Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L

  
 
scottykphoto
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


I know this subject has been debated before, so please, I ask for your forgiveness in advance. I am currently shooting with a Canon 1D Mark III and would like to upgrade to and L standard zoom for all-purpose shooting and landscapes. My financial limits put these two lenses, the ver. 1 24-70/2.8 and the 24-105/4, in my realm of possibility. I would like to know if any of you have experience with these lenses on the 1D3, or even on the 1D4, since it has the same 1.3 crop factor. Any helpful words you might have on image quality, AF performance, etc. would be greatly appreciated.

~Scotty K



Sep 21, 2013 at 10:23 PM
jasonpatrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


I have the 24-105 and a 1diii. It works for a walk around. It's a matter of IS, f/4 and 35 additional mm and lighter vs f/2.8 no IS, better hood, less distortion and heavier.

Try them both before you choose.



Sep 21, 2013 at 11:00 PM
robbymack
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


I'd also add the tamron 24-70 vc to your list. And it's not like you can make a bad choice since all three are really good. If you want extra reach then the 105 makes sense, if you want more speed then the tamron or canon make sense. The tamron gives you IS so IMHO that seals it.


Sep 21, 2013 at 11:00 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


Somewhat related: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2011/02/06/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8-l-versus-canon-ef-24-105mm-f5-l-is

Dan



Sep 22, 2013 at 01:17 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


I would find either lens too long on the APS-H sensor. The widest is equivalent to 31mm. For landscape, I want considerable wider than that. I like these lenses on FF for landscape. I'd use 16-35L II, or for less money, the 17-40L which give equivalent zoom of 21-45 and 22-52.

I have a 1D3 that I've tried these on, but use FF for landscape.



Sep 22, 2013 at 01:24 AM
docsmiles17
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


Have both lenses and body you mention. I actually sold my 24-105 to get a 24-70 because I wanted a faster lens and was expecting better IQ but as far as IQ is concerned, I have not noticed any difference. I just re-purchased a 24-105 again as its much lighter, has IS and I found myself missing the extra length for general people photos. When walking around on trips, general shooting, I prefer the lighter 24-105 which is why I got one again and happy I did. The 24-70 hood is a bit quirky as you cant easily remove the lens cap with hood on and the zoom is reverse. at 24, the lens extends.

Its really a toss up between the 2....For landscapes you wont be at f/2.8 and if you are handhold I personally would use 24-105. if tripod, 24-70. You likely already know your crop body hurts you with landscapes.



Sep 22, 2013 at 03:10 PM
Charlie K.
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


Have both lenses and have used them on my 1D mkiv, 5D mkiii and 1Dx. In my personal opinion, unless you need 2.8 for artistic shots, the 24-105 will serve you well. If you are not pixel peeping and don't mind a little work in post the 24-105 is a great lens. I found myself enjoying the lighter lens with more reach and IS more than the 24-70 on most occasions.The 24-70 is by no means outdone by the 24-105, but they both have their uses.Maybe you could put out a feeler in your area and meet up with someone who has one or both and make your own decision based on feel and IQ. Rental is also another option before you pull the trigger on new glass and realize you wanted something totally different.Just my 2 cents.


Sep 22, 2013 at 03:46 PM
Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


Gunzorro wrote:
I would find either lens too long on the APS-H sensor. The widest is equivalent to 31mm. For landscape, I want considerable wider than that. I like these lenses on FF for landscape. I'd use 16-35L II, or for less money, the 17-40L which give equivalent zoom of 21-45 and 22-52.

I have a 1D3 that I've tried these on, but use FF for landscape.


+1



Sep 22, 2013 at 04:18 PM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


For travel and general photography, the 24-105L is fine, though I agree something even wider might be wanted for landscapes. But I do a lot of people and event work, and the 24-70 2.8L was one of my favorite zooms ever.

Especially for a standard zoom lens, the 24-70L has beautiful bokeh, and its inverted zoom mechanism renders its hood effective at all focal lengths and keeps the physical length constant (with hood mounted); it's a brilliant design that has yet to be surpassed.

If anything, this lens is even better on APS-H, where it falls roughly into a 30-90mm range, just about perfect for environmental portraits through classic head and shoulder portraiture, to candids and documentary photography of all types. In fact, Canon increased the focal length ranges of its pro zooms to 24-70 and 70-200mm specifically to provide a more useful wide coverage for the EOS-1D with its unique APS-H sensor size. These zooms were so successful, they set the template that everyone else has followed.

While it can be a bit of a beast due to its size and weight, I found it well worth the trouble.

My two copies were both sharp, but these lenses are known to go out of alignment from time to time. Canon has gotten quite adept at repairing them. Roger at Lensrentals.com has published quite a lot about this lens, if you are curious about the way it is constructed and its optical quality.

My new 24-70L II is better, which is saying something. But it's very costly. If you get a good copy of the 24-70L, you will not be disappointed.

Bear in mind that my preferences are colored by the type of things I like to shoot, and how I value things might not be valid for others.



Sep 23, 2013 at 01:50 AM
scottykphoto
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


Thanks for all of the incredible feedback. I think I am probably going to go with the 24-105. It's a little cheaper and maybe I can put that towards a true wide-angle, maybe the 16-35 or the 17-40. Of course, that's a whole new debate. Thanks again for the advice.


Sep 23, 2013 at 11:25 PM
nrferguson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


Sven Jeppesen wrote:
+1

+2 but 24-70 is my walk round lens on my 5D3 whilst 16-35 is on my 7D and 17-40 before I upgraded
Niall



Sep 24, 2013 at 04:23 PM
Jon Joshua
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon 24-70/2.8L vs 24-105/4L


I've just got a 24-105 on loan and I think that I like it better than the 24-70 II that I tried.

If you have a camera that has high ISO capabilities, f/4.0 isn't really an issue with this lens. Otherwise, slow shutter speeds in low light may be an issue. IS can't fix motion blur.




Sep 25, 2013 at 02:36 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.