Originally Posted by clemmb
I wouldn't go so far as to say that you cannot tell the difference. There is a difference, mabye your standard is not as high as mine (i'm used to primes)but neither lens are bad.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that you cannot tell the difference. There is a difference, mabye your standard is not as high as mine (i'm used to primes)but neither lens are bad.
I only own one of the two, the EF24-70mm f/2.8. For me, being able to get a lot of light is pretty important and I tend toward f/2.8 and faster glass. If you shoot outside, choose the focal length that best suits you. If you need to work in dark churches or gyms, you'll appreciate the f/2.8 aperture.
Bryan said it well: if you had only one lens, it'd be 24-105.
However, you have another lens, a 70-200, so I'd go with the 24-70. It'll serve you incredibly well until you have enough bodies to become a prime shooter.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
To me sharpness is not really important when it comes to comparing one L lens to another, I think both the 24-70 and the 24-105 are really sharp for most of the stuff people do, one may be slightly sharper than the other, so what? To me what important is detail, you and I can easily increase the sharpness in photoshop, but you and I cannot add more detail to the image...The detail may be a little soft, but it's available, you can't enhance something that isn't there. L lenses have the amazing capability to capture details.
Yikes. Carelessness on my part. Yep. I looked again, and I don't see it either.
Sorry for the mix up.
Well said.
And anyhow, they're much closer to each other than to primes in the focal length range.
I wouldn't use iq to decide between these lenses. It's the speed of the 24-70 vs the IS and extra reach of the 24-105.
My concern is that the 24-105 is supposedly soft and not so good wide open... I'm honestly on the fence, also thinking that the 16-35 might be an option and picking up a 50 1.4 to fill the gap, since my 70-200 will do the rest
Plus if I get the 24-105 I feel there's a lot of overlap.. decisions, decisions!
I bought the 24-105 with the 5DmkII kit. I used it a lot, my only complaint was CA on the wide end. The outer portions of the frame showed substatial CA. I then bought the 16-35 II and 70-200 2.8 IS. I had already owned the 50 1.4 so I then sold the 24-105 thinking I had everything covered. Low and behold I found myself needed the versatility of the 24-xx(x) zoom so I bought the 24-70. I think the 2.8 has served me better than 4.0 although I do miss the extra 35mm of reach though. It is a tough call but I say 24-70.
Most of us that own either of these lenses went thru the same debate before buying. I went with the 24-70L mostly for its better bokeh at the shorter focal lengths. It is a fine lens, but unfortunately, it has been hit and miss at 2.8 on my 40D (and XTi). After a shoot next Friday for work, it is going back to Canon for a tune up. For $1200 I want sharp wide open all the time.
Stopped down to f4-5.6my 24-70Lis crazy sharp. The colors and contrast are superb. If canon ever builds an IS version of the lens, it will be a winner (expensive winner though).
Pretty much my exact experience. I waffled back and forth between both of these fine lenses before finally settling on the 24-70. Like was mentioned earlier, the 24-105 may be the better lense "if it was your only lens", but it's not my only lens. And 24-70, after reviewing my shots, covered my focal length needs probably 90+% of the time. And when it didn't, I could switch to my other lenses.
I have noticed also, on my copy of the 24-70, it can be hit or miss at 2.8 on my 50D. Not sure what would cause that. There's a very good chance it could be user error as I'm not that good! :-) But as mentioned, it is crazy sharp once I get to f/4.
I'll probably always wonder if I would have preferred the 24-105, but if I had gotten the 24-105, I'd be wondering the same thing about the 24-70. Pick the one that fits your needs (f/2.8 or 105mm) and you can't go wrong with either one, I would guess.
Hi Derek,
I don't think it is you at all. My 24-70 has been evaluated wide open at high shutter speeds on two cameras. One frame will be sharp and the next may be considerably OOF. Since my lens is out of warranty on Sept 10 (been waffling about sending it in), I went ahead and got a Repair Request in with Canon last week. After Friday's shoot, it is going back for repair. Hopefully they will get it right.
Several years back I shot witha friends24-105. From what I recall, the 24-70 justseems to havesome extra "magic" to it over the 24-105.
Interestingly, I bought the Canon lens after buying a Sigma 24-70 (the old version). It missed focus at 70mm occasionally, but not as often as the Canon lens that cost nearly 3 times as much! That Sigma was SERIOUSLY sharp most of the time. The Sigma didn't have the overall polished IQ of the Canon glass to my eye though, that's why I kept the L.
The 24-70 is so good that I'm willing to put up with the aggravation of a warranty repair trip. Hopefully it will come back spot on.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote