Save 69% on inPixio Photo Studio 11 Ultimate (discount applied at checkout)

Canon 24-70 f2.8 L v. 24-105 f4 L IS

IanO 18 195 Scotland
26 Jan 2006 12:40AM
I'm looking for an upgrade to my 28-135 IS lens, which is not quite up to the quality I would like from my 5D. Which of the above would be best as a general use lens, mainly landscapes, but some events / travel.

I already have a 17-40 L and a 100-400 L (but might replace / compliment the latter with a 70-200 f2.8 L when funds permit!).

Advice from folks who have tried both would be most welcome.

park my ferret 17 1.0k United Kingdom
26 Jan 2006 1:08AM
I have the same dilemma, not sure which of these to go for.
Although it's not the handling, fast apperture, cost or weight that interests me - it's the pure quality, sharpness and amount of distortion that I'm interested in hearing about.
Little Jo 19 2.3k United Kingdom
26 Jan 2006 1:14AM
Hi Ian

I have the 24-105 f/4LIS and am very pleased with it. It took some stick after Canon announced the recall, but my new unit (the original one was exchanged for a brand new lens by Canon UK) is every bit as sharp as my original unit that I was also very pleased with. I had read of vignetting with it on full-frame sensors, but the best thing is to take your camera along and try one before you buy it. The 24-70 f/2.8 is faster and more expensive and is also 300g heavier. I think the IS and the extra 30mm reach is worth having.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is a fabulous lens. I treated myself just before Christmas. It's heavy, but handles much better than the 100-400, it doesn't change in length as you focus or zoom, which is nice. According to an article in EOS Magazine, the 100-400 is better than the 70-200 f/2.8 with a x2 extender in terms of image quality, but with the 1.4x or on its own, the 70-200 f/2.8 wins hands down.

deviant 17 3.1k 1 United Kingdom
26 Jan 2006 2:54AM
Using a 24-105 on full frame will present you with significant light fall off in the corners. Also it suffers from a bit of barrel distortion. Image Quality is generally good though. Plus notes it has IS and it is lighter also is zooms out when at tele end and in for wide so hood is smaller than 24-70mm L.

24-70mm has the edge on image quality and control of distortion. Also it has a far better Bokeh.

I like both though it has to be said. For street stuff or travel I'd consider using 24-105mm L for the rest I'd use 24-70mm L.

On the 70-200mm L IS front it's an amazing lens can't fault anything about. Works brilliantly with 1.4x Tele II also.

Hope this helps,
JohnHorne 16 1.0k
26 Jan 2006 3:36AM
I'm trying to make the same decision regarding a replacement for my 28-70 lens. Having read this comparison review and other reviews I'm leaning towards the 24-105.

deviant 17 3.1k 1 United Kingdom
26 Jan 2006 4:52AM
It's a good review for sure.
IanO 18 195 Scotland
26 Jan 2006 5:56AM
Thanks for the advice, and the useful link. Sounds as if there is little practical difference, as the loss of one stop on the 105 is made up for by the addition of IS. The longer length may be beneficial, as would the lighter weight.

My only concern at the moment is the vignetting on the 5D (my 28-135 does that and it's a bit of a pain). For normal landscape work on a tripod normally would use f8 +, so this may not be a major issue either, depends what happens with a 1A and lee filter added at the wide end.

Just have to try one at Focus, and see what happens.

Little Jo 19 2.3k United Kingdom
26 Jan 2006 8:04AM
You'll need to visit a pro dealer at Focus as Canon won't be there. AJ Purdy have a stand, not sure about the others.

phil beale 17 1.5k United Kingdom
26 Jan 2006 10:23AM
Also have the same issue wanting to replace my 28-135. my ideal lens would be 28-200mm f2.8 L IS.

Please Make one Canon

keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
26 Jan 2006 10:26AM
Unless you need the 30mm extra...then there is actually no competition. Not even in the same ballpark.
The 24/70 wins by a long country mile.
deviant 17 3.1k 1 United Kingdom
26 Jan 2006 10:27AM
My ideal lens would be a 10-400 f/1 L IS
IanO 18 195 Scotland
26 Jan 2006 12:13PM
Keith, the 30mm extra would be an advantage when using the full frame instead of the 10D crop - which I had been using up till recently (just after seeing Andy's 5D at Rowardennan!). Having looked again at the prices, there ain't a significant difference, so if I am going to get a 70-200 in the near future (i.e. when I go to the States to visit my almost brother in law, who has a camera shop!), then I am leaning toward the 24-70.

Don't want to end up having to change lenses too often on my travels, but don't want to loose on quality either.

Now where did I put that credit card?

ps One lense fits all would be nice, but you would not be able to lift it off the ground.
randomrubble 16 3.0k 12 United Kingdom
26 Jan 2006 12:41PM
It's a tough one, I would be tempted to go down the 24-105 route... Optically the 24-70 is undoubtedly class. I do find though that I miss the last 15mm of my old FD 28-85 more than I gain from having 24mm at the wide end, plus the bulk of the 24-70 somehow doesn't balance very well on camera IMO.
timiano 16 894 United Kingdom
26 Jan 2006 4:47PM
24/70 on 5D balances very well. Yeh its heavy but you'd have to be a bit of a wet lettuce if you couldn't go a session with it or at least the day. Although I did nearly throw the camera over my head when I switched to my 50MkII Grin.
UserRemoved 17 4.2k
26 Jan 2006 4:59PM
Get both on 9 months interest free then 8 months later sell the one you use the least - simple Wink

I agree with Keith, funnily enough Wink

I thought my 28-70 was sharp until I tried the 24-70 - keep thinking I have to wear gloves to change lenses incase I cut myself its that sharp!

No I havent been drinking - mindless hours of tedium watching photos ftp to servers overnight.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.