Keep or Sell 24-105 f4 for 24-70 f4

Most of you who have bought either 5dx or 6d may have got the 24-105 f4 as a kit (if you have not bought body only).

Honestly to me 24-105 seems pretty good and perfect range for an FF body.

However sometimes I do think about selling it and wait for the 24-70mm f4..

I am absolutely not going to buy 24-70 f2.8 II for it's cost and weight.

The performance of 24-70 f4 is yet to be seen, so is the cost..

So what do you think, is it a wise ides to sell 24-105 f4???

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rndman

I wouldn't sell the 24-105 until there's tons of reviews and feedback on the 24-70 f/4. As it is, the 24-105 has the edge in FL. The new lens has to prove itself.

So what's the logic behind wanting to sell it?

Just for technological upgrade.. Old v/s new.. But then again this is just a thought and hence was sharing..

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rndman

You'd be "upgrading" to something less useful though, unless there's a weight/quality/cost benefit...new isn't always better.

Yes. I agree...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rndman

There's the answer then

I've had a couple of 24-70's over the yrs on FF bodies and still came back to the 24-105 due to it's reasonable range and IS. It practically lives on my 5DII.

I'd keep it and wouldn't even consider selling it until the other lens has been completely reviewed and tested. I would even rent it before I'd sell the 24-105 to be absolutely sure the IQ is worth offsetting the reach.

--
Regards,
Hank
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8005/6997474606_5ac9d3a442_m.jpg

but that's just how I roll....

--
"I may be a geek, but it pays for the car...!"

No one knows!

Maybe better/worse/same.

I have a 24-105 and I will buy the 24-70 II soon but the difference has been quantified.

Be patient.

24-70 f4 will be smaller, less range, and almost certainly better optically.  the smaller range will surely improve things like distortion, and canon has produced a lot of winners if you think about it over the last 10 years, as I think they are all better at design now.

all that said, at its msrp price, its ridiculous, and will be primarily appealing to studio photographers/landscape photographers, if its sharp corner to corner.  24-105 is a decent performer, with excellent built and autofocus, and center sharpness  It will have more range than 24-70 and goes for 800 brand new from the kit regularly on buy and sell forums.  I think 24-70 f4, with better optics, but less range will likely be around 900-1000 max to be realistically successful.

--
http://razzi.me/kevindar/photos

Of course no one knows for sure, but we can use our brains.

Why would Canon bring out the 24-70 f/4 IS, if it were not going to be superior to the 24-105 in terms of image quality (sharpness, distortion, etc.)?  I also boldly predict that the IS will be better with the new lens, given advancements in technology.

The 24-105 will be superior only in the areas of focal range and price.  Having a larger range is "nice", but from my experience with the 24-70II, I really don't miss 71-105 all that much.  Having better quality images is much more important to me, and if restricting the range a little will improve it, I'm all for that.

I wish I'd known the 24-70 f/4 IS was coming a few months ago.  I might have made a different decision.  As it is, I'm glad I plunked down all that cash for an absolute stellar lens.  However, I might have gone with the 24-70 f/4 IS, if I knew it was on the way.

Either way, the 24-105 would have gone on craigslist.  I originally thought I'd keep it, but after one day of shooting with the 24-70II, I knew the 24-105 wasn't going to get much time on the camera anymore.

--
- Bill

I think 24-70 f2.8 is best replacement for 24-105, because of wider max aperture.

I have to put in my two cents on this one.  I read and read and read, and finally bought the new 6d with the 24-105.  I was less than impressed with the first 50-60 pics I took.  Soft and softer.  I have read more negative than positive reviews on that lens but thought I would give it a try anyway.  Now I see why CL is littered with them.  Can't afford the 24-70 so I returned the kit the next day and went back to my 60d with the 15-85 and 70-200 f/4L.  Guess what?  Sharp and sharper immediately!  This is just my experience and maybe I just got a bad copy of the 24-105, but I should get sharp images right out of the box for that kind of money. 

I just, as in yesterday, got the new 24-70. Fabulous color, sharpness and handling. I sold my 24-105. Never liked it, even a little, despite the fact it made fine images. Why? Unbalanced for a street lens. Lens creep. Rarely used at 105mm. And, of course, f4.0 quite limiting indoors.

Downsides to 24-70: tres expensive and 82mm filters.

I must say you had a bad copy.

I never had this issue with 2 of these lenses (with 2 kits). It's sharp. No complaints.

I was just getting the itch for the newer technology somehow and hence the devil at work.. may be..

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rndman

Of course that is great replacement. f2.8 itself is the factor of importance.

For me however I can not shell out that kind of money (when it is not making any being just a hobby and not profession)

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rndman

Looked closely at the MTF charts of both. Though 24-70 is better, it does not seem the difference is that drastic (better on the edges )..

Hmmm... I might finally stay with 24-105...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rndman

The 24-70L IS is tested on the German website traumflieger.de ( only on APS-C , FF will be tested later ).

Compared to the 24-105 ( also tested on this website, for both formats ) the 24-70L IS doesn't look that promising. I will stay with my 24-105 for a while but I have to admit I use my new 24-2.8IS , 40-2.8 STM, 100-2.8L IS more and more. I noticed that I favour the primes more and more making me far more concentrated on my subjects than shooting with zoom lenses.

best regards,

Rob

www.geckophoto.zenfolio.com

The notion that it will be better is a reasonable assumption but will it be better enough to warrant the costs incurred in switching?

Hard to answer that until people have had it for a bit.

Canon just introduced the 35F2 IS but Lens Rentals wasn't impressed with it.

If we were talking $5-10 it wouldn't matter but this stuff is expensive.

Not everything new is better.  I know you know that.