Upload & Sell: On
| p.3 #2 · Adorama deal: Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS for only $799 |
Greg M wrote:
For still pictures:
Not much smaller
weight difference isn't really noticeable
How much better IS do you need? The 105's IS is really good.
Can't really tell the difference in the sound of the IS.
Macro is useless because you have to be sooooo close to focus that the barrel casts a shadow.
Shoot RAW and use a good program like C1 and you'll never know that the distortion is worse.
The 105 is vastly sharper at and around 50mm.
Now if my main use was video then I'd go for the 24-70 but for pictures the 24-105 is the better lens.
I'd need to see actual images displayed side-by-side shot from the same body, from both lenses at 50mm with both lens after full AFMA. I've heard the 24-70 has some focus breathing at 50mm, but no one has stated either is 'vastly sharper' than the other.
And 'better' is at best subjective...the extra reach of the 24-105 is attractive, as is the extra reach of my 24-85, but if the extra sharpness and reduced distortion of the 24-70 is across the frame, it would meet if not exceed my needs/wants for stills and video.
And with regards to IS, I've both the 70-200 f4L IS and the 100 f2,8L IS, and there is a difference between the two versions, it's not major but the newer hybrid IS feels and works quite well. Both of these lenses have stellar IS as does the 300 f4L IS, and my choice would be to have a bit more sharpness; even if it's just a bit 'better'.
With zooms I'm usually shooting at the extremes, rarely composing at 50mm; that task is left to a 50 f1.4 which is most 'always' stuffed in a pocket
Perhaps the 'odd' man out, but a 6D with 24-70 f4L IS sounds like a nice kit when my move to FF happens