junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

I currently have Canon 80D with:
50mm 1.8 / 70-200mm f4 / 18-135mm IS USM.
My 50 & 70-200 are very sharp and I am thinking of replacing the 18-135 with either canon's 24-70 or 24-100.
I like shooting street photography, festivals, landscapes etc.
I appreciate your feedback.
Jim

btrlvngthruchem

I have both the 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 and shoot with a 6D and t7i. The 24 - 70 is by far the sharper of the two lenses, at least for me. You have better reach with the 18 - 135 than either of the others but I don't know the lens at all. I'm assuming the 18 -135 isn't sufficiently sharp and the reason you want to purchase one of the others. Both lenses you're considering are good lenses. I like the sharpness of the 24-70 but you need to balance that against the little extra reach and image stabilization of the 24 - 105. As an aside, while in Africa, the 24 -70 gave out on me to my horror. I was able to find a Tamron 24 - 70 f2.8 that also has IS. I'm super pleased with the Tamron lens and prefer it over either of the Canon's. I never thought I'd say that.

twr25 Loc: New Jersey

I had a Canon 5d Mark II and found the 24070 an excellent sharp lens. I changed to the Canon 1DX for sports, wildlife and concerts. The addition of a Tamron 150-600mm G2 gave me those distant shots I was missing. Keep in mind the most important factor, in my opinion is the glass; the lenses! Most modern cameras are fairly good but the big difference is the lens. The good ones are expensive for a reason; they're generally better! Those Prime lenses are great but can be limiting.
I also shoot with a Nikon D850 for portraits and landscapes. Best lens for general photos is the 24-70.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L "II" would give you a faster aperture and is a superb lens with excellent image quality... but it's big and pricey. And it doesn't have IS.

The original EF 24-70mm f/2.8L is much the same, with only slightly lower image quality. And, buying it used, would be more affordable. Over the years it's shown to be a little prone to getting out of calibration with heavy use.

The EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM is considerably more affordable, has nearly equal image quality with the II and is a more reasonable size and weight. It's also the closest focusing of any of them, able to do 0.70X magnification on its own... which is 2X or 3X better than almost any other zoom on the market.

The original EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM has some "issues", such as heavy vignetting at the wide end and, over time and with use, a tendency to have ribbon cables break and need repair. At focal lengths they share, image quality is no better than less expensive lenses such as the 28-135mm and the later 18-135mm. It's also got the older style IS that has to be turned off on a tripod (similar to the 28-135mm).

The 24-105mm "II" IS USM primarily improves upon the IS system, but it also got Canon's then-new "Nano USM" focus drive (fast, smooth and quiet.... good for both action photography and video). Not a great deal of difference in image quality. Same price as the 24-70mm f/4L IS USM.

If you have the original EF-S 18-135mm IS (non-STM, micro motor focus drive), all the above would be a modest upgrade in image quality, a more significant upgrade in terms of focus speed. BUT, if you have either the EF-S 18-135mm STM or the USM - both of which use the same improved optical formula - you will see little difference in image quality with any of the above. The 24-70mm f/2.8 II would give the most, while the 24-105s would show little difference. The f/4 lenses also don't improve the aperture a great deal. Sure, at the telephoto end they are a stop faster... but at the wide end they are 1/3 stop slower than your f/3.5-5.6 lens.

24mm also isn't very wide on an APS-C camera like 80D. it's more of a "slightly wide normal". You'd be giving that up, unless you add a second, wide lens too.

Honestly, the BEST upgrade lens you could get is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.... First, it's still wide on your 80D. Second, it's f/2.8 AND it's got IS (with the above it's one or the other... not both). Plus it's got as good or better image quality than any of the above. At 55mm, it's not as "long" as the above and far shorter than your 18-135mm, but you say you have 70-200mm for that (and the "gap" between 55mm and 70mm is actually insignificant). And it's somewhat smaller and a little lighter than some of the above. Plus the 17-55mm is the same price or less than the current 24-70s or 24-105. It doesn't come with lens hood, the way the L-series lenses do... so don't forget to buy that too,

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Thanks for the info!

BebuLamar

I would get neither unless I also get a FF body.

Haydon

If you are sticking with a crop camera without any intention of going full frame and desire a high end lens from Canon, I'd consider looking at the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It roughly gives the equivalent FOV of a 24-70. That lens is as close to a L lens as it gets. Otherwise look at the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS which is another superb crop lens. The one caveat of the 15-85 is the variable aperture.

User ID

`

I use 24-70 and 24-105, basically
choosing as to size. I don't ever
need f/2.8 so my 24-70 is a very
handy size. And I have no concern
about which is sharper, so size is
my only reason to pack one or the
other. YMMV.

.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

If you're into street photography, the EF 24-105L is the better option because it more versatile, plus it costs less.

machia Loc: NJ

If using a crop camera I’d stick with the 18-135mm. A 28.8-216mm lens is a great range of millimeters to have at your fingertips. And the 18-135mm lens, at least my STM, is very sharp.

khorinek

I have the 24-70 F/2.8 (version I), 24-70 F/4 and the 28-135 (kinda the FF version of the 18-135). My preference is the 24-70 f/4 for sharpness and overall use. However, my 28-135 is a very good lens as well. Unless you go FF, I would stay with what you have. IF you just want a new lens, I would go with the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

MountainDave

I bought a 24-105 IS II with a 5D4. It was disappointing right from the start though some people really like it. After 6 months, I replaced it with the 24-70 2.8 II. It's a far better lens IMO. I also use it with a 77D but, as others mentioned, it's not very wide on a crop frame. The 16-35 F4 IS also has superb IQ. I suggest googling reviews of the lenses you are considering.

marycar53 Loc: Tuscumbia Al

I bought the 24-105 4L, and was very disappointed in it. It is not good in low light or inside shots. I bought the 24-70 2.8 for a wedding, and it's become my everyday lens. I shoot a lot of music festivals, and have it on a 7D MII, and the 70-200 2.8L on a 4D MIV. About the only time I use the 24-105 is when the weather isn't nice and have it on a 7D.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

They are ALL very GOOD lenses - a bit expensive tho - in my book.

I use the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 Contempoary- also a very GOOD lens ( for what you want) - MUCH cheaper tho
.

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

The 18-135 already covers the reach of the 24-70 and 24-100. The 18-135 is my favourite lens (on my 70D) and I get ultra sharp photos. Not sure why you would want to change.