Crossroads: 24-105 STM vs the f4 L

Good morning. At a crossroads on lens choice specifically between the Canon 24-105 f/4 L (Mark I) and the Canon 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 STM.

What I'm most interested to learn are the differences between the image stabilization and low light handling of the two lenses. Primarily the lens would be used for low light event photography.

I'm looking for input from anyone that has used both lenses and can provide actual hands on experience and opinion.

I've read countless website write-ups and data charts on both lenses, the F4 and the STM, from user reviews on dpreview to B&H to DXOMark. However there seems to be very scarce information from anyone that has actually compared the two lenses directly.

Is the newer image stabilization in the STM better enough over the constant aperture of the f4 to outweigh the smaller f5.6 of the STM?

I'll be using the lens mostly on the full frame Canon 6D and occasionally if needed on a 70D backup body. My favorite walk-around lens is the Canon 35mm f/1.4L. I have the 50 and 100 primes for portraits, and the Canon 70-300 DO for tele. I also have the vintage EF 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 that I use for fun, but it does not have the much needed IS for low light event photography.

Caveat: This crossroads decision is specifically between the f4 mk I and the STM. Currently both are similar in price, and already at the upper maximum that I want to spend on a lens that will only get occasional use. So for budget reasons the f4 mk II is not a choice. Also I'm not considering any 3rd party lenses. I primarily use in-camera jpg settings and I'm very much appreciative of the in-camera corrections that Canon provides for it's own lenses so I can get it right in camera and skip all the post editing.

Thanks in advance!

The 24-105 STM is as good in my opinion as the L version, i love mine and was surprised how good the IQ was, the L version has the WS, but something that dont concern me as i dont shoot in inclement weather. Its also a lot cheaper.

The L is sharper in the center, being sharp at any fl and aperture. It needs stopping down though for the edges to catch up. The STM is not as sharp in the center, but sharpness remains more constant across the frame. Stopping down the STM does have a limited effect on sharpness.

The best part of the L are weather sealing, constant max aperture, direct MF-AF coupling and the distance scale. The STM is better for video, is somewhat lighter and zooms smoother. Not much difference in AF speed. The L has an old type of IS, but the stop faster aperture at 105mm will probbably make up for it, so I expect little difference here.

Pick the characteristics you prefer.

Had both by the way and also the Sigma. The latter did not perform much different from the Canon’s. Main reasons to return that lens were focus shift when stopping down. stiff zooming and weight. The Sigma was not worth the extra investment.

The following is not in any way scientific, that is covered in the comments above.

I intended to get the 24-105 ver. 2 until discovering the weight of it, so got the STM instead - it was OK, used it for a while, then sold it.

I have since purchased, despite its older mechanical technology, a 24-105 ver.1 simply because of the quality of photos taken through L glass. (on 6D 2)

Hope this helps in some small way with your decision.