Gunzorro wrote:
I second what Peter says. I owned the original v.1 for a long time and used it primarily for events and a bit for city twilight. Optically it was pretty good but had to be repaired twice by CPS for the mechanical guides. The v.2 is quite a bit better optically as well as mechanically. I still use the v.2 on Canon R as well as on Sony a7R4 via adapters. Great lens!
The new RF 24-105/4L IS is also very good -- better than the EF version, but not as good optically as the EF 24-70/2.8 L II. I have both currently....Show more →
Only twice you say. I had to send mine in four time in a row for them to get it right. I sold it right after because it was finally working and focusing as it should - and I would never sell a piece of gear that wasn't working perfectly, bought the v2 when it finally came out and that has worked flawlessly ever since. I shot everything with that though - from annual reports to backstage portraits to landscape, but definitely not product as there was too much distortion at the wide end and there weren't software correction solutions back then.
Thanks again to all for your contributions. Girlfriend just bought the 24-70 II as you all suggested Now just waiting for it to be delivered in the course of next week
nikonsafari wrote:
Thanks again to all for your contributions. Girlfriend just bought the 24-70 II as you all suggested Now just waiting for it to be delivered in the course of next week
I'm curious how she feels with the change. I had a Version II and thought it was great, but I wasn't fully happy with it. While I simply don't like the focal length very much, I found it didn't really "replace" my 24-105L as I thought it would. It was better IQ-wise, but the extra 35mm on the top really made the 24-105L a special lens, at least for me.
Peter Figen wrote:
(snip) ...but definitely not product as there was too much distortion at the wide end and there weren't software correction solutions back then.
So, I do some borderline professional product work and tried using my 24-105L v.1 at its widest - and it wasn't even just the distortion, but rather that at the wide end and focused up close, I could see real lack of detail even with corrections in place - and this with a 6D shot at ISO100 on a tripod.
And just saying that to say that in general, for work that's going to wind up on the internet, I have not had results from the 24-105L v.1 that were extremely disappointing - that weren't caused by disappointing myself in terms of my own technique!
(I've also rented the 24-70/2.8L II, as well as the 24-70/2.8 VC from Tamron, and found both to excellent though heavy alternatives, and the zoom range to just be a tad to short for my 6D)
Agree the v2 is better image quality wise, although both are good for shooting events. The biggest downsize of the v1 is that it is enormous, too big IMO. The v2 was a welcome relief.
Just a quick update after my girlfriend used her new 24-70 II on her Canon R5. It was the main lens she used on our short trip to Malta and she is delighted with the results. The sharpness of the lens is amazing, even on the demanding R5 and the images have lots of pop. She also shot some blue hour city pics and found the sunstars delivered by the lens absolutely gorgeous. She was previously using her 24-105 II version and, although the range was practical, she never found the IQ amazing (resolution and color pop). But now, the 24-70 II is glued to her R5 and the 24-105 II will be up for sale (unless I decide to use it on my Sony A7RIII)
Now just waiting for it to be delivered in the course of next week 
