I'm just curious about two Canon lenses (Page 2): I switched from the 24-105 II to the 24-70 II years ago. I really thought the 24-105 was a weak link in the L line. If you read honest...

MountainDave

I switched from the 24-105 II to the 24-70 II years ago. I really thought the 24-105 was a weak link in the L line. If you read honest pro reviews, you'll find much the same sentiment. The 24-70 is better in every way: color rendition, much better AF and a lot sharper. I rarely miss the extra 35mm and found I use the 2.8 aperture more than I expected. So I vote for sell especially since you can get good money for it now.

PS: I bought a RF24-105 4L a few months ago and found it to be way better than the EF version.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

MountainDave wrote:

I switched from the 24-105 II to the 24-70 II year... (show quote)

I find my 25-105 II pretty sharp. However, I haven't received the 24-70 to compare it to. I'm going to use them both for awhile.

Nicholas J DeSciose

Have you heard about the Karen 800 mm F 11 autofocus lines? It only works on the canon R6 nervous body. Closest focusing distance is 30 feet. Everybody should have one

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Tracy B. wrote:

I find my 25-105 II pretty sharp. However, I haven't received the 24-70 to compare it to. I'm going to use them both for awhile.

The 24-105 II is plenty sharp enough and consistent with all of Canon's series II / III EF lenses. The 24-70 II is different in that it might be the only Canon zoom that compares to the similar focal length primes.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

baygolf wrote:

I have both with one difference my 24-70 is a Tamron unit. For me when we take vacations, I like to use the 24-105 (focal length) also the 24-70 is a lot heavier than 24-105. I use 24-70 for home events, e.g., birthday parties, weddings, etc.

Sidebar: for vacations I will all ways include either 50mm, 85, or 100mm with 24-105.

I also have the same set-up the Tamron 24-70 VC, and the Canon EF 24-105L IS. I found that for walking around while in Europe, the Tamron being a 2.4 low light lens, made shooting in churches and low light projects work better. Plus, Tamron's VC made carrying a tripod a non-problem. Now, I shoot the 24-105 IS Canon lens for close wildlife in the yard my go to lens. The deer, porcupine's, a fox sit tight enough to allow me to get close enough to take a great shot. I sometimes can hand feed one or two squirrels, but when bring out me 5D Mark IV with 24-105 they jump and run. I think they view it as a possible weapon. I've pretty much retired from photography since my knee replacement, and further injury to my arthritic left foot. Just getting around is the basic problem.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

CHG_CANON wrote:

The 24-105 II is plenty sharp enough and consistent with all of Canon's series II / III EF lenses. The 24-70 II is different in that it might be the only Canon zoom that compares to the similar focal length primes.

Oh good to hear. I'm excited about receiving my 24-70 tomorrow. My copy of the 24-105 is sharp also. I wish the new lens had IS, but I have a monopod.

glennk

I also own both. My experience has been that the 24-105 has not been used by me in years, which is verified by my Lightroom catalog (0 images over the past 4 years). That said, I kept the 24-105 and have loaned it out with my 5D3 when a friend needs to "borrow" a setup.

I would hold on to it and see if you use it at all, then decide whether to keep or sell.

Glenn

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

glennk wrote:

I also own both. My experience has been that the 24-105 has not been used by me in years, which is verified by my Lightroom catalog (0 images over the past 4 years). That said, I kept the 24-105 and have loaned it out with my 5D3 when a friend needs to "borrow" a setup.

I would hold on to it and see if you use it at all, then decide whether to keep or sell.

Glenn

That is exactly what I will do. Thank you.