then F4 doesn't matter any more. Except for bokeh of course.

The 24-70mm is indeed a very heavy lens. Most of the time I use mine on a 1V body, which in itself is extremely heavy, so the combination is a real neck breaker. Because of this I generally carry the combo in my hand. For me, the weight is worth it, especially once I start developing the film and see the results!


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 22, 2011)

Isaac said:


> Which lens do you prefer and why?
> 
> *Canon 24/105mm f/4L IS USM *OR* Canon 24/70mm f/2.8L USM
> *



Oh well. I actually voted for the 24-70 though I actually own the 24-105. I have it because it was a great deal with my 5DII. It's very good. It's versatile. It makes for a great lens when traveling. I like the long end of it. I think the 24-70 is better for two reasons: f/2.8 for shallower DOF and the fact that it does NOT have IS. IS is a useless gadget and turned off 99% of the time because I don't trust anything that moves around things in the optical axis. It'll break one day and things will be out of whack. On the other hand zooms and AF lenses don't last forever anyway. So maybe it's a mute point. And zooms have always been the weakest link even before AF and IS and all that.

I'm still torn if it's worth adding the 24-70 one day, trading in the 24-105 or if I should rather invest that money into other primes first.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2011)

Wow, I didn't know IS was useless. Thanks for telling me, I'll be sure to leave it turned off from now on. Gee, I guess I was a fool for paying extra for the IS versions of the 100mm Macro and the 70-200mm f/2.8.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 22, 2011)

If background blur is needed the the 135F2 is a good way to go ....


----------



## pwp (Oct 23, 2011)

I had three 24-70's and they all had QC issues that made them unusable for serious professional work. All eBay'ed or traded in. Out of desperation I bought a pre-owned 24-105 just to see me through until the 24-70 MkII eventually gets released. 

But guess what? The 24-105 is a cracker of a lens. My copy is pin sharp wide open. My main gripe is the very shallow hood. It's the same hood as the 17-40 f/4.

I shoot with 1D MkIV bodies and with the amazingly clean files I'm getting at higher ISO's, having an f/4 lens is definitely not the issue it once was. This factor will gain even more traction when the X body ships. Not only will it deliver even cleaner at high ISO's, the AF at f/4 will be more efficient than with the MkIV.

All the same, when the new 24-70 f/2.8 ships, I'll probably get one, but the 24-105 is a keeper.

Conversations with other photographers point to a general dislike of the QC of the 24-70 f/2.8, though there are indications that the later builds have overcome the QC issues. So if you do go for a 24-70 f/2.8, don't get a second hand one that may be offloaded because of QC issues or may be an early build, get a brand new one.

Paul Wright


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 23, 2011)

pwp said:


> My main gripe is the very shallow hood. It's the same hood as the 17-40 f/4.



Paul, you say you got the 24-104mm used - it's possible you were sold the wrong hood. The 24-105mm uses the EW-83H, which is certainly shallow relative to the 24-70mm's hood (because of the latter's reverse-zoom design), but it's still deeper than the EW-83E that comes with the 17-40mm. The EW-83E for the 17-40mm is also the specified hood for the 16-35mm f/2.8L MkI and the EF-S 10-22mm. The letter on the end denotes a different shape, but any EW-83 hood can physically mount on any lens that takes an EW-83 hood. But, if it's too deep for the lens it will cause vignetting, and if it's too shallow, it won't offer as much flare protection (or physical protection).

The letters I am familiar with (because I have or had them) are the -E for the UWA zooms (the shallowest), the somewhat deeper -H for the 24-105mm, and the even deeper -J for the EF-S 17-55mm (which is sometimes used with the 24-105mm on APS-C bodies for better flare protection). A quick check shows that the 24-70mm, 28-300mm, 24/1.4 II, and some older lenses also use EW-83 hoods with various letter suffixes and shaped optimized to those lenses. 

Bottom line, Paul, check your hood - if it's the EW-83E then it's too shallow for your 24-105mm, and you might want to get the correct EW-83H. 

Hope that helps...


----------



## ianhar (Oct 23, 2011)

For photos mainly i will prefer 24-70 due to the apperture but for video i would prefer 24-105 since i will have more versality on zoom. 

But since i have move to prime few months back my prefered lense would be my combination of 35,50,135 and sometimes 70-200 

You cant defined any lens to be better than the other one. If one lens is better than the other one i dont think canon would produce it anymore. Just my 2cent


----------



## willrobb (Oct 23, 2011)

I have used the 24-70mm f2.8L almost daily for three years and I think it is one of the best all round canon zoom lenses, I've used it for portraits, landscapes, weddings, events and even some product shoots. It's great for low light shooting and if you are relying on a lens for work, I would say the 24-70mm, if it's more for fun some of my friends with the 24-105 are very happy with their results, with the exception of low light shots.


----------



## Isaac (Nov 1, 2011)

It's really a tough decision as both lenses have sold so well. It seems that Canon placed the 24/105mm in the lens kit and therefore it would be more of a "general purpose" lens. Also the 70mm vs 105mm gives it (24/105mm) more versatility.

Based on feedback. People have had problems with the 24/70mm (quality). The 24/105mm has had a higher rate of success regarding it being "an out the box working lens".


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 1, 2011)

I use the 24-105 on the 5DII. Makes a good urban landscape/street lens. When shut down to f/5.6 to f/11 the IQ is very good. Quite a discrete lens - doesn't shout pro in the street.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 1, 2011)

This conversations and comparison has been beaten to death as much as the 7D/5D conversation has if not more... 2 trains of thought... first, people say if you need 2.8, the 24-105 just cant do that and IS wont freeze motion... then again 2.8 to 4 is only 1 stop and wont really freeze motion any more than f4 UNLESS f4 is really on the cusp and you need 2.8 to get that extra little bit... Secondly, 2.8, especially on full frame cameras is still razor thin, especially on the long end, so yeah you can freeze (maybe) people dancing at a reception but you have difficulties getting the eyes in focus due to the low light and constant motion... Is the 2.8 really an advantage then? I've tested samples of both lenses in my studio for a good week... IQ between the two are negligible and dont forget extra heft and bulk... To be fair, I really dislike how both lenses extend when zooming... I prefer internal zooming when possible... and at least the 24-70 hood protects the lens when zooming, but then you get the reverse zoom which isn't for me either... To me I compromised and got the 24-105 as it's the lesser of two evils and i'm not afraid of using flash to get more light.


----------



## WTW (Nov 5, 2011)

24-70 for SURE 8) Worked with a 24-105 to shoot big groups but the 24-70 is much sharper in the corners and in tha middle.


----------



## Flake (Nov 5, 2011)

I've had both of these lenses at the same time, and for me the 24 - 70mm L just can't manage with the low light levels we have here. People will say open it up to f/2.8, but that's no use when you need depth of field, the IS on the 24 - 105mm is a life saver, with keepers possible as slow as 1/6th sec. It's lighter cheaper and smaller than the 24 - 70mm, plus that extra 35mm of zoom. In addition the 24 - 70mm L suffers from poor QC and has field curvature issues. In terms of low light it's only one Iso stop difference, most times there isn't quick movement in dark places so it's not an issue, and if it was I'd be using a prime instead.

For me the 24 - 105mm f/4 L IS is capable of easily producing commercially acceptable images & why does anyone need more than that? The funny thing is that many people who claim they need the very best equipment have no idea how to inspect their images for technical errors! If you really do believe you need the ultimate in IQ production perhaps you shouldn't be shooting with Canon?


----------



## Eagle Eye (Nov 6, 2011)

Had both, sold the 24-70mm. I just wasn't using it. If I wanted a fast aperture, I wanted faster than f/2.8 and would go to a prime. In short, if I was using a zoom, it was the 24-105. More reach, lighter, IS, less expensive. With the money you save, buy an inexpensive prime for low light.


----------



## DavidM (Nov 14, 2011)

24/105mm f/4 IS - is more of a rock solid lens with less QC issues.


----------



## JR (Nov 14, 2011)

I had both zoom lens for a while. I am only a sample of 1 (!) but for me the 24-70mm f2.8L was much sharper. I love the idea of the 24-105 with IS, but at f4 it was simply not fast enought to stop the action of my baby girl for inside picture. I may also have gotten a bad copy of the 24-105 because 90% of my shot were not sharp at all. Judging by all the positive comments on the 24-105, I must have had a bad copy.

Again just a sample of one...


----------



## savale (Nov 15, 2011)

as portret photographer I owned the canon 24-70 2.8 for a while, but I always ended up using my 35/50/85 primes. Mainly because at 2.8 a prime outperforms this zoom so easy. The optical zoom range is a bit limited too. I might want to buy a 24-105 one day just because it have IS, which helps a lot for portret I think.
My wish: 50 or 85 primes with IS <3


----------

