# 24-70 f/4L IS vs 24-105L



## Zv (Jun 13, 2013)

Does anyone have experience with these two lenses? In particular, the IS on both. I'm interested in buying a new 24-something lens for full frame purposes. Also how would these lenses compare with the 17-55 in terms of IQ? Anyone got sample images of the new 24-70 f/4L? 

I've had a play about with both lenses. The 24-105L has the advantage of being almost half the price. But is it a mistake to go from a 17-55 to 24-105? Image stabilization is more important than wider apertures so for now the 24-70II is out. 

Not a fan of Tamron so that's out too.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 13, 2013)

Zv said:


> Does anyone have experience with these two lenses? In particular, the IS on both. I'm interested in buying a new 24-something lens for full frame purposes. Also how would these lenses compare with the 17-55 in terms of IQ? Anyone got sample images of the new 24-70 f/4L?
> 
> I've had a play about with both lenses. The 24-105L has the advantage of being almost half the price. But is it a mistake to go from a 17-55 to 24-105? Image stabilization is more important than wider apertures so for now the 24-70II is out.
> 
> Not a fan of Tamron so that's out too.



Gong from a 17-55 on your 7D to a 24-105 on your 5DII is an improvement IMHO (largely because of the 5D2's sensor). The 24-105 is very versatile and surprisingly good (it clearly outshines my 24-70 f/2.8 MkI). Just my 2 cents... sorry I've no personal experience with the 24-70 f/4 IS. I understand however that its only real advantage over the 24-105 is its near-macro ability if that is important to you (I prefer a dedicated macro lens).

FWIW the 24-105 f/4 IS is my vacation-lens workhorse. Although I also bring a few other lenses on my travels, the 24-105 f/4 IS can do it all if needed, greatly helped by the weather sealing.


----------



## rs (Jun 13, 2013)

The 17-55 and 24-105 both feature 3 stop image stabilisation, so you certainly won't lose out from that angle if you make that switch. The 24-70/4 however has a 4 stop hybrid IS system. Hybrid is only of any real use at near macro focusing distances, but the extra stop will make a difference at normal focusing distances. 

The 17-55 on crop is the equivalent of a 27-88/4.5 IS on full frame - so the 24-105 (when mounted on full frame) is wider, longer, and vaguely better at gathering light (together with a correspondingly narrower DoF). Not to mention other gains such as weather sealing and build quality. 

From what I can tell from the reviews, the 24-70/4 is no sharper than the 24-105, and actually has a more distracting bokeh. I'd only consider the 24-70/4 over it if you really don't need the reach, but you do need the macro capability - and are willing to pay for it.

However, for 24-70/4 money you could buy a 24-105 and a 100 (non L) macro.


----------



## caMARYnon (Jun 13, 2013)

rs said:


> However, for 24-70/4 money you could buy a 24-105 and a 100 (non L) macro.


+1


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 13, 2013)

At Building Panoramics we have both lenses. I can assure you the new 24-70 f4 _is_ significantly better than the 24-105. Too early to tell on the IS yet. 

Is it worth the hefty price ? If you can afford it then yes. If not, don't loose any sleep over it ! 

I've just posted a pic in 'best landscapes' shot on the 24-70. You can see a much bigger version on our website.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 13, 2013)

I'm still of the opinion that the days of the 24-105mm are numbered, with something like a 24-135mm replacing it at a price somewhere between the 2.8 & 4.0 versions if the 24-70mm. I'd really like a longer reach from my walk around lens, but wanted the 2.8 ability more than reach when I got my 24-70 2.8. 

I played with both the 24-105 and 24-70 f4 recently and with a few minutes of casual shop use, found the 24-70 handled nicer than the 24-105 - I used to have a 15-85 on a 450D, so currently finding my 6D & 24-70 f2.8 a real heft, which is why I also bought a EOS-M & 22mm.

The 24-70 f4 is slowly dropping in price and worth checking the cash back deals


----------



## Zv (Jun 13, 2013)

Thanks for the replies, I'll check out Building Panos after work. 

The extra reach would be nice for traveling. I hate taking extra lenses and wish I could have a one trick pony. Though I've heard (and noticed myself) that the 24mm end of the 24-105 isn't great. I like my building and landscape shots so that might dissapoint me. My 17-55 gets used at 17mm a lot. 

I don't do macro but sometimes I like to take close up type shots. Things like rings at weddings or flowers, that sorta thing. I usually just crop the image to make it look like a close up. Maybe the 24-70 f/4 would get me into macro? Who knows. 

Yeah I think I'll wait for the price to drop. It's tempting to get a 2nd hand 24-105L. Currently the 24-105 is going for about $750 2nd hand (¥75,000) but $950 new (¥96,000). The 24-70 f4 is going for ¥127,000 (I live in Japan hence the yen). 

I recently sold off my 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 II so have about $400 or so extra. Was going to buy a Sigma 35 but might do this upgrade first. Decisions decisions. 

???


----------



## Alrik89 (Jun 13, 2013)

Zv said:


> I recently sold off my 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 II so have about $400 or so extra. Was going to buy a Sigma 35 but might do this upgrade first. Decisions decisions.
> 
> ???



Are you really missing the gap between 40-70mm?


----------



## Zv (Jun 13, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I recently sold off my 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 II so have about $400 or so extra. Was going to buy a Sigma 35 but might do this upgrade first. Decisions decisions.
> ...



Thats a fair point! However at casual parties and events a lot of group or people shots fall into the 28 - 50 ish range that gets some of the background too. Wider than that is too distorted for people off center.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 13, 2013)

caMARYnon said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > However, for 24-70/4 money you could buy a 24-105 and a 100 (non L) macro.
> ...


+2

The 24-105 is a tremendous value. A very good and flexible general purpose lens. I own a 24-105 but have never used a 24-70 f/4.0. According according to most reviews, the IQ is very similar, with the 24-70 having better sharpness at 24mm and 70mm and the 24-105 sharper from 35-85mm.

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

The 24-105 has the advantages of price and reach (70-105mm) and the 24-70 has the near macro advantage and possibly slightly better image stabilization. Be aware that Photozone warns of focus shift issues with the 24-70 f/4.0:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=2

Personally, I would consider this lens if it were priced around $900-1,000, but at its current price point, I think it does not offer much.


----------



## bholliman (Jun 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> At Building Panoramics we have both lenses. I can assure you the new 24-70 f4 _is_ significantly better than the 24-105. Too early to tell on the IS yet.
> 
> Is it worth the hefty price ? If you can afford it then yes. If not, don't loose any sleep over it !
> 
> I've just posted a pic in 'best landscapes' shot on the 24-70. You can see a much bigger version on our website.



Sporgon, I highly respect your work, so you comment carries a great deal of weight. Do you find the 24-70 f4 sharper than the 24-105 or is the IQ better in other ways? Do you have any side-by-side shots with the 24-105 and 24-70 you would be willing to share?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 13, 2013)

Zv said:


> I'm interested in buying a new 24-something lens for full frame purposes. Also how would these lenses compare with the 17-55 in terms of IQ?



Worth noting that the true FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 IS - so the 24-105L on FF is wider, longer, and faster (in terms of DoF for equal framing) than the 17-55 on APS-C. 

I went from 7D + 17-55 to 5DII + 24-105 and the latter combo delivers much, much better IQ.


----------



## tron (Jun 13, 2013)

According to the-digital-picture as i interpret f/4 performance

24mm 24-70 equal at center much better mid-frame and corner
35mm 24-105 better everywhere
50mm 24-105 much better everywhere
70mm 24-105 better at center, slightly worse mid-frame, very slightly better at the corner!

105mm of wait...  

I didn't bother to check every aperture. It goes without saying that at f/8 or so both lenses will be more or less equal...

I would never trade my 24-105 f/4L IS for the f/4 version...

But that's me.

P.S Please don't tempt me with 24-70 f/2.8 L II ...


----------



## Zv (Jun 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I'm interested in buying a new 24-something lens for full frame purposes. Also how would these lenses compare with the 17-55 in terms of IQ?
> ...



Can't argue with that! Cheers Neuro! Think I might be swayed towards the 24-105, second hand. Who knows how long it will take for the 24-70 f4 price to come down.


----------



## pensive tomato (Jun 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I went from 7D + 17-55 to 5DII + 24-105 and the latter combo delivers much, much better IQ.



+1000 FWIW, I went from the 7D/17-55mm to the 6D/24-105mm, and just recently sold that 7D kit as it just wasn't getting used at all.

One thing to consider is the horrible barrel distortion of the 24-105mm at the wide end (reminds me of the 15-85mm if you used that on a crop, although even the 15-85mm did a bit better). The 24-70mm f/4 is supposed to be better in this department (e.g., see photozone.de), but I also feel that the current price for the 24-70mm f/4 doesn't sit well in the market.


----------



## pensive tomato (Jun 13, 2013)

Zv said:


> Can't argue with that! Cheers Neuro! Think I might be swayed towards the 24-105, second hand. Who knows how long it will take for the 24-70 f4 price to come down.



Oops, missed your last reply. I see you've decided, best of luck with the 24-105mm!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 13, 2013)

pensive tomato said:


> One thing to consider is the horrible barrel distortion of the 24-105mm at the wide end



I guess this is a personal thing, but in the real world it is only really noticeable in critical shots and can easily be corrected in post if needed. FWIW chromatic aberrations (I really hate CA) are largely absent at all apertures and focal lengths so that's a good thing.

I'm still considering selling my 24-70 f/2.8 L. The 24-105 is that good...


----------



## Zv (Jun 13, 2013)

pensive tomato said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Can't argue with that! Cheers Neuro! Think I might be swayed towards the 24-105, second hand. Who knows how long it will take for the 24-70 f4 price to come down.
> ...



Always open to some more views on the matter! Now, how is the 6D? Are you happy with it? I'm thinking of (well kinda already in the process of) selling my 5DII for a 6D. I'm keeping the 7D, mostly for it's speed and AF. I wouldn't want a 5DII and 6D, too similar, and I like having a crop body as a sort of tele-convertor. We'll see what the 7D II brings though, been keeping a close eye on that.


----------



## Zv (Jun 13, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> pensive tomato said:
> 
> 
> > One thing to consider is the horrible barrel distortion of the 24-105mm at the wide end
> ...



Yeah barrel distortions not a major issue. To be honest I'll be using the 17-40L for most landscape stuff. The 24-105L is really just for travel and days where I can't be arsed lugging extra gear around. The 17-55 is great but it's not weathersealed and doesnt work on full frame. Otherwise I love that lens. It does everything. Great combo with a 7D.


----------



## Zv (Jun 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> At Building Panoramics we have both lenses. I can assure you the new 24-70 f4 _is_ significantly better than the 24-105. Too early to tell on the IS yet.
> 
> Is it worth the hefty price ? If you can afford it then yes. If not, don't loose any sleep over it !
> 
> I've just posted a pic in 'best landscapes' shot on the 24-70. You can see a much bigger version on our website.



Wow amazing images! I only saw a handful, I'll check out more tomorrow. Can you post some 24-70 shots on this thread please? Don't have to be panos just anything shot with that lens. Thanks.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 13, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > At Building Panoramics we have both lenses. I can assure you the new 24-70 f4 _is_ significantly better than the 24-105. Too early to tell on the IS yet.
> ...




@bholliman: many thanks for that. 

Despite the reviews that are floating around about the 24-70 f4 saying otherwise, this lens is sharper than the 24-105 across the focal lengths. For instance at f5.6 - f8 it is equal to the 40mm STM and 50mm 1.4 at those same focal lengths in centre and mid frame. It is not as good as those primes in the corners. At 24 to 28mm it has less barrel distortion than the 24-105 as well as being better across the frame. The 24-35mm range is much better spaced. Some reviews have stated that 50mm is the lenses weakest focal length: this is not what we have found. Colour rendition, contrast, chromatic aberration etc similar to 24-105. We have found no issues with rsa in the way we use the lens. 

The 24-105 on the other hand is not as sharp as those prime lenses mentioned above. It is also worse in the corners at the wider focal lengths.

However we are in the digital age, and computers generate the pictures we produce. The resolution of the 24-105 is of sufficient quality to allow very effective sharpening. People are quite rightly raving about the quality of the 40mm STM. Apply an un-sharp mask of say 0.2 pixel @120% and a good copy of the 24-105 will produce an image that is pretty much the same as that lens. This is why we use one at Building Panoramics, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Most of the pictures that we currently have on our website are shot with one or other 24-105mm lenses.

At present the 24-70 f4 is in the south of England, and the other's in the north, but when we have the two lenses in the same place I'll produce some 'real life' back to back comparisons.


----------



## rs (Jun 13, 2013)

Zv said:


> I'm thinking of (well kinda already in the process of) selling my 5DII for a 6D. I'm keeping the 7D, mostly for it's speed and AF. I wouldn't want a 5DII and 6D, too similar, and I like having a crop body as a sort of tele-convertor. We'll see what the 7D II brings though, been keeping a close eye on that.


I'd be tempted to sell both your 5D2 _and_ your 7D to fund a 5D3 and a 1.4x TC instead. While it doesn't have the frame rate of the 7D, the superior AF is nice compensation. And when you need reach, the TC will get it back for you.

If an imaginary 1.6x TC existed, you'd get the same framing and depth of field options with the lens mounted bare on a crop camera or with the TC on FF. And due to the greater light gathering capabilities of the larger sensor (meaning higher ISO's are usable), the light loss caused by the TC is negated. You can always do a minor crop to get the 280mm of your white lens + 1.4x up to the EFL of 320mm you get on your 7D.

And with f8 autofocus on the 5D3, you can even get away with a 2x TC.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 13, 2013)

Zv said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > At Building Panoramics we have both lenses. I can assure you the new 24-70 f4 _is_ significantly better than the 24-105. Too early to tell on the IS yet.
> ...



Many thanks Zv, I'll see what I can produce, but the resolution of these pages isn't really going to tell you that much. Watch this space.................


----------



## pensive tomato (Jun 13, 2013)

Zv said:


> pensive tomato said:
> 
> 
> > Oops, missed your last reply. I see you've decided, best of luck with the 24-105mm!
> ...



I'm really happy with my 6D, very impressed with IQ and high ISO performance; the AF system works fine for my needs (I use mostly the center point or MF). I'm a hobbyist and only had limited experience with the 5D2, but for me there was no doubt of going with the 6D over a 5D2. Whether it's a good upgrade for you depends on your needs -the 5D3 being the obvious alternative)

I originally kept my 7D thinking along the same lines as you, but I honestly don't do much action or long reach shooting. After a 4-month period, I realized the 7D wasn't getting used, so I decided to sell all my APS-C stuff and get a tilt-shift and updated macro. In my case, those lenses made more sense than doing a quick upgrade to the 5D3.

I brought up the distortion issue on the 24-105mm to add that to your consideration. I do use the 24-105mm as my walk around and I deal with its limitations just fine. Same as you, for a walk around I chose to stick with the longer reach and IS. I do think the 24-70 f/4 has better IQ. I tested it last weekend at the store, yet I couldn't convince myself to make the switch.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 13, 2013)

Hi All,

What drives me since getting back into photography after many years of absence is all the commentary based on personal attachment or brand bias. If you love something love it, hate it, hate it, but do so based on first hand personal experience and don't parrot what's on the internet and don't brow beat others. I agonized with my 6D, 24-70 F4 kit purchase and read all kinds of negatives such as WiFi is a joke and the 24-70 macro is a joke. Well such comments are a joke and I'm just thrilled to death with what I've got (not saying it's great, only that I'm satisfied).

Since I've been shooting with my first love - 70-300 F2.8 II mainly, I've only used the 24-70 a little but I could certainly post more shots such as this one at 31mm. I don't have any PP capability so it's untouched. The original post asked for shots and I can provide more if it would be helpful, I'd just have to make a point of wandering around for an hour with the lens. Let me know if I can help guided by what's desired.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 13, 2013)

Here's two crops of the previous.

Jack


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 13, 2013)

Jack: you're gonna have people queuing up to try your 70-300 2.8 II. I must have missed the I version 

That's a very fine Bebby. 

Can't say the same about your lawn.......


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 13, 2013)

Hi Sporgon,

I've been posting relative to the 300 and 1.4X and 2X in other topics. I don't mind trying to help as that's the least I can do based on others helping me, of course that's what it's all about.

Now about the lawn!  This is the old cottage at the lake that just sold and that's 66% of the new ownership quite unrelated to me, the night I turned the keys over. Isn't it easy to draw conclussions without full informnation, we all do it.

Here's a couple more shots I just thought of that might help whoever is thinking about this lens. 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 13, 2013)

one more, that's my son and a friend, so as not to confuse 

Jack


----------



## Zv (Jun 14, 2013)

Thanks Jack for posting the images. The shots look good. 

@pensive and rs - I thought about that but I'd still rather have two bodies than one. My future plan is to have a 5D III and 6D. Just making the transition gradually and within means. And I just like the 7D, I enjoy using it!


----------



## duydaniel (Jun 14, 2013)

Here is sample pic from:
24-105

24mm
f8
1/60
iso200
5D3

I didn't apply any lens correction


----------



## Zv (Jun 14, 2013)

Corners look a lot sharper in the 24-70 shots. Though the 24-105 shot would do the job. Considering how much I shoot at the wide end and the fact that I'm getting fussy about corner sharpness these days I think I might have to consider the 24-70. It's about $100 cheaper as a kit with the 6D. Then again the 24-105 is $200 cheaper as a kit!


----------



## bholliman (Jun 14, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Despite the reviews that are floating around about the 24-70 f4 saying otherwise, this lens is sharper than the 24-105 across the focal lengths.



Thanks for the detailed response Sporgon. 

Have you experienced any of the focus shift problems with your lens that Photozone reported in their review?
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=2


----------



## tron (Jun 14, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Here is sample pic from:
> 24-105
> 
> 24mm
> ...


It looks good enough to me.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jun 14, 2013)

Zv said:


> Thanks for the replies, I'll check out Building Panos after work.
> 
> The extra reach would be nice for traveling. I hate taking extra lenses and wish I could have a one trick pony. Though I've heard (and noticed myself) that the 24mm end of the 24-105 isn't great. I like my building and landscape shots so that might dissapoint me. My 17-55 gets used at 17mm a lot.
> 
> ...



hi, now the 24-70f4L is cheaper than that price , you can go an actual shop(not online) and bargain it , you can get a bit better price.

I paid around 109800 yen and it is a good price, but I regret I should have bought it in a part of my 6D kit.
Anyway, try discount it , I am sure you can get it cheaper than 120000yen.
that said the optical quality of the 24-70f4LIS is not much better than that of the 24-105mmf4LIS ,which I got with my 5D2(sold now, though).
But I think the 24-70f4L has much better coating and its hybrid IS works better than the IS of the 24-105mm f4L.
In addition to that, the 24-70f4LIS has new Fluorine Coatings ,which reduces finger prints and protects front elements from unwanted scratches.
And finally, the 24-70mmf4L is a much smaller lens than the 24-105mm f4L.

IMO, the Fluorine coatings alone makes it worth the premium over the old kit lens , the special coating makes it very tough and that eliminates all needs for a lens protective filter.


----------



## Zv (Jun 15, 2013)

MLfan3 - I didn't know you could "bargain" anything in Japan! I thought they were always very strict with their price. Is it different for lenses? Are talking about Yodobashi and BIC camera stores or smaller stores?


----------



## Frodo (Jun 15, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> And finally, the 24-70mmf4L is a much smaller lens than the 24-105mm f4L.



Earlier in this thread Jack noted:
"What drives me since getting back into photography after many years of absence is all the commentary based on personal attachment or brand bias".

I too value unbiased advice.

From Digital Picture:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens	21.2 oz	(600g)	3.3 x 3.7"	(83.4 x 93mm)	77mm	2012
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens	23.7 oz	(670g)	3.3 x 4.2"	(83.5 x 107mm)	77mm	2005

Frankly, 1 1/2 ounces and half an inch does not make it "much smaller". Its about 1/10th lighter and 1/8th shorter.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 15, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Despite the reviews that are floating around about the 24-70 f4 saying otherwise, this lens is sharper than the 24-105 across the focal lengths.
> ...




In a word : no. But then we are not using the lens in a way where it would show up. I'll have a play with it and see if I can make it happen.


----------



## Zv (Jun 15, 2013)

Frodo said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > And finally, the 24-70mmf4L is a much smaller lens than the 24-105mm f4L.
> ...



Yeah I've handled both lenses and "much" is a bit of an over statement! "Little bit" would be accurate. However that little bit makes some difference when carrying your backpack of gear around as well as around your neck. Always nicer to carry less weight. Length wise it's not that big of a difference, not really going to matter in real life shooting. 

The main pros for the 24-70 right now for me are -
Sharper corners at 24mm. 
Fluorite coating on front element. 
4 stops of IS (biggie - I rely on IS as I travel without tripod). 
It's newer (ok that one makes no sense really). 
Macro (meh not bothered but sure, I'll take it). 

The only con is range and price. Range is not that big a deal as I have the 70-200 and traveling with 2 lenses isn't so bad. And price is well within what I can afford. 

Yet I still think the 24-105 might be more useful overall. 

Seems I want a 24-105 f/4 v2!!


----------



## Frodo (Jun 15, 2013)

Good points Zv.

Interesting, I went the other way. I had the 24-105 and 70-200 and found with the overlap I tended to use the 70-200 mainly at 200mm. So I sold it and got the 200 prime which is lighter, smaller and less conspicuous than the zoom. I have a two month trip through Europe (including northern Norway) and the Rockies coming up in a month. My travel kit is just the 24-105 and 200 prime (+1.4x). I expect to take 90% of the photos with the 24-105.

I would like a smaller 24-xx, but with the extra range of the 105, I can get by with just the 200.

Cheers


----------



## Zv (Jun 15, 2013)

Frodo said:


> Good points Zv.
> 
> Interesting, I went the other way. I had the 24-105 and 70-200 and found with the overlap I tended to use the 70-200 mainly at 200mm. So I sold it and got the 200 prime which is lighter, smaller and less conspicuous than the zoom. I have a two month trip through Europe (including northern Norway) and the Rockies coming up in a month. My travel kit is just the 24-105 and 200 prime (+1.4x). I expect to take 90% of the photos with the 24-105.
> 
> ...



Wow, sounds like a great trip! Norway is on my list of places to see for sure! Yeah thanks for your input, I'm pretty sure that if I had the 24-105 it would stay on my camera all the time out of sheer laziness! That's what I want to avoid! My 70-200 f/4L IS might start collecting dust! I like the compression and bokeh at the 200mm end even at f/4, though I have the 135L and 7D to get me the 200mm f/2.8 equiv (or close enough) if needs be.


----------



## tron (Jun 15, 2013)

Zv said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > MLfan3 said:
> ...



Difference in size and weight: indifferent, so little to be of any value. Others may disagree.

Sharper corners at 24mm: Yes but the advantage is only at 24mm. Nowhere else according to the-digital-picture

Fluorite coating on front element: No big deal at all. I use good quality UV filters (mostly Hoya HD UV).

4 stops of IS (biggie - I rely on IS as I travel without tripod): 24-105 has 3-stop I believe. No big deal either

It's newer (ok that one makes no sense really): Useless (I agree).

Macro (meh not bothered but sure, I'll take it): Indifferent. It's not real macro anyway.

The only con is range and price. Range is not that big a deal as I have the 70-200 and traveling with 2 lenses isn't so bad. And price is well within what I can afford:

Overlapping is nice unless you have to cameras with 24-70 and 70-200 all the time.
Price is serious. Why someone should pay more for something that is not worth it? It's not a 24-70 2.8 after all.

Yet I still think the 24-105 might be more useful overall. 

YES! I do agree with you

P.S I want a 24-105 II too


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 15, 2013)

Just an observation... In the last year, my local independent camera shop has had just one 24-105 lens for sale second hand, yet in the last couple of months, they have had three 24-70 f4's - not scientific, but considering the considerable number of 24-105's out there vs the 24-70 f4, perhaps 50-100x the number, I'd expect more 24-105's being traded second hand.

I like the idea of the 24-70 f4, feels nice to handle, but can't help but think, the extra 35mm reach and lower price of the 24-105 is getting in the way of massive sales of 24-70 f4's


----------



## Zv (Jun 15, 2013)

I just realized that slowly but surely I will end up with an entirely all L lens line up. Hmmm how'd that happen? 

Anyway, I think I'll wait until I've sold my 17-55 before buying anything. Might just buy the 25-105 and keep my 5D2, seems like the smart choice.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 15, 2013)

Here are some comparisons of the new 24-70 f4 against a couple of well respected prime lenses.

The first picture shows the overall scene. Reduced in size for the web.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 15, 2013)

The next four crops at 100% show the 24-70 @ 50mm, mid frame and corner. The last two are 50mm f1.4. All at f6.3

There is no sharpening, they are all from RAW untouched.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 15, 2013)

The next four are a comparison with the 40mm STM, again at f6.3, mid frame and extreme corner.

Our only 24-105 is on a different location so I can't do a back to back comparison at the moment. Suffice to say the new 24-70 is very close to the primes.

I've revised my opinion at 50mm: it isn't so good mid frame at this focal length as other focal lengths, but still, it's pretty good.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jun 15, 2013)

Zv said:


> MLfan3 - I didn't know you could "bargain" anything in Japan! I thought they were always very strict with their price. Is it different for lenses? Are talking about Yodobashi and BIC camera stores or smaller stores?



Not Yodobashi, it is the most expensive camera shop in Japan , if you go something like Fuji Camera or Map camera in Sinjuku, you can get better price.
And if possible , just bring a local person who can translate what they saying.
Yodobashi is actually foreigner price and I am not sure about Bic camera.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 15, 2013)

Zv said:


> Does anyone have experience with these two lenses? In particular, the IS on both. I'm interested in buying a new 24-something lens for full frame purposes. Also how would these lenses compare with the 17-55 in terms of IQ? Anyone got sample images of the new 24-70 f/4L?
> 
> I've had a play about with both lenses. The 24-105L has the advantage of being almost half the price. But is it a mistake to go from a 17-55 to 24-105? Image stabilization is more important than wider apertures so for now the 24-70II is out.
> 
> Not a fan of Tamron so that's out too.



Even my old Tamron 28-75 had better edges on the wide side than the 24-105Ls I've tried on FF (and crisper in the center too, not that the 24-105 was soft in the center, just not quite as insanley crisp). So I actually tend to like Tamron. My 17-50 2.8 from them was also amazing. I sold my 17-40L.

Anyway I have not personally tried the 24-70 f/4 IS though.

I can say that the canon 17-55 IS delivers crisper edges and corners on APS-C on the wide end than the 24-105L does on FF. The 24-70 II manages to get you the same crisp edges though on FF.

Supposedly the 24-70 VC and 24-70 f/4 IS fall somewhere between the 24-105 and the 24-70 II, perhaps closer to the 24-70 II. But I've never personally tried the tamron 24-70 VC or canon 24-70 f/4 IS.

I was so excited when my 24-105L arrived.... and then I tried it.  And then I tried another and another just to be sure.   They just didn't do it for me on FF. It depends how much you are about the 24-30mm range and whether you demand edge to edge fine details for certain types of landscape work or not. Some people shoot mostly subjects falling mid frame even at the wide end and don't even know what all the complaints are about (that said my tamron was still a bit sharper even center frame, but as I said, the 24-105 was hardly soft there just not completely insanely sharp and it may have had a touch richer color). I always thought the 24-105 had some of the most avg IQ of any recent L lens.

Of course you can manage to nab the 24-105L for like $600-650 sometimes even now with so many kits being split or so many amazing body kit deals, at the old $1200 or $1000 or even $800 it seemed a bit steep for optics although very convenient, but at $650 that is quite the deal though. The 24-70 f/4 IS does seem to be arguably the most over-priced of the whole lot at this point, although the 24-70 II sure ain't cheap.


----------



## Zv (Jun 15, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > MLfan3 - I didn't know you could "bargain" anything in Japan! I thought they were always very strict with their price. Is it different for lenses? Are talking about Yodobashi and BIC camera stores or smaller stores?
> ...



Hmmm yeah thanks for that. I always buy online - prices are much cheaper than the stores plus there is no commuting cost. If I'm in Tokyo I'll check out those shops. Recently amazon.jp prices have been a bit high but they fluctuate a lot so it could just be temporary. I also use Rakuten when amazon lets me down!


----------



## Zv (Jun 15, 2013)

Lettherightlensin - thanks for your input. I know the Tamron 24-70 VC has had good reviews but it took TDP three attempts to get a good copy. That's too shaky for me I need some relaibility and the 24-105 is arguably one of the most consistent lenses Canon makes. Sure the corners are a bit soft at 24mm but if I'm doing landscapes then I will be using my 17-40L. The 24-105 will be for general purpose use, like walkatound, travel, parties and small events. And applying some sharpening in post will sort some of the softness out.
Like I said I love my 17-55 but I'm limited to the 7D and so I'm not getting much use of my 5D2 as I should.


----------



## Zv (Jun 16, 2013)

Thanks for all the advice, if anything I will at least be making a very informed decision! The 24-105L is best for me. I can easily stop it down to f/5.6 at 24mm to improve sharpness and CA. Not a big deal. That's the only real advantage for the 24-70/4 has that I can tell from looking at TDPs lens compare tool - better at 24mm f/4. At 24mm I'm likely taking pictures of a building or a landscape in which case I'll be stopping down anyway. At the 70mm end both lenses seem to perform about the same in my opinion. And at the long end is where I might use f/4 for a portrait. The 24-70/4 does seem overpriced now. User reviews remain mixed. Some love the new lens and some are quite dissapointed. I wonder if the ones who love it are just using it at the extremes? 

I'm thinking I might even hang on to my 17-55 for now and run both lenses for a while and see how I get on. 

Cheers and have a great weekend!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 16, 2013)

Zv said:


> Thanks for all the advice, if anything I will at least be making a very informed decision! The 24-105L is best for me. I can easily stop it down to f/5.6 at 24mm to improve sharpness and CA. Not a big deal. That's the only real advantage for the 24-70/4 has that I can tell from looking at TDPs lens compare tool - better at 24mm f/4. At 24mm I'm likely taking pictures of a building or a landscape in which case I'll be stopping down anyway. At the 70mm end both lenses seem to perform about the same in my opinion. And at the long end is where I might use f/4 for a portrait. The 24-70/4 does seem overpriced now. User reviews remain mixed. Some love the new lens and some are quite dissapointed. I wonder if the ones who love it are just using it at the extremes?
> 
> I'm thinking I might even hang on to my 17-55 for now and run both lenses for a while and see how I get on.
> 
> Cheers and have a great weekend!



I will say none of the three 24-105 I tried had good edges or corners at 24mm even at f/8 or even f/10. From what I saw the 24-105 seemed to handle charts better than real life scenes with complex DOF, it depends what you shoot though. Only the 24-70 II and 24 1.4 II got that. My Tamron 28-75 2.8 had sharper corners and edges at 28mm f/8 than the 24-105L too. But the 24-105 can be had for a low price these days. I suppose you can worry about Tamron QC, but then you can worry about it for many lenses. My first copy Tamron 17-50 and 28-75 were good. My first 17-40L was bad and 24-70 II had . My Canon 70-200 f/4 IS was good. So it's luck of the draw all around I'd say.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jun 16, 2013)

No need to have both 17-40 and 24-105 with the arsenal you got already. If you are missing the standard range the 24-105 is a very capable lens for a budget price compared.


----------



## Zv (Jun 16, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for all the advice, if anything I will at least be making a very informed decision! The 24-105L is best for me. I can easily stop it down to f/5.6 at 24mm to improve sharpness and CA. Not a big deal. That's the only real advantage for the 24-70/4 has that I can tell from looking at TDPs lens compare tool - better at 24mm f/4. At 24mm I'm likely taking pictures of a building or a landscape in which case I'll be stopping down anyway. At the 70mm end both lenses seem to perform about the same in my opinion. And at the long end is where I might use f/4 for a portrait. The 24-70/4 does seem overpriced now. User reviews remain mixed. Some love the new lens and some are quite dissapointed. I wonder if the ones who love it are just using it at the extremes?
> ...



True about the lens lottery thing. My 85 1.8 had way too much CA even up to f/4 yet people raved about that lens. As someone who likes backlit shots it was pretty useless. And I had a Canon 10-22 that was a bit soft though some say it is sharp and better than a 17-40L, I disagree. Even at 17mm it performs quite well and it's a great lens for the price. If I ever need ultimate sharpness in a WA I'll opt for a TS. I'm not earning much from photography to justify it yet. 

I'm sure the Tamron is a great lens, I just don't like the way it zooms and I heard AF Servo is hit and miss. Plus they're a bit harder to sell. I'll take my chances with the Canon. And in any case I'm sure it'll be much better than the 17-55.


----------



## Zv (Jun 16, 2013)

mwh1964 said:


> No need to have both 17-40 and 24-105 with the arsenal you got already. If you are missing the standard range the 24-105 is a very capable lens for a budget price compared.



I guess that's true but I want an Image Stabilized lens that can be used on FF or crop. It has enough overlap that I can just take one lens. I used to just take the 17-40 and 70-200 but I like to go wide to tele and back frequently and I would just be switching like crazy. Remember I just sold my 85 and 50 and have about $400 towards it (and some amazon gift credit from a refund). So really I'm just spending another $300ish and getting a pretty decent lens. Why would I not? Might come in handy (and complete my f/4 zoom trinity)! Was gonna buy the Sigma 35 1.4 but will hold off on that, not convinced I need that yet.


----------



## duydaniel (Jun 16, 2013)

24-105 
24mm f11

no correction applied


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 16, 2013)

Warfleet Cove in Dartmouth, south coast of England, shot on the 24-105mm at the wider end. This is one of only two pictures we've ever done on APS format: we used a 650D. ( Didn't like it for our job ).

I've also added a higher magnification crop from the edge.

My advice to anyone looking at the two lenses is that if you either can't or don't want to afford the difference in price there's no need to fret about it.


----------



## Zv (Jun 16, 2013)

Already ordered a second hand 241-105L, just under $700 with the amazon credit I had (66,000 Yen). The seller is one I used before for my 135L, which was in immaculate condition (though it came without a box!). They offer a 1 month guarantee with it. Should be here by Wednesday!


----------



## bholliman (Jun 16, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> The next four are a comparison with the 40mm STM, again at f6.3, mid frame and extreme corner.
> 
> Our only 24-105 is on a different location so I can't do a back to back comparison at the moment. Suffice to say the new 24-70 is very close to the primes.
> 
> I've revised my opinion at 50mm: it isn't so good mid frame at this focal length as other focal lengths, but still, it's pretty good.



I'd give the 40 2.8 a slight edge, but the 24-70 4.0 compares very well in these crops. 

Thanks for posting the comparisons.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



For the 85 1.8 I assume you mean Longitudinal CA where it gives that purple friging (or green behind the plane of focus)? Yeah that lens is very much known to have a lot of LoCA. I'm a bit surprised it was so extreme even at f/4, I mostly shot it f/1.8-f/2.8 when I had it. Yeah white sports uniforms under indoor lighting was enough to get purple showing all over, never mind back lit type stuff. It was relatively free of lateral CA though and mad sharp.

17-55 is basically an L so don't expect the 24-105L to be some miracle compared to it (I think it is actually a bit less sharp comparing both on same aps-c body) and on FF it gives fuzzier edges, even f/8, than the 17-55 does on aps-c (talking wider end of each). But maybe it'll be good enough for you. The price is excellent for it now and it's not much risk to try.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 17, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> 24-105
> 24mm f11
> 
> no correction applied



all were raw processed so CA (lateral only, longitudinal CA left as it (it basically has none though which is why you don't see any)) correction was applied (but no distortion correction)
24-70 II
38mm f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8541/8697162572_fc6627d1a0_o.jpg
24mm f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8238/8532594727_7cf3016f21_o.jpg
24mm f/4.5:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8189/8080844890_ee3cf61987_o.jpg
24mm f/11:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8191/8080859646_10b351fbce_o.jpg
24mm f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8054/8080838687_7552869720_o.jpg
(and for comparison, same shot as above only this time 24mm f/8 but with the 24 1.4 II prime):
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8471/8080843159_853749e6c2_o.jpg

(those were fairly easy scenes in that they didn't have stuff near the camera along the bottom corners, granted, the shot you took had quite tricky placement of object depths in comparison, so it's hard to compare to these)

24mm f/8?, also a touch on the easy side with how DOF of objects was:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8054/8084425985_be471a8de2_o.jpg

I think this was 24mm, f/8, might be up to f/11 though:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8311/8072868487_04c1782f98_o.jpg

this is 70mm center frame, 100% CROP!, f/2.8!!:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8188/8080844677_1f77373981_o.jpg
(although I must say that at the long end the field curvature doesn't make the edges anything to write home about even at f/8, although it's already mad sharp wide open in the center, at the edges my 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-300L are better at 70mm)

for kicks, samayng 14mm, at probably f/8??:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8347/8245600470_e6efd64038_o.jpg


----------



## Zv (Jun 17, 2013)

Yeah the 85 1.8 was sharp no doubt but had crazy purple fringing with a healthy helping of lime green. It was visible from 1.8-2.8 and a little bit at f/4. I thought if I'm using it at f/4 then I might as well just use my 70-200, which is amazing wide open. 

I'll have both 17-55 and 24-105 side by side to draw my own conclusions. If it doesn't live up to my standard I'll return it. I have a one month return option.


----------



## Zv (Jun 18, 2013)

Just got my 24-105L today, had a little play about with it. Too early to tell but I reckon it will make a fine addition to my collection! 

Thanks again! 

;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 18, 2013)

Zv said:


> Just got my 24-105L today, had a little play about with it. Too early to tell but I reckon it will make a fine addition to my collection!
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> ;D



Congratulations, I'm sure you will enjoy your new lens


----------



## tron (Jun 18, 2013)

Zv said:


> Just got my 24-105L today, had a little play about with it. Too early to tell but I reckon it will make a fine addition to my collection!
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> ;D


YES! It is a fine addition.


----------

