# Canon 25-105 L or 24-70 L ii for a landscape lens?



## Ryan85 (Jun 24, 2015)

I already have a 24-105 L, 16-35 f/4 L and 70-200 2.8 Is L ii for my landscape kit. I'm wondering if the 24-70 ii would be worth investing in at this point for landscape shoots considering the price and of it and needing to purchase 82mm filters if I get it. Any advice would be appreciated. 

Thank you, Ryan


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 24, 2015)

Not in my opinion. You'd be much better looking at a 24 TS-E MkII to bring something new to your kits capabilities.


----------



## dpc (Jun 24, 2015)

I think you've got reasonable coverage as it is. Buying a 24-70 would be redundant in my view. As previously indicated, a tilt-shift might be something to look at but I'd rent one before buying.


----------



## Pixel (Jun 24, 2015)

24-70 L II is one of the best lenses Canon has ever made. 
24-105 has considerable distortion issues at 24mm in my opinion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 24, 2015)

Pixel said:


> 24-70 L II is one of the best lenses Canon has ever made.
> 24-105 has considerable distortion issues at 24mm in my opinion.



No it isn't, well the three different copies I have tested weren't. At f5.6 and f8 my MkI is every but as sharp as the MkII, the 100L macro sharper, as is the 70-200 f2.8IS, and a whole host of other lenses.

Besides, at f5.6 and f8 there is so little to choose between them it as good as makes no difference. As for distortion, well that is so easily removed now, again, it is a non issue.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 24, 2015)

A couple of months ago I sold my 24-105 to help fund a 24-70 F2.8 V2.
Is it worth it? Yes. However the 24-70 V2 is much more expensive, has no IS (Yipee!) and needs new filters (as you have noted).
The 24-70 V2 is an upgrade but, at smaller apertures, not necessarily a huge one. I am pleased with my purchase and feel it was well worth the price. Others may pixel peep and state that there is not much difference at F8 or so - they may be right. However my landscape images are looking better and that's all I care about. Very non technical but images now look sharper and have more life and colour rendition is superb.

Incidentally a local professional photographer/friend gave my 24-70 F2.8 V2 a run against his Mk1 - he is not happy with me!


----------



## dpc (Jun 24, 2015)

If you decide you want a 24-70 (I'm assuming you'd sell or trade in the 24-105), you might want to consider the Tamron version or even the Tokina one that was just announced. The savings would be considerable. The Tamron has a good reputation. The Tokina is a question mark at this point since nobody has seen one, but my experience with Tokina has been good. It might be worth the wait to see how it shakes out.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 25, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> A couple of months ago I sold my 24-105 to help fund a 24-70 F2.8 V2.
> Is it worth it? Yes. However the 24-70 V2 is much more expensive, has no IS (Yipee!) and needs new filters (as you have noted).
> The 24-70 V2 is an upgrade but, at smaller apertures, not necessarily a huge one. I am pleased with my purchase and feel it was well worth the price. Others may pixel peep and state that there is not much difference at F8 or so - they may be right. However my landscape images are looking better and that's all I care about. Very non technical but images now look sharper and have more life and colour rendition is superb.
> 
> Incidentally a local professional photographer/friend gave my 24-70 F2.8 V2 a run against his Mk1 - he is not happy with me!



I have to agree with this. The 24-70 2.8II is much better than the 24-105. I own both and I'm trying to sell the 24-105 at the moment. Is it worth the extra money though? Only you can answer that. For most people I suspect the answer would be no. For me it was a big yes but then I'm using it at f2.8 quite often and not for landscapes as much.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 25, 2015)

benperrin said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of months ago I sold my 24-105 to help fund a 24-70 F2.8 V2.
> ...



The OP is specifically asking for landscapes, the f2.8 does nothing for him and all you guys saying there is a massive difference are simply not comparing realistic scenarios against each other. There is not a noticeable difference worth a damn between the 24-70 f2.8 MkII and the 24-105 at f8 at any focal length other than 24mm, but even that isn't huge. But as I already said, if 24mm is a primary shooting focal length then the 24TS-E will really open up some landscaping possibilities.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4


----------



## benperrin (Jun 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > I have to agree with this. The 24-70 2.8II is much better than the 24-105. I own both and I'm trying to sell the 24-105 at the moment. *Is it worth the extra money though? Only you can answer that. For most people I suspect the answer would be no. For me it was a big yes but then I'm using it at f2.8 quite often and not for landscapes as much.*
> ...



Read the last part of my statement again. I'm saying that I don't think the upgrade is worth it for most people and the biggest benefit is the f2.8 vs the f4 of the 24-105. I also stated that I didn't use it for landscapes very often.


----------



## gn100 (Jun 25, 2015)

What about 24-70f4??

Small, better than 24-105, has IS, and a macro mode. f2.8 is generally wasted when photographing lanscapes


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 25, 2015)

Most landscape shooters want depth of field, and shoot to f/22 in extreme cases. At f/22, almost any lens will work. In fact, at f/8 most lenses are pretty similar.

I'd probably avoid a expensive zoom and get a low cost prime like a 35mm f/2 IS.

But, you have lenses that are pretty good at landscape apertures so don't spend $$$ on improvements unless you have a reason to need wide apertures.


A tilt-Shift brings some unique perspectives for landscape photography, so check them out.


----------



## siegsAR (Jun 25, 2015)

The 24-70 f/2.8 or f/4 is really redundant Ryan. You can sell your 24-105 and fund a tilt-shift.

As for your middle focal lengths, the 40mm and/or 50mm STMs can be a very good in there, small, light, and also cheap. Not so easy with square filters though.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 25, 2015)

I agree with the advice to look into purchase of a 24mm tilt-shift. As others have pointed out, stopped down to apertures used for the vast majority of landscape photography, the difference between the 24-70/2.8 II and 24-105 is almost non existent. I sold my 24-105 two years ago to fund a 24-70/2.8 II and am happy I did. But, landscape use wasn't why I switched, I wanted a lower light lens that I could use for shooting the kids and family events. 

I use my 16-35/4 IS for the vast majority of my landscape work. I do shoot a few landscapes with my 24-70, it's very sharp and has low distortion at 24mm, but for your expressed usage I think you are fine with the lenses you have. I have a 24 TSE targeted as my next hardware acquisition. The movements of a TS lens make it possible to shoot at wider apertures and faster shutter speeds and still have a wide depth of field. This is very handy for situations where you need a faster shutter speed to freeze motion due to wind or other factors. 

As siegsAR pointed out, you might consider selling the 24-105 to help fund a TSE purchase if you are using it primarily for landscape. That said, the 24-105 is a terrific general purpose lens, so if you are using it as a walk-around or for other purposes, you may not want to do that.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 25, 2015)

Hi Ryan, 
hi to all! 

Ryan, if I understand you right you already have the 16-35 f/4 L *IS USM* so the latest WA zoom with IS and an outstanding performance for landscape, as far as I've read throughout all the review.

After going through all the posts here arguing pro and con the 24-70 L II I can only agree to those saying that if you don't need or want the F2.8 for low light purposes, meaning something else than landscape, you should put your money somewhere else, like the mentioned TSE option.

Of course the 24-70 L II is outstanding in IQ (and price).
Of course it is performing better than the 24-105L.
But you should ask yourself 
- do you need F2.8 in that range?
- do you need that better performance somewhere around F2.8 to 5.6? For landscape?
- or do you just need an argument to get it? (called GAS  )

If I personally had enough money, I'd buy the 24-70 L II, because I really like top notch optics.
But I don't feel limited by the performance of my 24-105L. 
And I like having the IS and I really want that extra 35 mm at the longer end. 

So for me the decission would be clear...


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 25, 2015)

I recall reading that Art Wolf carries the 24-105 for his landscapes in that focal length range. Have you seen any of his images?


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 25, 2015)

I prefer the 24-105 f4L *IS* for landscapes because of the IS and the extra range.

I have both lenses and the 24-70 II is my preferred short lens for events and sports. I typically carry two bodies, one with the 24-70 and the second with the 70-200 f2.8L II IS. The latter gets the most use.

I don't specialize in landscapes and may not fully appreciate all the subtleties of the art. Logically, it makes more sense to use the sharper 24-70 on a tripod. But, when I shoot landscapes, I'm typically vacationing with my family and time is a factor. I don't want to make the family wait while I set up a shot. I find that the 24-105 with IS to be very handy in these cases. If landscapes involve moving water (waterfalls or streams) then I prefer shooting with slower shutter speeds for some controlled blur. This is where the 24-105 shines.

My copy of the 24-105 is quite sharp, so I cant complain that it's not up to the task. I love the 24-70 for low light people shots where blur isn't desired. It is particularly bright for a 2.8 lens. But, I find the 24-105 to be more versatile when I'm shooting landscapes.


----------



## longtallkarl (Jun 25, 2015)

hi ryan,

i have the both the 24-105 and the 24-70 mkII, shoot a lot of landscapes, and make 20x30" prints. since i bought the 24-70, the 24-105 doesn't get a lot of use. the added sharpness is just too good for me to pass up. (for some reason, despite being a "landscape photographer" i rarely close down beyond f8, and am frequently at about 5.6) i also have the 17 and 24 ts-e's, which are really great tools for doing things that you can't do with other lenses, and are both super sharp. 

however, if i had your current kit (16-35 is, 24-105 is, 70-200 II is) and had the budget to add one lens, it would be the 24 tse. i wouldn't sell the 24-105 to get it, as that would leave a gap between 35 and 70. if you had to sell a lens to upgrade the kit, then i would sell the 24-105 and get the 24-70 mkII.

just my $.02

karl


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 25, 2015)

Depends on what you want to shoot. If you just want day time landscape, 24-105 is good enough when stopped down. But if you shoot night sky you will need 2.8. Sure, you could also get a prime like 24 1.4 or tilt shift, but I'd rather have something more versatile. For me, the 24-70ii does exactly what it's supposed to do--a bit of everything from landscape, portrait, low light events, etc at good enough quality. I bought it for versatility and convenience. If you only shoot daytime landscape, you need to consider more thoroughly before commiting to an expensive lens. Plus the long end at 100mm is incredibly useful for landscape.


----------



## D. (Jun 25, 2015)

I have both the 24-105 f4L and 24-70 II and have good copies of both lenses. For my lenses, from 2.8-5.6 the 24-70 II is clearly better, at f8 the 24-70 II is a tiny bit better (its often hard to see any difference after processing) and at f11 I can not discern any meaningful difference. In actual use, when shooting landscapes handheld, the most noticeable difference in image quality for me between the 2 lenses is that the AF seems a little more reliable on the 24-70 II and the IS on the 24-105 f4L helps prevent blur from camera shake. Since you already have the 16-35mm IS I wouldn't get the 24-70 II solely for your landscape use. That said, when Roger from Lens Rentals says the 24-70 II is the "is the best standard-range zoom ever made. By any manufacturer. Ever." and you shoot Canon, its hard not to buy it.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 25, 2015)

Analyze your focal length use. Could you get more use out of a fast 50mm prime? Or do you need a walkaround zoom more than a fast prime? This is assuming that you shoot more than landscape. The gap between 35mm and 70mm is nicely filled with a 50mm lens.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > johnf3f said:
> ...



To date I have only used my Canon 24-70 F2.8 V2 for landscapes, except for about 1 hour when I shot some portraits of a friend's toddler. I normally shoot at F8 or so unless there is a specific need and almost never more open than F5.6.
There are many links/posts etc etc (ad nauseum) that state there is no difference - so what? My images have taken a significant step up = me happy!
If you don't believe this then try one for yourself - don't read what "experts" say try it. If you have already tried one and cannot see any difference then I would (respectfully) suggest there is a problem somewhere.
Now whether the difference is worth the money is an entirely different question. To me it it certainly is, the OP may or may not agree but they have asked for opinions as to which of the 2 is better for landscapes and the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 most certainly is, the 24-70 F2.8 L Mk1 is also shaded by the V2 at all focal lengths and apertures according to my Pro Photographer friend who is currently saving for the V2. I shouldn't have let him borrow mine!


----------



## jd7 (Jun 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> gn100 said:
> 
> 
> > What about 24-70f4??
> ...



Perhaps, but as the 24-70s go, the 24-70/f4 actually does very well for distortion at 24 according to LensRentals ...
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests


----------



## Ryan85 (Jun 28, 2015)

Thank you all the advice


----------



## steliosk (Jul 28, 2015)

keep the 24-105

avoid using it at 24mm because it suffers from distortion.
However you have the 16-35 for the 24-35 range.

Your gap is between 35-70mm
Not a wise investment buying a 24-70 2.8 II for that gap

The 35-70 gap at f/8 f/10 is excellent with 24-105L and if you want to carry only one lens, the 24...somthing isn't wide enough for travel photography.

Use the 16-35 f/4 as primary landscape and travel lens which does the job, and everything else only when needed.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 28, 2015)

Just to confuse the conversation we deal with a number of the best professional landscape photographers in the UK and ALL those using Canon have one T/S lens and its the 17mm lens not the 24mm. Companies like Lee Filters do adaptor rings to filter the TS-E 17mm f4L (its front element protrudes) (the TS-E 24mm F3.5L uses regular wide angle adaptor rings). However logically the 24mm is a more manageable lens and cheaper.


----------



## ktrphoto (Aug 5, 2015)

Adding a 24-70 to your existing outfit would add little to its capabilities, but would add a lot to its weight (especially if you go for an f/2.8 version). It would also add to the headache of deciding what to carry and what to leave at home, every time you go out. Sometimes less choice is better for your photography. 

As for replacing your 24-105, that would be sensible only if you desperately needed the greater freedom from distortion (but for landscapes that is not the problem it would be if you were shooting (say) architecture), the Macro of the f/4 version or the greater action-stopping, background-blurring speed of the f/2.8 version.

Nevertheless, whatever Ken Rockwell might say (and he is no idiot, however much he might contradict himself, or change his mind, or rant about something, or hate Sigma for no good reason) a 24-70 is a very useful lens. 70mm and 24mm are hugely different angles of view. It is not always possible to "zoom with your feet" and in any case, doing that changes the perspective. Getting closer or further away with a 50mm lens does not give the same results as using a 24mm or a 70mm from the same spot.

When I returned to using Canon SLRs recently (after years of Leica rangefinders) I used only prime lenses (35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 macro). I quickly realised that a zoom would be more versatile and obtained a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. That is a wonderful lens, even if it gets a lot of bad press. It is light, focusses quickly and silently, covers a great range of focal lengths, and is almost as good in the corners as in the centre. It might not give the greatest resolution or sharpness, but if you focus properly and either keep the camera very still or use a very fast shutter, it can give terrific results.

Nevertheless I recently replaced it with the 24-70 f/4 IS USM Macro. I hardly miss the extra reach from 70-105. It is not so big a gap as it might seem. It is similar to going from 35mm to 50mm. The extra reach at the other end is useful, but by itself would not justify the change, especially as the new lens is not cheap, is much bulkier and not so nice to handle as the 28-105, and is getting on for twice the weight. It is a tiny bit sharper and resolves a tiny bit more detail, but that would not be worth the change either.

WHat makes it worth-while is the IS, which really does give the equivalent of 4 extra stops. For static subjects I can hand-hold it as effectively as an f/1.0 lens. The other great plus is the Macro mode. All over the web you'll see it criticised for not giving enough working distance. But if you are travelling relatively light then the ability to get excellent magnification (about 0.7x) with your main lens saves you from carrying a longer specialised macro lens.

There has been a lot of hand-wringing in this thread about covering all the focal lengths economically and practically. But you don't need to cover all the focal lengths. Recently I have travelled with just the 24-70 doing street and landscape photography and for those subjects I have never really needed anything longer. At first it felt odd, but I soon got used to it. I just concentrate on looking for good shots in the 24-70 range. If I really don't want to risk coming back without any images I'll slip a light backup SLR with the 50mm f/1.8 into the back pack.

And I get more good shots with just the one zoom than I ever got when I was younger and more foolish, and used to lug around a pair of film Nikons and 20mm, 35mm PC, 50mm, 105mm macro and 180mm f/2.8 lenses, or an even heavier set of zooms


----------



## RGF (Aug 8, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> A couple of months ago I sold my 24-105 to help fund a 24-70 F2.8 V2.
> Is it worth it? Yes. However the 24-70 V2 is much more expensive, has no IS (Yipee!) and needs new filters (as you have noted).
> The 24-70 V2 is an upgrade but, at smaller apertures, not necessarily a huge one. I am pleased with my purchase and feel it was well worth the price. Others may pixel peep and state that there is not much difference at F8 or so - they may be right. However my landscape images are looking better and that's all I care about. Very non technical but images now look sharper and have more life and colour rendition is superb.



+1

Have the 24-70 V2, sold the 24-105. Glad I did for serious work. For walking around I miss the 24-105. Lighter and greater.


----------

