24-105 from 24-70

[clemmb]

I have two 24-105's. Prior to my first 24-105 I had a 24-70 f2.8 Sigma. I found myself spending most of my time at 70 wanting more. The 24-105 was a big improvment mainly because the Sigma was so soft. I did not notice much difference in weight. I shoot a 1DsIII with 24-105 plus flash bracket and flash. Weight does not bother me much. I do regret buying the second one. If I had it again I would have a 24-105 and a 24-70. I shoot weddings with the f4 and do not see the big deal. If I need faster I use a prime.

[neuroanatomist]

I've had two 24-105's, bought one used, sold it when I bought a new copy with the 5DII kit. Good wide open, better stopped down. I bought the 24-70/2.8 II, and much prefer it. Ended up selling the 24-105 for lack of use. The 24-70 II IS sharper and has less distortion at the wide end. I do have fast primes, but having an f/2.8 walkaround lens is useful, to me more so than the extra 35mm of tele.

[HDNitehawk]

I didn't suggest the 24-70 II because it will cost you 2-3x as much as the lens you are talking about.
if it were me I would sell your 17-40 and the 24-70 I and try and get the 24-70 II.

You gain nothing on weight or being discrete.

[Kayaker72]

Think i'll regret it?

It sounds like you had specific reasons why you wanted to make the move. I usually find that as long as I dwell on a decision long enough that I know and will remember the reasons I made that decision, I do not end up regretting it. The 24-105 f/4 is 10 oz lighter and is more discrete with hood mounted, then you are likely in good shape. If you aren't using f/2.8 anymore, the 24-105 is a very good lens and 2-3 stops IS is nice.

The only consideration would have maybe have been to go to the 24-70 II.

[Haydn1971]

I've had a 24-70 2.8 II for about 18 months on my 6D, I'd love to find a small high quality alternative for when I'm hiking - been toying with a 40mm pancake or the 35mm IS but feel I'd be missing out somehow.... I've trained my brain to leave the 16-35 & 70-300 at home though, felt like I was yomping with a full Royal Marines battle pack !

[peety3]

I started with a 1D3 and a 24-105 back in '07. Four months later, added a 70-200/2.8IS, and eight months after that added a 16-35/2.8II. Eight months after that, I rented the 24-70/2.8 and had to have it. Once I finally got it, the 24-105 moved to my wife's bag, which moved her 28-135 to the shelf, and I've never looked back. f/2.8 gives me so much artistic power, and stop-action benefits too. Plus, I feel like the 24-105 is a great lens but without any magic...even the old-model 24-70/2.8 has a certain sparkle to it.

Now that I've "gone Black Rapid" (none of our cameras have traditional straps now), I have occasionally grabbed the 24-105 for true one-lens no-bag adventures. Nonetheless, a 24-70/2.8II is on my wishlist, which will move the old model 24-70/2.8 to spare/remote duty.

[Busted Knuckles]

Now that I've "gone Black Rapid" (none of our cameras have traditional straps now), I have occasionally grabbed the 24-105 for true one-lens no-bag adventures. Nonetheless, a 24-70/2.8II is on my wishlist, which will move the old model 24-70/2.8 to spare/remote duty.

Not to jack the thread, but.... I am thinking something similar w/ the 70-200 in its lens bag on my belt makes a pretty big spread - then again with a few more syllables and wayward thoughts I have my whole backpack ......

[peety3]

Not to jack the thread, but.... I am thinking something similar w/ the 70-200 in its lens bag on my belt makes a pretty big spread - then again with a few more syllables and wayward thoughts I have my whole backpack ......

My general assessment has been: the 24-105 is a great "starter" lens. Once one has a 70-200, especially if it's a f/2.8 model, I feel the 24-70 makes a lot more sense.

[memostothefuture]

I got a 24-105 about 1.5 years ago in a 5D MKIII kit. it's alright. the IS enables me to shoot 1/25th or even a bit slower handheld and get decently sharp exposures most of the time, it's not too large and the focal length makes it suitable for just walking around. but I've never been wowed by anything in particular this lens does. it's just a nice generalist. if weight and size are your main concern, the 24-105 is a good answer. but personally I would suggest the 50mm 1.2 due to the superior images you can produce when merely walking around.

[Anthony M]

Like a lot of people I got the 24-105 as a kit lens with my 6D. I'd heard good and bad about it - but mostly good. If Bryan says it's one of his top recommendations, that's good enough for me. Plus at the time - the rebates were crazy - and I got the 6D with the 24-105 and a Pixma Pro with 13x19 paper for $2k. At the time that made the lens almost free!

The first copy was bad, but not quite bad enough that I thought something was entirely amiss at first. Luckily I did have 1 other lens (Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS) that wasn't a crop lens I could put onto the 6D to be sure it wasn't me, the camera or both. The Sigma was so much sharper it wasn't funny. Of course, a lot of people (not here) suggested I MFA the lens, and that it was normal. After putting it onto my 60D, and my Sigma 17-50 was so much sharper I thought that this was certainly not "to spec". So I returned it. When I received the new kit (Adorama said I had to send the whole thing back) all I can say is wow, what a difference. Now it compared with the Sigma. With some micro adjustment, it was wonderful.

Some months later I bought the EF 24-70/2.8 II when those crazy double dip rebates were happening. All I can say is that lens is everything it's cracked up to be. So many people have said that they've gotten rid of their 24-105 after they bought the new generation 24-70. And I have to say - why? Seriously more than once I've had to look at the EXIF data to be sure what lens I've shot with over the course of a few days. The 24-105 is just that good. Ok, when I do 1:1 comparison shoots on a tripod, yes, I can tell the difference. But I'm looking at the edges, and the CA is a little more pronounced. Certainly, things like color and the micro contrast is superior on the 24-70, but we're talking side-by-side comparisons.

Bottom line, if I'm grabbing the camera to run out of the house, the 24-105 is my lens of choice. There's not even a second where I doubt that decision. The 24-70 spends a lot more time in its little gray bag. The 24-105 is a little smaller, a little lighter and has a lot more reach. Unlike my 60, the 6D doesn't need f2.8 all the time. And after I micro-adjusted the 24-105, it is truly superb. If I had to make a decision one day and get rid of one of those 2 lenses... It wouldn't be an easy decision I tell you what.

Canon sometimes gets it right right out of the gate with some lenses. Most recently the 16-35/4L IS. And the old 17-40/4L. That's why they still make it! And of course, the 24-105. It's a classic. I'd be real interested if they decided to make a new version of this lens - but honestly, I don't think they can. The improvement in performance (IQ and IS) would only be incremental, and the price would be a lot higher.