# 24-105L or 24-70L (F4 or F2.8)?



## dw2013 (Sep 27, 2013)

Hi,

I own a 6D, 70 - 200 F4 L IS, and have recently been using a borrowed 24 - 105 F4 L. Previously I was considering upgrading the 70 - 200 F4 L to the F2.8 II version, but ready responses and other threads I am happy with the F4 IS.

Now is the time to actually purchase a 'walkaround' lens, as I need to give the borrowed lens back...therefore I would like your thoughts. Portrait & Travel are probably the key requirements for me. Choices (plus any other you come up with):

- 24 - 105 F4 L
- 24 - 70 F4 L IS
- 24 - 70 F2.8 (non IS)

Where will I see the the best in terms of image quality? Is the F2.8 II worth the difference in price considering it is not IS? Will I (purely as a photographic enthuasiast) see a significant difference in image quality between the 3 lenses? I have a bonus due, so the F2.8 is financial viable...

Thanks for your help!

Dave


----------



## luciolepri (Sep 27, 2013)

The 24-70/4, to me, is a completely pointless lens. It has a slightly better IQ than the 24-105/4 at 24mm, a shorter MFD and smaller and lighter body. If those things are not crucial for you, I wouldn't bother considering it.

The 24-70/2.8 II is obviously, as its price yells, the "best" lens of the group. but it lacks the IS and the extra reach of the 24-105/4, so, if those two things are essential for you, you have your answer.

Otherwise, the 24-70/2.8 II is definitely the lens to go for, if you can afford it. And probably you won't miss the 70-105 range of the 24-105, once you'll see what the 24-70/2,8 II is capable of, already WO.

*BUT*, if you already shot with the 24-105 and you were satisfied with its quality, you already found your "walkaround" lens for a very good price...


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 27, 2013)

I know, for many, this is a well worn topic, but, right now, it's a hot one for me. I've been waiting patiently, stubbornly for a new rebate on the 24-70mm 2.8 II, but the longer I've used my 24-105 in combination with a 70-200mm for events, or my 85mm 1.8 and 135mm 2.0 for portaits, the less I think I really need to spend so much on what I do believe to be a wonderful zoom lens.

See, I have a 9 year old 24-70mm which I no longer can depend on. Had it serviced, it was great, then my wife dropped it, had it serviced again, now it's sub-par. I don't want to spend more repairing it.

I guess if I have a string of low-light events, I'll start craving the 2.8 again, but for outdoor stuff, like tomorrow's big charity walk and celebration, my 24-105 is perfect for candids and informal portraits. For very large (60 people +) group shots, I usually switch to my old 16-35, not only to include everybody, but to avoid the distortion at 24mm on the 24-105mm (which makes people on the edges of the group look fat!).

(And on the other hand, in low light, I do have my nifty fifty 1.4.)

In a nutshell, what I don't like about the 24-105: 1) bad distortion for group shots or when vertical structures are included in my frame, 2) the bokeh can be granular, busy from f/4-f/5.6, especially when leafy branches are in the background. And 3), of course, f/4 can feel like a limitation too.

What I do love about the 24-105mm is the generally excellent sharpness and contrast. The IS is great on mine, which helps account for the sharpness. The range of focal length is fantastic for most situations at most events I do. And it works great for nature hikes too, as the quasi-macro is ok in a pinch, the range is right for good landscapes, and it's light. Bird photographer Arthur Morris says it's his go-to lens when he doesn't have something massive on his 1DX.

I don't know. For mostly people shots, am I really going to be needing the range of 24-70 now? In my opinion, for closer portaits and candids, anything 50mm or lower starts showing distortion on the 24-105, but I hear it is better controlled on the 24-70mm.

I've been assisting several great portrait photographers, top PPA award recipients, and they either use primes or go 24-105 and 70-200mm.

For those NOT weary of this discussion, any input would be great. Thanks, dw2013, for daring to bring this up again!

luciolepri: good insights, thanks!


----------



## dw2013 (Sep 27, 2013)

So, if this subject has already been talked to death I apologise.

A new member to these forums, so I will also look at previous threads.

luciolepri and YuengLinger thanks for your input!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2013)

The IQ of the 24-70/2.8 II is substantially better than the f/4 lenses, and between the two f/4 lenses, the IQ is a wash (better for each at different parts of the zoom range). The 24-70/4 IS is the smallest/lightest of the bunch. 

You mention portrait and travel as primary uses. For portraits, the wider aperture of the 24-70/2.8 II is a big advantage (harder to get good subject isolation at f/4, although the 24-105 is great for studio portraits where you have control over the background and lighting and are stopped down). 

As for travel, it depends on what you shoot. Although IS does not really help in this focal range if people are your subjects, it is quite beneficial if you are shooting static scenes in low light without a tripod.

Personally, after getting the 24-70/2.8L II, I soon sold my 24-105/4L...I have no regrets about doing so.


----------



## vanshyosaka (Sep 27, 2013)

I am also suffering from the same situation, I really need the IS (i am a coffee addict) and i also want to upgrade my camera for FF one. right now the 5d mark III with 24-105mm is my best choice.

if you really care about IS, I think you should drop the 24-70 2.8L II from your list since there is a rumor of a new version of it with IS.

for me if i did not get the 24-105mm from a camera kit (which is a lot cheaper) i dunno,,, i am not sure i am gonna buy it separately but this is my opinion.

since you have a 6D which is a new camera in the market, i guess your best choice is to get the 24-105mm.

good luck!


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 27, 2013)

This side of the 24-70 f2.8 II the zoom with the best image quality is the 24-70 f4 IS. It is a stellar lens with one big problem: the price of the 24-105, and that lens prolific appearance used where it is cheap and still rapidly depreciating.

At Building Panoramics we have both lenses, so can compare them back-to-back. IMO the 24-70 f4 is better than the reviewers so far have given it credit for. I see this as a similar thing to when the 70-300 L was introduced. There were howls of derision from those looking at the specs and the MTF charts, saying it was little better than the non L, but now it is recognised for what it is; a truly great lens. 

The 24-105 however does seem to suffer from massive copy variation, so if you decide to get one of those it is worth checking it critically upon receipt.


----------



## dw2013 (Sep 27, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> This side of the 24-70 f2.8 II the zoom with the best image quality is the 24-70 f4 IS. It is a stellar lens with one big problem: the price of the 24-105, and that lens prolific appearance used where it is cheap and still rapidly depreciating.
> 
> At Building Panoramics we have both lenses, so can compare them back-to-back. IMO the 24-70 f4 is better than the reviewers so far have given it credit for. I see this as a similar thing to when the 70-300 L was introduced. There were howls of derision from those looking at the specs and the MTF charts, saying it was little better than the non L, but now it is recognised for what it is; a truly great lens.
> 
> The 24-105 however does seem to suffer from massive copy variation, so if you decide to get one of those it is worth checking it critically upon receipt.



How would you go about testing to check whether you have a good quality lens or not? The 24-105 I have borrowed does not at times seem to always give super sharp images. I thought this was probably due to user error, however maybe this is why they have offered to sell the lens to me at a favourable price....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 27, 2013)

vanshyosaka said:


> if you really care about IS, I think you should drop the 24-70 2.8L II from your list since *there is a rumor of a new version of it with IS.*



Yeah, right. There's been a rumor of that for at least 5 years, just like the rumored new version of the 100-400L. You can hold your breath waiting for the rumored lenses if you want, but I really don't recommend it.


----------



## luciolepri (Sep 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> vanshyosaka said:
> 
> 
> > if you really care about IS, I think you should drop the 24-70 2.8L II from your list since *there is a rumor of a new version of it with IS.*
> ...



Unfortunately, I have to agree with neuroanatonomist on that.
And looking at the price of the 24-70/2.8 II, I'm quite afraid to discover how much would be a 24-70/2.8 IS, if they want to make it an "L" lens with the same IQ...


----------



## Eldar (Sep 27, 2013)

The good motives are passing by today ... I am waiting for the megapixle, ultra DR, mega fps new body and the super sharp, no vignetting, no ... fault lens(es), but I will not let that get in the way of what i should do today.

This choice discussion has been debated to death ... several times. The 24-70 2.8L II is the superior lens. The 24-105 is still a great lens (if you stop it down just a little bit) and, if you are shooting dead things, you will benefit from IS. I have not missed IS on the 24-70 one single time. I thought I would miss the 70-105 range, but I havn´t. So IMHO, if you have the money, buy the 24-70, if not, you can live happily with the 24-105.


----------



## Pi (Sep 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> You mention portrait and travel as primary uses. For portraits, the wider aperture of the 24-70/2.8 II is a big advantage (harder to get good subject isolation at f/4, although the 24-105 is great for studio portraits where you have control over the background and lighting and are stopped down).



Actually, the physical aperture of the 24-105 is slightly larger than that of the 24-70/2.8, so with good framing, the 24-105 at 105mm would take (and does take) portraits with good isolation. With busy background very close, f/2.8 is better.

To the OP - I would only consider the 24-105 and the 24-70II. It is IS and slightly more reach vs. speed and slightly better IQ. The weakest spot of the 24-105 is at 24mm near the borders, where the 24-70II shines (well, aside from reported field curvature when focused far). The IS is very effective.


----------



## ablearcher (Sep 27, 2013)

For "portraits and travel" I would simply change your lens setup by selling 70-200/4 and getting 70-200/2.8IS and adding to it 24-105 which can be found these days brand new for a crazy price since so many of them on the market being sold as kit lenses. In terms of $$ you will be in a better situation than just purchasing a new 24-70/2.8. In terms of travel you will have a better walkaround range 24-105 for travel and a great 70-200/2.8 portrait zoom lens which is the best zoom in this focal length (lets face it - 24-70 is not the most preferred portrait focal length out there). With time, for travel I would add a 35L or a Sigma to your travel kit and then you're golden. But if you do travel shooting as a pro and you are OK with spending almost 3 times more for 24-70 with a better IQ then yeah that might be a better option. I'm not sure how often you will be using 2.8 for travel though. I guess it depends on what exactly you're shooting while travelling.


----------



## vanshyosaka (Sep 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, right. There's been a rumor of that for at least 5 years, just like the rumored new version of the 100-400L. You can hold your breath waiting for the rumored lenses if you want, but I really don't recommend it.



you are right, but i did not tell him to wait. The rumor could help him to choose that's it.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 27, 2013)

dw2013 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105 however does seem to suffer from massive copy variation, so if you decide to get one of those it is worth checking it critically upon receipt.
> ...



The most common fault seems to be de-centring, so check for uniformity on either side of the frame. However don't expect any 24-105 to be as sharp as your 70-200 f4 IS at 70-105 !


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 27, 2013)

"This choice discussion has been debated to death ... several times. "

Then why bother participating in this particular thread? There is a time to be shooting, and there is a time to be shopping. 

Furthermore, even those who have expressed opinions in the past gain new insights after time passes. And I notice members with THOUSANDS of posts are not complaining about the topic...

Personally, I appreciate the topic and the generous, thoughtful replies.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 27, 2013)

YuengLinger said:


> "This choice discussion has been debated to death ... several times. "


No worries. My only point was that there are lots of threads going over this subject, some of them quite new. You can read lots of interesting views on these two (excellent) lenses and also speculations on when a 24-70 f2.8L IS will come out. 

My point on that was that instead of waiting, most likely, a long time for the next better and greater, you should look at what's available and enjoy that. 

Have a good weekend, I still have some wine left


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 27, 2013)

dw2013 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I own a 6D, 70 - 200 F4 L IS, and have recently been using a borrowed 24 - 105 F4 L. Previously I was considering upgrading the 70 - 200 F4 L to the F2.8 II version, but ready responses and other threads I am happy with the F4 IS.
> 
> ...



24-70 II has the best IQ so long as you are not in a scenario where you need IS, it also has the best AF, it can legit take on primes such as the 24 1.4 II

24-105 has the worst image quality (other than the IS scenario), it can be had very (relatively) very little these days, I tried them a few times and got rid of each within a week, not bad IQ for a regular lens but a bit weak for an L, especially at the price it used to go for.

24-70 f/4 IS has much better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105L, it is very pricey unless you wait for one of the $1000 for it deals, it is the smallest and lightest of them all and also has some macro ability

haven't tried the tamron 24-70 vc but it might be good


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 27, 2013)

luciolepri said:


> The 24-70/4, to me, is a completely pointless lens. It has a slightly better IQ than the 24-105/4 at 24mm, a shorter MFD and smaller and lighter body. If those things are not crucial for you, I wouldn't bother considering it.



more like MUCH better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105, not just for sharpness but also in terms of fighting off nasty purple fringing
(but yeah the 24-70 II is even better still, other than for macro or when you need IS)


----------



## Pi (Sep 27, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 24-70 f/4 IS has much better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105L [...]



... and much worse at 50mm.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 28, 2013)

Pi said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > 24-70 f/4 IS has much better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105L [...]
> ...



but only right near 50mm which isn't much of the range (and, IMO, 50mm is just about the most boring part of the range on FF anyway) and even then it's not really worse in the center and you can always get amazing 50mm from a $100, light little 50mm 1.8 if you need it and a zoom doing well at 50mm isn't that much of a revelation, while ones doing that at the wider end on FF are.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 28, 2013)

Pi said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > 24-70 f/4 IS has much better image quality at 24mm than the 24-105L [...]
> ...



You clearly do not own or use a 24-70 f4 IS, and are making that statement from one on line review of the lens. At Building Panoramics we now have two of them, and I can assure you that it's 'IQ' is superior to the 24-105 across the range. 

Whether that improvement is worth the much higher price that you have to pay is up to the individual who has to stump up the cash.


----------



## Pi (Sep 28, 2013)

Sporgon said:


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



Too be more precise, 4 online tests: 3 copies on TDP and one on DXOmark.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2013)

Sporgon said:


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



The 24-70/4L IS does seem to have a blip in its sharpness performance right at 50mm, based on online tests of multiple copies. But it's _right at_ 50mm. The 24-70/4 tests better than the 24-105 at 40mm (PZ) and 70mm. It's worth noting that the 24-105L has a similar 'blip' at ~85mm. 

Regardless, most shots with zooms are at the ends (whatever FL they are) for typical users, the 24-70/4 would deliver generally better IQ for most.


----------



## Pi (Sep 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 24-70/4L IS does seem to have a blip in its sharpness performance right at 50mm, based on online tests of multiple copies. But it's _right at_ 50mm. The 24-70/4 tests better than the 24-105 at 40mm (PZ) and 70mm.



TDP shows slightly worse performance at 35mm as well, on all of the three copies tested, but not as bad as at 50mm. I am too lazy to go to DXO right now but I think they did not show much of a difference. I consider the 35-50mm range to be quite a "blip" for a zoom which is newer, costs more, has a smaller range, and is supposed to have "much better IQ" than the 24-105. 

BTW, PZ also found a significant focus shift on the two copies they tested.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 28, 2013)

And summing up, all three lenses, plus the not released 2.8 IS, have their supporters. The 2.8L has the best IQ, but no IS. The 24-105 is very versatile, some sharpness issues ++ and the 24-70 f4IS is compact, good macro etc. The point is, which has been extencivly debated, is that, provided you learn the weak spots of these three lenses, you can live happily with all three. 
Now I'm going back to my Brunello. Have a good one


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



With the odd exception, all our panos are shot in portrait format with a focal length between 35mm and 60mm, so we don't fit into that trend. Some time ago in another thread I did post some 100% crop samples of the 24-70 f4 @50mm against the 50mm f1.4, but I can't find the thread to post a link.

However here is a link form Lens Rentals where Roger tests the 24-70 f4, at 24 & 70 mm and then later at 50mm after suggestions that is was poorer at this focal length.


http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

He found that it was indeed lower than its optimum, but the figures he produced showed it to be still slightly better ( splitting hairs ) than the 24-105 @70mm - which he stated was the 'sweet spot' of the 24-105 - which is also reflected in some of TDP tests, and therefore better than the 24-105 @50mm.

When the 70-300L was introduced TDP's resolution crops showed it to be clearly inferior to the 70-200 f4 IS @ 70mm, and it has taken 3 years before enough people have used the lens and can report it is just as good as the 70-200 f4 IS at that focal length. I have not heard one report from someone who has both lenses saying that the 70-300 is inferior. 

I think that TDP is a very useful resource but those early tests were misleading. It may be down to the sheer amount of copy variation, something that is unacceptable, and I can only assume that Canon have found that most people don't notice, so they don't alter the QC in the production of these units due to the very high cost of reducing tolerances. 

We may be seeing a similar thing with the 24-70 f4. When Lens Rentals took one to pieces they said something along the lines of ' being alarmed at the amount of adjustments on elements compared to other lenses'. The link is below:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f4-is

All I can say is that at Building Panoramics we were pleased enough with the first 24-70 f4 to get another one to replace our last 24-105. Our man in the States has replaced his Tamron 24-70 f2.8 vs tdi what-ever with the Canon 24-70 f4 too.


----------



## Pi (Sep 29, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> [...] the 24-105 @70mm - which he stated was the 'sweet spot' of the 24-105 - which is also reflected in some of TDP tests, [...]



Not in this one:

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

nor in this one:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

... and those are the only two tests of the 24-105 on TDP. In fact, 70mm there takes the 5rd place (in the center) among the six tested FLs, not so sweet.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 29, 2013)

Pi said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > [...] the 24-105 @70mm - which he stated was the 'sweet spot' of the 24-105 - which is also reflected in some of TDP tests, [...]
> ...



Better tell Roger. I'd like to say you keep basing your argument on internet resolution charts and I'll base mine on practical use of the product. However in quoting TDP you are being selective with the information. For instance lens '1' of the 24-70 L IS is clearly better mid frame than the 24-105 @ 50mm f5.6 and f8. Lens '2' is better in the corners at f5.6. Once you move from f4 they are similar in the centre, but the 3 copies do show obvious differences between each other in different parts of the frame. As I have said before I think this is really unacceptable for a lens that is supposed to be high quality. 

I have to say that all three copies of the 24-105 that I have used over the years have never been as good in the centre wide open @50mm as the TDP crop, based on TDP crop of the 50mm f1.4 @f4 as a yardstick. The 50mms that I have used have always been clearly better than the 24-105 both at f4, so TDP seems to have had a very good copy there. 

The fact is your comment: ' and much worse at 50mm' is misleading and not fully accurate, even based on the TDP crops. You should consider a career in politics. 

Anyway here's a picture I shot yesterday evening. The symbolic finger of the power station chimney is not an accident.


----------



## Pi (Sep 29, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Better tell Roger. I'd like to say you keep basing your argument on internet resolution charts and I'll base mine on practical use of the product.



Huh? I do own the 24-105. Its sweet spot *is not* at 70mm.



> However in quoting TDP you are being selective with the information. For instance lens '1' of the 24-70 L IS is clearly better mid frame than the 24-105 @ 50mm f5.6 and f8.



No, it is not: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

It is worse even at f/11, which is quite an achievement:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=4&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4



> The fact is your comment: ' and much worse at 50mm' is misleading and not fully accurate, even based on the TDP crops. You should consider a career in politics.



Tell me how it worked for you.



> Anyway here's a picture I shot yesterday evening. The symbolic finger of the power station chimney is not an accident.



That made you a winner.


----------



## Holly (Oct 2, 2013)

Ah, I've been in this very conundrum. I also own a 6D. I needed a general zoom for weddings, and both these lenses would have done the job. But what made the decision for me was the 2.8. If you'll be using your zoom in low light, then I'd assume you'd want the extra speed. If not, then by all means go for the 4. It'll save you some money!


----------



## eml58 (Oct 2, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Anyway here's a picture I shot yesterday evening. The symbolic finger of the power station chimney is not an accident.



I spent 16 Years in the Australian SAS (a looooong time ago), 10% of our Guys were Scotsmen on loan from the British SAS, I learnt very early on they always have the last say and were impossible to beat in an argument, about anything, but especially about drinking and fighting.

I'm still laughing about the "Symbolic Finger" thing.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 2, 2013)

Real world. Earlier I posted in this thread, praising the 24-105mm's use in daytime event photography. I stand by that--for sunny weather.

We've had such a long, sunny summer that I'd forgotten about the 24-105's problems in cloudy weather, especially heavy overcast. My copy consistently struggles with harsh contrast and color temp issues in cloudy weather. I am using the lens hood.

The best I can describe the problem is by comparing it to using slightly too much "Clarity" in Lightroom. The problem adds lots of time to editing big sets of event photos, because the effect varies from shot to shot just enough where applying a batch correction doesn't quite work.

In the same exact weather, same exact spot and shooting angles, same f/stop, etc, etc, my old 24-70mm still has great color and contrast, as does my 70-200mm f/2.8, so I know it is the 24-105mm.


----------



## John (Oct 2, 2013)

i love my 24-105, but i would want the 24-70 2.8 for wedding photography. the 24-70 and the 70-200 are a great combo.


----------



## skoobey (Oct 12, 2013)

I can't read all the above, but I can give you my opinion. 

Honestly, they all are very similar, but 24-70 2.8 is my favorite. It just gives more "natural" look, even thought it has a lot of distortion present across the range(no distortion at 30mm), it is still better in that regard than 24-104, and pretty much the same as 24-70 4.

You have the 70-200, so you need not worry about the range, but if you do like to have that bit of range, 24-105 will give you that, as well as pretty good IS. It is also the cheapest by far, especially now with the price drop, it is a bargain of the century.

24-70 f4 is somewhat of a combo of those two, it is a successor to the 24-105, is sharper than 24-105, but not dramatically, and you loose that range. Also, it has annoying thing where it zooms in and out a bit as you focus, which would just make me go insane(it's not dramatic, but by 5% of the frame for example).

None of these lenses will give you that "wow" effect, but they will give you very very *very good* results if you get to know their weaknesses and strengths.

So, if you care about the price: 24-105, and you still get a great lens.
If you want the best IQ: 24-70 2.8. It is a great tested lens, I just love it, and version II is even better, but extremely pricey.
If you want the 24-70 2.8, and need the IS more than a stop of aperture, only then would I say go for the 24-70 4 IS.

I wanted to buy 24-70 2.8 myself, but in the end I found a great deal on 24-105 (600$), so I went with it, and have no regrets, but 24-70 2.8 is a superior lens, have no doubt.


----------



## duydaniel (Oct 12, 2013)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=355&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

According to the link above
both at 24mm f4.

The 24-105 is sharper than the 24-70


----------



## Xarathion (Oct 12, 2013)

I found a decent review online of all three lenses:

http://digital.photorecommendations.com/recs/2013/01/canon-24-70-f2-8-mark-ii-vs-canon-24-70-f4-is-vs-canon-24-105-f4-is/

Essentially, the 24-70 2.8 is unquestionably the king. But it costs a lot, and may not be worth the price for what you need your lens to do.

The 24-70 f4 is much cleaner across the frame than the 24-105. For me, if you're shooting wide, and not framing your subjects in the center of the frame, then you'll benefit more from the 24-70 f4 in this regard as well. Same for group shots.

I currently have a 24-105 I got in a kit with my 6D. It has worked fine for most of my uses, but I have noticed it suffer a bit on group shots or other special situations. I recently damaged the focus barrel on it (AF still works), so I'm going to try and sell it as-is and upgrade to the 24-70 f4. Both because of the quality improvements, but also because I like having a lighter kit for traveling that the 2.8 definitely won't deliver. I have several primes like the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 if I need low-light shooting, so I don't need an extra stop of light in my general purpose zoom.

With the money saved between the 4 and 2.8, you could buy a few of those primes and still pay less than you would for the more expensive zoom.


----------



## Pi (Oct 12, 2013)

Xarathion said:


> I found a decent review online of all three lenses:
> 
> http://digital.photorecommendations.com/recs/2013/01/canon-24-70-f2-8-mark-ii-vs-canon-24-70-f4-is-vs-canon-24-105-f4-is/



Hard to draw any conclusions from downsized images.


----------



## Xarathion (Oct 13, 2013)

Pi said:


> Hard to draw any conclusions from downsized images.



It's a little clearer on the Part 2 YouTube video if you watch in 1080p. He does a zoomed in side-by-side image comparison in Lightroom, moving around to different parts of the frame.


----------

