dandev Loc: Enumclaw, WA

I have a Canon 24 to 105 f4 (original version) that I bought with with my 5D3 about 6 years ago. The focus at low f-stops is starting to look soft as compared with my Canon 70 to 200 f4, Tamron 90 2.8 and Canon 16 to 35 f4. My goal is to shoot the sharpest photos possible - both in studio (products) and environmental portraits. Money is a secondary issue. Here are my questions:
1. What's the best place to send the lens to "check it out" and repair if it needs it?
2. Since I know this isn't the "sharpest" lens, is it worth repairing? Or is there somewhere I can trade it in towards a new lens?
3. What do I replace it with? Do I go for the Canon 24 to 70 ll which does not have IS? (I tend to shoot environmental portraits without a tripod.) Or do I get a good 50mm and use my 16 to 35 and 70 to 200 to round out the range? Are there other lenses to consider - again with the goal of having super sharp images.
4. I hate to ask this - or do I just sell it all and get a Sony Riii? Maybe keep the 5D3 as my backup camera? I'm considering adding a Canon 100 to 400 this summer.
Thanks...

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If the focus is beginning to look “soft”, have you considering calibrating the lens using the 5D3’s microfocus adjustment (or having it done)? There is a known internal ribbon cable issue affecting the 24-105L MKI, but lacking that problem, sounds as if the AF may just be off, which is easy to compensate for. The MKII version has slightly better specs (and no ribbon cable issue), but will probably cost you $500-$600 to trade up, assuming you can get around $500 for your MKI if it is in nice condition. To my mind, if you want to stick with zooms in that range, the choice has always been between the 24-105L and the 24-70 f2.8L. You get an extra stop (which isn’t trivial if you shoot wide open), but lose the IS and extra “reach” of the 24-105. And just one more comment. If max sharpness is your goal, take a look at some of Canon’s primes, like the fast and tack-sharp 135 f2L or the 35 f2.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

We'd have to see a few original examples to confirm your assessment of looking soft at low f-stops and whether they seem to be lens- or photographer-related.

The original 24-105 joined my kit after a few L primes. I used it when the zoom, IS and focal length were appropriate for a given situation. The lens never really wowed me although the usefulness grew on me over the years. I upgraded to the new version when it became available and am much happier. The other lenses you've listed are all superior to the older model at the same focal lengths and apertures.

If your work requires critical sharpness at a shallow depth of field, the 24-70 II is the better choice for a zoom. The L-primes at common focal lengths provide wider apertures and more artistic options, but you're not going to think they're sharper at f/2.8 or smaller.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

If the lens is softer than before there is a problem.
Can it be fixed, only a repair station can determine this and then is the price worth it. I have the 24-105 MI as well and found it sufficiently sharp. The MII version is sharper so you will be stepping up. I love the IS of the lens and that determined my getting it over the 24-70 as well as the extra reach, the minimal extra light for me was not a factor for the 24-70. I wanted the reach and IS.
Then get the 100-400mm MII and it will absolutely blow you away with sharpness and the incredible close focusing that there is no other lens even close to what it can do.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

My 24-70 f/2.8 just died and I will be replacing it with the Mark II version of the same lens. You already have the 16-35 and the 70-200, why don't you cover the rest with a new 24-70. Yes, it doesn't have IS but you really don't need it at this focal length. Try your 16-35 without IS (IS Off) and you'll see why. It's not hard to hold it steady at those focal lengths.

I hear they've made some great improvements on the 24-105 too. They aren't that expensive either so that's an option. If you live near a Canon repair center you could have them check it out. They will be able to tell you if your concerns are valid.

dandev Loc: Enumclaw, WA

Thanks everyone.

johntaylor333

Send it to Canon. They made it and are best at repairing it. Not that expensive either.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Unless it’s the ribbon cable ($250-$300 to repair)

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Frankly, I'm amazed by your question, you've been shooting Canon for many years and you ask, what would be the best place to send a Canon to, to have it checked out? May I hint: Canon!

dandev Loc: Enumclaw, WA

Thanks - never had a need to repair anything.

Selene03

The 24-70 2.8 is a great lens, no question about it. However, I recently got the 24-105 F4 II. I haven't really used the 24-70 since I got it. In part, it is the greater reach; in part, I rarely used the 2.8 on the 24-70 as I mostly used it for landscapes during the day. I tend to want sharp photos, and I haven't been disappointed with the 24-105. It is also less expensive than the 24-70. Still, the 24-70 is an outstanding lens. It's a hard choice that probably depends on what you shoot.