Ruthlessrider

10 years ago when I started to significantly upgrade the lenses that I had, I purchased a Canon Zoom EF 24-70mm 1:4L IS USM L USM lens. I used that lens for about 8 years. About a year and a half ago based upon what I had read and learned on this forum, I purchased a Canon Zoom Lens EF 24-105 1:4 L II USM. From what I had read on this forum it sounded like the 24-105 was a better choice due to its greater flexibility, if not quality, and I have been quite happy with this lens. Recently, going through my inventory, which still includes both of these lenses, I am asking myself, as well as those of you on this forum whom I have learned to respect over the time frame of the years that I have been a member, is there any reason I should keep both lenses?


Any and all opinions, of course, will be respected.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

My preference would be to keep the 24-105 and sell the 24-70. I would prefer the extra coverage.
It would allow me to compose in camera with greater flexibility.
(That's why my 18-200 lives on my camera.)
But that's just me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I have both v IIs of the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L. Both are great lenses, but when I need either the f/2.8 speed or the superior image quality of the f/2.8L II lens, that is my preferred choice. When I need the IS support, or possibly, the longer focal length, I use the 24-105.

Only you can decide if you need both lenses, especially the older 24-70L.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Several years ago, I consolidated my lenses. I carry a 1.4x multiplier, a 28-135mm, a 24mm TS, and a 70-300mm lens. I have other lenses like a 160-600mm and a 18mm fish eye. I use the last two on occasion.

Each photographer has their pros and cons about lenses and especially a specific lens.
My suggestion would be to write down those pros ans cons in a notebook. Then, every time you take a lens and use it write down how many times you have used each one. The one that you use less frequently is the one you may shelve and possibly sell.

Even a better thought, donate that lens and a camera body to a local high school. You can use the tax deduction and influence a new group of photographers.

dick ranez

If I had to choose I’d go with the extra reach particularly since it’s a much newer optical formula. Unless you want the smaller lens for unobtrusive shooting, there aren’t many reasons to keep it with sentimentality leading the list. Depending on your shooting style, I might recommend a fast prime for low light situations - maybe a 50f1.4 or 85f1.8 (or 50f1.8) would be a nice alternative.

Ruthlessrider

Thank you to all.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

My two main lenses are an 18-200 walk-around (3.5-5.6 I think) and a 50ƒ1.4.
(I have accepted the ƒ-stop limitations for the zoom as the versatility ranks higher for me.)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Both are excellent zooms.

- EF 24-105mm f/4 II has the advantage of 35mm more telephoto "reach".

- There isn't a lot of difference in image quality... sharpness, chromatic aberration and vignetting are very similar at the focal lengths they share. The 24-70mm appears to have a little less distortion... less barrel at 24mm, less pincushion at 70mm. The 24-70mm is a bit more prone to flare at the 24mm setting, while the 24-105mm II appears to be a bit more prone to it at the 70mm focal length. (Note: In-camera or post-processing lens profiles can correct distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration to a large extent.)

- Both are Canon L-series quality build and focus performance. Both have IS rated for 4 stops.

- EF 24-70mm f/4 has far closer focusing capability, with exceptionally high 0.70X magnification possible. The 24-105mm is a much more typical 0.24X. If you do much close-up photography, the 24-70mm would be the better choice.

- EF 24-105mm f/4 has a 10-blade aperture, while 24-70mm f/4 uses a 9-blade aperture. The odd numbered blade count of the 24-70mm will make 18 point "sun stars", while the even numbered blade count in the 24-105mm will mean 10 point sun stars (would see the same results with any other strong specular lights in images, such as lighting in a night time cityscape).

- EF 24-70mm f/4 is nearly half a lb. lighter (7 oz.) and is a bit more compact.

In part it depends upon what other lenses you have in your kit. For example, if you have a 70-200mm you might find the 24-70mm just fine, although there's nothing wrong with having overlap of zoom focal lengths either.

If you were shooting professionally you might want both lenses to have a backup. For example I have two 70-200mm and three 300mm lenses... lenses I use a lot and really can't afford to be without.

The 24-105mm f/4 II is about six years newer lens. It was introduced in 2018, while 24-70mm f/4L was introduced in 2012. I believe the 24-70mm f/4L was discontinued when the 24-104mm f/4 II was launched. Or maybe the 24-70mm f/4 was discontinued more recently (Canon discontinued a number of EF lenses this year and last year). It doesn't matter so much when it happened, the fact that it's been discontinued, while the 24-105mm II remains in production, might mean that Canon will no longer service or repair the 24-70mm at some point in the future... sooner than they stop servicing the 24-105mm II.

It also can come down to personal preference between them. As well as which is more valuable to you... having both lenses or having the money from selling one of them, perhaps to use to buy something else you've been wanting?

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

Thorough review of EF 24-70mm f/4L: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Image quality compared: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Vignetting compared: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1072&Camera=979&LensComp=823

Flare compared: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Flare.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=979&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Distortion compared: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=1072&Camera=979&FLIComp=3&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&FLI=3

Specification comparison: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1072&LensComp=823

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yup, or I could simply say the 24-105 covers the 24-70.
End of dissertation.
(Get the impression I'm not a pixel peeper or absorbed by technical details?
I grasp my camera, my camera does not grasp me. )

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

OK, I read this again and see the 24-70 is actually the f/4L IS version. This is a well regarded, but does clearly overlap with the also well-regarded 24-104 f/4L IS, more so than the f/2.8 vs f/4 lenses.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If I had to choose between the 24-70 f4 and the 24-105 f4L (which I have), I’d probably stay with the 24-105, but here’s another alternative (which I’m struggling with myself) - sell both and buy a 24-70 f2.8L The 24-105 does have more “reach” on the long end plus it has IS. But the 24-70 f2.8L is a better lens, faster in low light and allows better subject isolation wide open. And the 24-105 has a known ribbon cable issue, and if it fails, it costs almost as much to repair as the lens is worth since there are a zillion of these in circulation as they were sold as “kit” lenses with several bodies by Canon.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

No reason to keep both at all.
The 24-105mm as you say is far more versatile and the 24-70mm is just redundant dead weight.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

The 24 70 model is one of the brightest, sharpest lenses Canon makes. It’s perfect for all types of general photography and was my favorite for as long as I had a Canon kit. The 24 105 is good for more reach but not enough reach for me and not as bright or sharp. I’d keep the 24-70. The 70-200 is better either 2.8 or 4
Cheers!
Well, reviewing your question the dummy didn’t see the f4 on the 24-70…😀

So I guess my advice is get the 2.8 and the 70-200

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Sometimes knowing that something is the best is everything.
It might not be discernible to most people, but it is the best.

MrPhotog

If you are considering getting a second camera body, then save the lens for it. Otherwise, sell it and use the cash for a longer focal length.