Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS L or Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L?

Rooster

Rooster

Messages
685
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I've got the 24-105 L on my Canon 5D. It's... ok. It produces acceptable pics but the image quality seems slightly inferior to my other L lenses - the 17-40 and the 70-200. I have heard great things about the 24-70mm L. Does the max aperture of 2.8 compensate for the loss of IS? Is the picture quality superior? I am reluctant to give up the big focal range of the 24-105 for something that is more expensive and may be only marginally better. I should add that I do mostly landscapes so don't really need a wide aperture.
 
Rooster said:
I've got the 24-105 L on my Canon 5D. It's... ok. It produces acceptable pics but the image quality seems slightly inferior to my other L lenses - the 17-40 and the 70-200. I have heard great things about the 24-70mm L. Does the max aperture of 2.8 compensate for the loss of IS? Is the picture quality superior? I am reluctant to give up the big focal range of the 24-105 for something that is more expensive and may be only marginally better. I should add that I do mostly landscapes so don't really need a wide aperture.
Click to expand...


what is your criteria/basis for comparison? I would say they are very close in terms of image quality. Some people fall into the trap of comparing the 24-70 @ f2.8 and the 24-105 @ f4, which can make you lean towards the 2.8 as the extra bokeh can be a little more pleasing to the eye.

At f5.6 between 24mm and 70mm, I would say both lens are pretty close.
 
I went with the 24-105L and I love it, image quality seems excellent and if you only have a small number of lens choices the extra reach is exactly what the doctor ordered. However I can foresee situations in the future where the f2.8 would be really useful to me.
 
Rooster said:
I've got the 24-105 L on my Canon 5D. It's... ok. It produces acceptable pics but the image quality seems slightly inferior to my other L lenses - the 17-40 and the 70-200. I have heard great things about the 24-70mm L. Does the max aperture of 2.8 compensate for the loss of IS? Is the picture quality superior? I am reluctant to give up the big focal range of the 24-105 for something that is more expensive and may be only marginally better. I should add that I do mostly landscapes so don't really need a wide aperture.
Click to expand...

If you're mainly going to use it for landscape photography; then I don't think you'll notice much difference between them - although the 24-70 has slightly less distortion at the wide end. However; as you already have the 17-40 I would have guessed that's the main landscape lens?

It's a question that comes up every now and then, and my advice is that you either borrow or rent the 24-70 and try it out so that you can make an educated decision for yourself.

I had both lenses but in the end decided to just stick with the 24-70 as it suited my needs more; and I found the IQ to be better enough to warrant it's keeping over the 24-105. So far I haven't missed either IS or the extra 35mm.
 
hsuffyan said:
what is your criteria/basis for comparison? I would say they are very close in terms of image quality. Some people fall into the trap of comparing the 24-70 @ f2.8 and the 24-105 @ f4, which can make you lean towards the 2.8 as the extra bokeh can be a little more pleasing to the eye.
Click to expand...

The fact that the 24-105 goes longer than the 24-70 can make up for the lack of aperture though, in terms of bokeh.

There are some people who say the image quality of the f/4 is better, others say the f/2.8 is better - honestly I don't know what to believe.

Given what I shoot, I'd be inclined to go for the f/4 as it has IS. Then use a prime if I needed shallow DOF stuff.
 
Last edited:
I've owned both and now use a 17-55 on a crop sensor! I loved the 24-70 and if I went FF would get another. The 24-105 is ok but the barrel distortion really wound me up.
 
I've had 2 24-105s and now have the 24-70. I thought I'd miss the reach and IS but the IQ from the 24-70 means that I'll not be going back to a 24-105 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top