haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

I debated whether or not to get the 24-105mm F/4L MK2 lens or the 24-70mm lens. Since I already had the 24-105mm F/4L MK1, I opted for the 24-70mm. I was wanting a lens to keep on my Canon 1Dx instead of switching the 24-105mm between my Canon 5D MK IV and my 1Dx.

Here are a few of my observations after using the lens for a couple of weeks.

I find the AF to be fairly quick and quiet as is the image stabilization.

The build quality is typical for the newer Canon L series lens, it feels a little plasticy (if that is a word). The lens is light and is well balanced on both of my cameras.

Both ends of the zoom range are fairly sharp. The mid zoom range is a little soft but not really that noticeable. Corners are about average when it comes to sharpness and vingetting.

I miss the extra zoom but the color and contrast is much better than the 24-105mm MK1 lens.

I have played around with the macro (not a true macro at .71x magnification) and it does okay in this respect. If I need a macro shot and this is the only lens I have with me, it will work in a pinch. Usually when I am thinking I may have an opportunity for macro photography, I bring my 100mm F/2.8L Macro lens along.

Overall I think that I made the best choice for me by getting the 24-70mm F/4L lens.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Since I already had the EF 24-105 f/4L, I got the 24-70 2.8L as an update to my older 28-70 2.8L. If I need IS I use the 24-105.
I've upgraded the 24-105 to the 24-105 II and the 24-70 to the 24-70 II and still use the f/4 lens when I need IS. The new 24-105L is much improved over the original 24-105L.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Yep.
Have not switched to the 2.8 as the 4 is really good (and macro + IS as well). Lose some light through the 4 but with IS, I can shoot slower....feel no need to got to the 2.8 at twice the price.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

Thanks for your reply. I personally could not see any significant improvement between the MK2 ans MK1 version of the 24-105mm f/4L as much as I tried to. I did look at the 24-70mm f/2.8L MK2 but for my uses it was not necessary to spend the extra money and have the extra weight.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I heard you on the weight and extra cost. I can still hear 'you paid how much for that lens' echoing in my ears in the wife's less than happy voice.
As for weight, we were at the Philadelphia Flower Show last week and I had my 28-300L mounted and someone said to me, that's a big lens, why is it white? My response was, to make it heavier.
As far as differences between the original and version II of the 24-105, the new one optically is just about the same as the original but the new one is built a bit tougher and has better IS. I gave my older copy to the wife and I use the new one.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

I was referring to the weight of the 24-105mm and the 24-70mm. It is not a lot of difference but there is some. My wife perceives the weight and size to be considerable. She did not mind using the camera with the 24-70mm where she felt the camera and the 24-105mm was heavy. She will not touch either of my cameras if the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM II in mounted on them.

TonyBot

I've been using the 24-70/f4 as my "walk around", and have not put the "kit" 18-135 on my 60D since I got the it. The "L" quality, both build and optical, even wide open is so-o-o much better than the 18-135, plus the macro capabilities on the *crop* sensor are close to one-to-one and great to have if needed. (Of course, using only the "sweet spot" makes a difference, I am sure, but I am quite satisfied.) While it does not feel the same as my 70-200/4/is, it surely is well made, and definitely a quality item.
I would recommend it highly if the 2.8 is out-of-range priced. I can imagine what the 2.8 $ with IS is going to be ...