Canon EF24-70 f/4 L or EF24-105 f/4 L: Could use some opinions to help make up my mind. I bought a 70D last year and a short time later picked up the EF24-70mm f/4 L. In March I just...

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Could use some opinions to help make up my mind. I bought a 70D last year and a short time later picked up the EF24-70mm f/4 L. In March I just couldn't turn down a deal offered by B&H on a 6D with the EF24-105mm f/4 L. They are both excellent lenses. I plan to sell the 70D. I am aware of the whole "spare body" concept, but I know me. The 6D does everything I want and the 70D will sit on the shelf gathering dust. I am inclined to sell the 24-70 even though it is almost brand new. Can anyone give me any reason why I should keep it since I also have the 24-105, or why I should sell the 24-105 and keep the 24-70? I also have a 35mm L, 17-40mm L, and 70-300mm L, so, up to 300mm I am fairly well covered I believe. Thanks for your responses.

amehta Loc: Boston

LFingar wrote:

Could use some opinions to help make up my mind. I... (show quote)

I would keep the 24-105mm f/4L and sell the 24-70mm f/4L, overlap just makes things confusing I think. The image quality is basically the same, and having the lens which goes to 105mm gives you more flexibility with portraits. If the 24-70mm was the f/2.8, it would be a harder choice, but I think this one is easy.

I completely agree with the idea of selling the 70D. After 6 months with the D700, my D200 sat unused, so I gave it to a family friend. I had no problem shooting with one camera for two years, without even a P&S as a back-up.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

LFingar wrote:

Could use some opinions to help make up my mind. I... (show quote)

The test results I've seen for the new 24-70 f/4 show it is superior in several significant ways to the aging 24-105, which while a very nice lens is not as great as some people think it is. I would stay with the 24-70 even though you're giving up a bit on the long end. Look at the reviews.

Haydon

mwsilvers wrote:

The test results I've seen for the new 24-70 f/4 show it is superior in several significant ways to the aging 24-105, which while a very nice lens is not as great as some people think it is. I would stay with the 24-70 even though you're giving up a bit on the long end. Look at the reviews.

I completely agree. The 24-70's strength in IQ is superior and image sharpness makes it the keeper. If you own the 70-200 there won't be a focal gap.

amehta Loc: Boston

mwsilvers wrote:

The test results I've seen for the new 24-70 f/4 show it is superior in several significant ways to the aging 24-105, which while a very nice lens is not as great as some people think it is. I would stay with the 24-70 even though you're giving up a bit on the long end. Look at the reviews.

I did not see a big difference in the test results for the two lenses, but if that is the case, I agree that the better IQ wins. The DxOMark scores were almost the same.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

amehta wrote:

I did not see a big difference in the test results for the two lenses, but if that is the case, I agree that the better IQ wins. The DxOMark scores were almost the same.

Since you referenced DxOMark, the Tstop of the 24-70 f/4 is 4.0, the Tstop of the 24-105 is 5.1. In other words, when wide open the 24-70 will let in more light. Its fairly rare for a zoom lens, or even a prime to have a Tstop equal to its widest aperture. The 24-70 f/2.8, as an example, has an Tstop of 3.1. The 24-70 f/4 gathers a lot of light for an f/4 lens. It also has less distortion and marginally better sharpness as well as 4 stops of IS compared to 3 (or less) stops on the 24-105. To me its a no brainer.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

The 3 of you have hit upon my dilemma. The reason I bought the 24-70 in the first place was because of the reviews about it's image quality, and I haven't been disappointed. But I also like the extra reach of the 24-105. Of course, I could sell the 24-105 and get the 70-200. Haven't paid much attention to it up till now but a lot of people seem to recommend it.
Thanks for your replies.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

LFingar wrote:

The 3 of you have hit upon my dilemma. The reason I bought the 24-70 in the first place was because of the reviews about it's image quality, and I haven't been disappointed. But I also like the extra reach of the 24-105. Of course, I could sell the 24-105 and get the 70-200. Haven't paid much attention to it up till now but a lot of people seem to recommend it.
Thanks for your replies.

The Canon 70-200 f/4 without the IS is very reasonably priced. It's a great lens if you can live without IS.

amehta Loc: Boston

LFingar wrote:

The 3 of you have hit upon my dilemma. The reason I bought the 24-70 in the first place was because of the reviews about it's image quality, and I haven't been disappointed. But I also like the extra reach of the 24-105. Of course, I could sell the 24-105 and get the 70-200. Haven't paid much attention to it up till now but a lot of people seem to recommend it.
Thanks for your replies.

We could make it worse, and say the the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is the best option overall... ;-)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

amehta wrote:

We could make it worse, and say the the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is the best option overall... ;-)

Trouble maker. :)

amehta Loc: Boston

mwsilvers wrote:

Trouble maker. :)

Who, me? :evil: :evil: :evil:

The G.A.S. Support Group often discusses spending money effectively, having already accepted that money will be spent. In this case, which lens would LFingar be most happy with?

anotherview Loc: California

For sure keep the 24-105mm f/4 lens. With it you can do 95 percent or more of your photography. Paired with the excellent Canon 6D camera, you have an ideal package for doing much photography.

I own both this camera and lens, and speak from experience.

LFingar wrote:

Could use some opinions to help make up my mind. I... (show quote)

STVest Loc: LA - that's Lower Alabama

mwsilvers wrote:

The Canon 70-200 f/4 without the IS is very reasonably priced. It's a great lens if you can live without IS.

But, but, but. Why would he want the 70-200 f/4 when he already has the 70-300. Not saying he wouldn't, just don't understand. And all of you are feeding my GAS.

amehta Loc: Boston

STVest wrote:

But, but, but. Why would he want the 70-200 f/4 when he already has the 70-300. Not saying he wouldn't, just don't understand. And all of you are feeding my GAS.

I agree, the 70-200mm f/4L does not do much given the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L. Now, the 70-200mm f/2.8 (Canon or Tamron)... :evil:

I'm usually not this bad. Really!

STVest Loc: LA - that's Lower Alabama

amehta wrote:

I agree, the 70-200mm f/4L does not do much given the 70-300mm f/4-5.6L. Now, the 70-200mm f/2.8 (Canon or Tamron)... :evil:

I'm usually not this bad. Really!

Thanks. I thought LFingar said the 70-300 was an f/4, but he didn't (and there's no such Canon animal), so it sounded like a complete overlap to me.
And you are still feeding my GAS.

Why not a 400mm prime? Oooohhhhh! I'm having GAS pains.