24-105L vs 24-70L f/4.0

[ogrec]

Its almost 100%certain i'll be upgrading from 60D to 6D and 24-105 or 24-70 f/4 sometime this or next month
only EF lens i own is 50mm f/1.4, and longest and most used lens on 60D was 15-85mm (which is 24-135mm equivalent on FF)
i dont need macro that 24-70L offers and i already feel i'll miss some of the range on 24-105 (i dont own a longer lens and wont be getting any new lens for quite some time after this upgrade)

so i'd like to hear your oppinions, should i get 24-105 or 24-70 f/4?
i dont see huge difference in image quality on site comparison tool, but theres a 300€ (a little more then 300$) price difference in those two 6D kits which i think i'd rather spend on filters (i dont have 77mm filters and i use Hoya NDx400 and CPL filters A LOT)
i think i should mention that i cant buy 24-70 f/2.8 tamron (is no available in hdew cameras) but i dont think i need it as i mostly shoot at narrower apertures (f/8-16) and i'd like to finally start investing in L glass

[DavidWare]

If you feel like you're going to miss the longer end, then opt for that. Atleast that's what I'd do. I have the 24-105 on my 5D MkIII and it performs great. I find myself using the 70mm+ range fairly often as well.

[neuroanatomist]

If the 24-70/2.8L II isn't in the cards, I'd definitely go with the 24-105L. Plus, as a kit lens the price can't be beat.

[erno james]

I'm in agreement with david and neuroanatomist. sometimes, more is more. go as long as you can with the 24-105. if you keep your crop sensor camera, it'll be even "longer." post some keepers after the upgrade. erno

[peety3]

Every so often, I visit either TDP or lensrentals.com and open up a browser tab for each lens I'd like to buy. Thankfully, my computer doesn't run out of memory during these exercises...anyhow. I then sort them in the order I imagine I'd buy them. (Keep in mind that a v1 24-70/2.8 lives in my bag, and a 24-105 lives in my wife's bag.) Honestly, I never reach for the 24-105, and I never find myself considering the 24-70/4. Instead, it's a battle over the order of the Canon 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 135/2, 300/4, and the Zeiss 15/2.8, 21/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/2/Makro, 100/2/Makro, and 135/2 (we recently added the 85/1.2 and 100/2.8L/Macro).

[mclifford82]

Honestly, I never reach for the 24-105, and I never find myself considering the 24-70/4. Instead, it's a battle over the order of the Canon 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 135/2, 300/4, and the Zeiss 15/2.8, 21/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/2/Makro, 100/2/Makro, and 135/2 (we recently added the 85/1.2 and 100/2.8L/Macro).

You sure you just don't like zooms? Those are all primes.

[ogrec]

well thx for all the replys, folks, i 24-105 it is

[peety3]

You sure you just don't like zooms? Those are all primes.

We already have more than enough zooms: 10-22, 16-35II, 24-70I, 24-105, 28-135, 70-200/4IS, 70-200/2.8 IS. And let's face it, all too often we use zooms at one end or the other. I don't like the 100-400, don't see value in the 70-300L, don't want the optical tradeoffs in the 28-300, can't justify a new 24-70/2.8II, can't afford the 200-400 yet, so I'm not sure what other zooms I might consider.