TMcL

The Canon 24-70 f/2.8 has been my go-to general purpose lens for a lot of my photography for the past several years. Unfortunately, I dropped it recently while changing lenses and Canon tells me it cannot be fixed.

In choosing a replacement, I was wondering if I should get another 24-70, or switch to the newer 24-105 f/4. If anyone has firsthand experience using both these lenses, I would appreciate your insight.

The 24-70 has the low light advantage; however, the 24-105 is a newer design, has IS, and is about $600 cheaper. The "sweet spot" of my old 24-70 was around f/4, and I'm concerned that the "sweet spot" of the 24-105 would likely be around f/5.6.

I plan to use the lens with a 5D4, and two older bodies - a 5D3 used as backup, and a 50D used when I need APS-C. I also have a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 which I use primarily for portraiture.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II is wonderful at f/2.8. I prefer the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS II stepped down to at least f/5. The 24-70L II is noticeably sharper in comparison even though the 24-105L II is a wonderfully sharp lens. The lenses serve slightly different purposes. If the goal is the highest image quality, the 24-70L II is the better choice over 24-70 at all apertures.

TMcL

Thanks. I take it you meant 24-105 in the last sentence. Also, like me, I take it you don't ascribe much value to the IS in the 24-105?

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

He may be referring to the Mk II version of the 24-70 f/2.8

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I meant the 24-70L II is the better choice over the 24-70 focal lengths, at all apertures, when compared to the 24-105L II.

The 4-stop IS on the 24-105 is excellent. For me, it depends on the intended need. I would take the 24-105L II to say a night baseball game or night parade for the benefit of the added focal length for distant details and the IS support for hand holding, even though I'd be working in lower light and pushing my ISO to work at f/5 with this lens. But, if I'm shooting an indoor event where my working focal length is 70mm or less, the 24-70 is the preferred lens.

If you have L primes in the 24- to 50-range, the 24-70L II really will cause you to reconsider whether / why on the primes. I've sold my 24L II and have looked at the 35 and 50 too. The zoom is that good, not something I would consider of the 24-105L II.

TMcL

Got it. Thanks.

Haydon

The version one of the 24-70 2.8L was a thorn to many photographers. The copy variation didn't fair well with many whereas the version II is not only consistent, but many claim the sharpness, clarity and lack of distortion resembled what could be expected from a prime lens. I heard many event photographers ditching their primes for this versatile and stellar zoom. The only shortcoming the 24-70 2.8L II has is the lack of image stabilization but to if the correct shutter speed is chosen it's a non issue.

I suppose I'm endorsing my own purchase but at the same time, the files the 24-70 2.8L II produces essentially requires minimal sharpening. It is by far one of my favorite lenses.

The new 24-105 F4L is definitely an improvement over the old design and many see this as a more versatile lens because of the focal length and image stabilization. I have read that at 24 mm the 24-105 f4L II exhibits far more distortion than the 24-70 2.8L II. You will have to weigh your options on these two choices. If the 2.8 isn't used frequently, the 24-105 F4 L II might be the better choice.

TMcL

I never owned the version I, but loved the version II. It replaced the 50 f/1.4 as my walk-about lens. IS is not a major concern for me, and if I need the extra focal length I suppose I can switch to the 70-200. I have heard rumors of a version III over the horizon, but that could just be pie in the sky. Thanks for your insight.

User ID

`

Pragmaticaly, non-peeperwise, f/2.8 gains
one stop, IS gains 3 stops ... 3 not 4 cuz
we can't dismiss the 1 stop credited to the
lens speed of the 2.8.

Obviously, subject action/motion is a very
important consideration as well. I was just
trying to boil the math down to a final sum
and it looks like really a 3 stop difference.

.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

This may not help but here goes.
I chose the 2424-105mm based upon the IS.
The lens is very good and sharp enough. I can hardly live without IS but fast sports and birds are not my favorite thing.
But IS is huge in all other situations.

khorinek

My first L lens was the Canaon 24-105 F/4 IS L. (Version I). The reviews on that lens was that it was not sharp from 80mm to 105mm. I found this to be true with my lens as well. I sold that lens and bought a 24-70 f/4 IS L and love it! I still use it today. The 24-105 has been upgraded (version II) and I am not sure if Canon fixed the issues with this lens that the verion I had or not. If you don't need f/2.8, I would go with the 24-70 f/4 IS L lens, it's a great all purpose lens. I've included some links to reviews I use to evaluate camera equipment.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4L-IS-II-USM-Lens.aspx

https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-105mm-ii.htm

MountainDave

My 5D IV came with the 24-105 F4 IS II. It was a disappointment right from the start. I used it for about 8 months before throwing in the towel, selling it and buying the 24-70 2.8 II. You already know how great that lens is. You will be sorry if you buy the 24-105. I own or have owned 9 L lenses and the 24-105 is the only one that I found disappointing.

Haydon

Yes sorry about that you are correct. As to the value of the IS on the 24-105 f4L II, it's always appreciated but with the 24-70 2.8L II, the cameras nowadays capable of high ISO with little noise can handle sharp shots with the shutter speed adjustment.

As to the version III, it's been rumored in the works but it might be sidelined for the RF lenses which seem to be a priority to release. Nevertheless, you might not appreciate the price IF the 24-70 2.8L III was to be released. I speculate it will be close to $3,000. The version II originally was priced at $2,300. With the addition of the IS, assuredly it will be more. Just look at the price of the equivalent Nikon for $ comparison with IS.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

I agree. Even though the 24-105 has a greater reach, and I prefer that, a good photographer friend of mine says that the 24-70II is the sharpest lens he has ever used.

Gampa

All in ... for more reach, IS, and clarity ... I swear by the 25-105L IS II.