Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM or EF 24-70 mm f/4L IS

[SteveHU89]

Hi, I'm having a big dilemma with choosing my first mid-range zoom. For 70+ mm I'm covered, but anything under not so much. Got two primes: 35mm and 50mm. I realized that I'm a 50mm guy and don't really care much about 35mm performance.

The 24-70 F4L IS seemed like the best choice. Newer IS system (I often shoot with 1/15th of second or less), less heavy, less bulky, more modern overall (could care less about macro feature). However, all the test charts I've looked at show that it performs horribly at 50mm. What are your real world experiences with it?

The 24-105 F4L IS seems much better @50mm, but it's heavier, older, potential zoom creep etc. I can't afford the ver. II of this lens.

Any help would be appreciated!

 

[Andy01]

This question comes up quite frequently.

Perhaps a good place to start might be a search for similar threads ?

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Just make sure that your EF 24-105L (original) is not one of the earlier copies as they were prone to cable issues. The one I had between 2012 and 2017 was perfect.

 

[SteveHU89]

This question comes up quite frequently.

Perhaps a good place to start might be a search for similar threads ?

https://www.dpreview.com/search/forums?query=Canon 24-105mm EF 24-70 mm &forum=1029

Just make sure that your EF 24-105L (original) is not one of the earlier copies as they were prone to cable issues. The one I had between 2012 and 2017 was perfect.

Noted. Thank you. ;-)

 

[rsn]

When I am interested in a lens, I go to flickr to look at images taken by said lens I'm thinking of purchasing. I like doing this as it helps silence critiques (lens reviewers) who will dwell on some insignificant flaw magnifying it to justify a new (read more expensive) purchase.

I will give you one example, fortunately not a Canon offering but this enables you to be emotionally detached from the argument. The "significant" difference between the Fuji X100f and X100V is that the lens of the V takes better close ups. Well that seems legitimate right? Enough to make a difference right? Well if you go to the flickr Fuji X100f page and check out the photos, only about one in two hundred photos is close up. The Fuji X100f is a street and travel camera, situations where close up photography is infrequent. So the V is better than the F for photography that just isn't used that much.

So look at the flickr images below for the 24 - 105mm lens and ask yourself, are these images good enough for me? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but you get to determine the answer, not some stranger.

Loading…

www.flickr.com

 

[Nick5]

Hi, I'm having a big dilemma with choosing my first mid-range zoom. For 70+ mm I'm covered, but anything under not so much. Got two primes: 35mm and 50mm. I realized that I'm a 50mm guy and don't really care much about 35mm performance.

The 24-70 F4L IS seemed like the best choice. Newer IS system (I often shoot with 1/15th of second or less), less heavy, less bulky, more modern overall (could care less about macro feature). However, all the test charts I've looked at show that it performs horribly at 50mm. What are your real world experiences with it?

The 24-105 F4L IS seems much better @50mm, but it's heavier, older, potential zoom creep etc. I can't afford the ver. II of this lens.

Any help would be appreciated!

Steve.
When I bought my first full frame camera in 2013 the 5D Mark III my trusty old 24-105 Version 1 was showing extreme barrel distortion compared to the old 7D “crop sensor” which is normal.
A bit later Canon introduced the 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II and the 24-70 f/4 L IS. Hmmmmm…..

I chose the 24-70 f/4 L IS as IS was important to me as I bought the fantastic 16-35 f/4 L IS a few months prior for a trip to Rome in 2015. Shooting Hand Held Bracket images in Cathedrals where tripods are prohibited is still today a big part of my travel enjoyment.
Sure the Charts say 50mm is the weakness, but I don’t shoot charts…..

I will be honest the 24-70 range is not my favorite as it leaves me short… hence the 24-105 Mark II is on the horizon.

I did trade in my trusty old 24-105 towards a new 70-200 f/4 L IS Mark II, and I still have the 70-200 f/4 L IS Version 1 as well. I’m an f/4 L IS fan for lower weight while walking while traveling.
In comparing the 24-105 f/4 L IS Version 1 to the 24-70 f/4 L IS, my decision has been made.

 

[SteveHU89]

When I am interested in a lens, I go to flickr to look at images taken by said lens I'm thinking of purchasing. I like doing this as it helps silence critiques (lens reviewers) who will dwell on some insignificant flaw magnifying it to justify a new (read more expensive) purchase.

I will give you one example, fortunately not a Canon offering but this enables you to be emotionally detached from the argument. The "significant" difference between the Fuji X100f and X100V is that the lens of the V takes better close ups. Well that seems legitimate right? Enough to make a difference right? Well if you go to the flickr Fuji X100f page and check out the photos, only about one in two hundred photos is close up. The Fuji X100f is a street and travel camera, situations where close up photography is infrequent. So the V is better than the F for photography that just isn't used that much.

So look at the flickr images below for the 24 - 105mm lens and ask yourself, are these images good enough for me? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but you get to determine the answer, not some stranger.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/canon24-105/pool/

I did just that. Went through Explore Cams too. The lenses performs excellent at 24mm (which for me is a bonus and not something mandatory). I'm just going to learn to better appreciate my 35mm F2 IS with nervous bokeh... unless I could afford 24-70 2.8L II, the F4 lenses didn't impress me much. :-|

 

[akustykmagmanetpl]

Hi, I'm having a big dilemma with choosing my first mid-range zoom. For 70+ mm I'm covered, but anything under not so much. Got two primes: 35mm and 50mm. I realized that I'm a 50mm guy and don't really care much about 35mm performance.

The 24-70 F4L IS seemed like the best choice. Newer IS system (I often shoot with 1/15th of second or less), less heavy, less bulky, more modern overall (could care less about macro feature). However, all the test charts I've looked at show that it performs horribly at 50mm. What are your real world experiences with it?

very solid lens at 50mm

I had 24-105 mkI in the past and when 24-70/4 came along I replaced. for me wide angle is crucial and 24-105 at 24mm is brutal with horrible vignetting and rapid loss of sharpness when reaching the corners. 24-70/4 is sound all through the focal rangesm I have no issue with it's performance at all

The 24-105 F4L IS seems much better @50mm, but it's heavier, older, potential zoom creep etc. I can't afford the ver. II of this lens.

doesn't seem to be the case with 24-105 I had and both 24-70/4 I used (IS broke on my first one a year ago, replacement with same lens was pretty much no-brainer)

 

[J A C S]

I had no zoom creep with my EF 24-105 at all. It had weak corners at 24mm but other than that, it was good. The RF however is considerably better (yes, I know that you are not thinking about it).

 

[Trevor Sowers]

I had no zoom creep with my EF 24-105 at all. It had weak corners at 24mm but other than that, it was good. The RF however is considerably better (yes, I know that you are not thinking about it).

That’s impressive as my 24-105 creeps at a rapid pace if you look at it sideways Despite the creep it’s a very good lens

 

[Andy01]

Yup, mine too. It started creeping probably 2-3 years after I bought it new, and got worse from there. My EF 24-104L Mk ii hasn't started creeping yet, though it does have a lock switch.

 

[Swerky]

I have owned both. The 24-105 started suffering from zoom creep about a year after having bought it. Then I again I can’t know if it was a refurb or something as I didn’t buy it from an official Canon dealer with a 5D III.
I did enjoy the 24-70 more for the mentioned reasons. More compact, lighter, better IS and feels overall more modern, and I did like the macro feature myself. Can’t say I missed much the extra reach from the 24-105. For good telephoto one needs at least 200mm anyway.

I did notice a softness at 50mm but nothing that put me down or made me dislike the lens.

--
Nothing to read here.

 

[RubenJ]

The main reason I upgraded to the 24-70 is the zoom lock! The 24-105 zoom creep was easily fixed but it drove me mad that a progessional lens creeps this much.

 

[SteveHU89]

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I'm not in a rush and take my time with any lens consideration. I've been reading a lot about both lenses, checking as many photos as possible (all the way from complete amateurs to pros).

The 24-105 seems the one for me. Great colors, pleasant bokeh, nice performance overall. If any ribbon issue would come up, there's a local repairman who have fixed many of such issues permanently.

Feel free to share your thoughts. As of now, if I had to pick one, it would definitely be the 24-105.

 

[SteveHU89]

In terms of overall IQ (not just sharpness, but color rendition, bokeh, micro contrast) is the 24-105 F4L IS or the 24-70 2.8L II closer to the output of my 70-200 F4L IS mkI? Because the fact is that non of these lenses are as light as a nifty-fifty... and if I had to carry around such weight, it better be worthwhile in the end. If the 24-105 F4 is not far off my tele, then I'll gladly take it. But if it's drastically worse, I'd skip it instead.

Test charts show sharpness, distortion and chromatic aberration. I'm more interested in real world experiences from others.

 

[RubenJ]

Few years ago I acquired my 24-105 and hoped it could replace my 70-200 f/4. I almost never use the tele. The 24 @ 105 was much softer though than the 70-200 so I kept the tele in the end (and got rid of the 24-105 in favour of the 24-70 f/4).

 

[rsn]

I'm just going to learn to better appreciate my 35mm F2 IS with nervous bokeh...

The 35 f2 is actually a very good lens, it's just eclipsed with bokeh monsters. I quite like, okay almost love this lens and I'm a bokeh kind of guy. My 24mm f1.4 mk 2 has very good bokeh, my Sigma 50mm f1.4 is excellent bokeh, my Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro lens has bokeh to die for and my Canon 85mm f1.8 has very good bokeh.

But again I send you off to Flickr dungeon to look at photos taken with the 35mm f2, I think you will agree there are some outstanding photos there.

Loading…

www.flickr.com

Ken Rockwell has a decent review of this lens specifically looking at bokeh and I'll link you to that review. (Yes I know Ken Rockwell is terrible..... but actually he is not). Pay attention to where the bokeh works and when it doesn't. I am willing to bet the majority of your 35mm f2 images aren't in the bokeh danger area.

Loading…

www.kenrockwell.com

 

[SteveHU89]

Got the EF 24-105 F4L IS mk I a week ago. This is my impression:

My biggest wish was to have the same rich colors as the 70-200 F4L IS can provide. And it does just that! Although sometimes the white balance is a touch better with the big white lens. The bokeh is the same at identical focal lengths.

The image stabilizer is better than expected. Some of the reviews had me concerned, leading me to believe that this is some kind of ancient technology. Nonsense. The noise of the IS is about the same or slightly quieter than the big white.

Sharpness and focus... hardly any difference between LV shooting versus through VF. Focus is dead accurate and as fast as the 35mm F2 is. It can easily focus in very low light (many reviews claimed otherwise). I've mainly used it between 35-105. It is sharp wide open and a little soft @105. Soft compared to the crazy sharp 70-200, not compared to the "average" lens. It is "usable" in worst case scenario and excellent in best.

Overall this lens is all the things that people rave about and none of the ones they complain about. I know I got lucky with one of the best copies out there. The only complaint I have is that it's a bit heavy. I'll only keep the 70-200 because of potential zoo trip in the near future. Otherwise I would sell it. The 20-105 is just that good that I could easily live with the compromise.

 

[rsn]

The Canon 24-105 f4 IS is an extremely useful lens. If I were shooting weddings, I'd definitely go for the 28 - 70 lens but I don't. For me, the 24-105 lens is the take anywhere, do anything lens. Its appeal is decent IQ, great focal range, and lighter weight than faster L lenses.

I loved, loved, loved the focal range of the old 28-135 lens, it was just so useful. It wasn't the sharpest lens in the bag, but it was the most utilitarian lens I owned at the time. It would be so nice if Canon threw their efforts into making a 28-135 at f4. But since I'm dreaming better still, 24-135.

Don't get rid of you 70-200 f4 lens, trust me. It's an excellent piece of gear and easier to use than the f2.8 (think weight). Just hang on to it, I guarantee you, at some point you will begin to use it - and you will really, really like it. If weight is an issue, it can be with me attached to my 5D mk4, think monopod (the most under appreciated piece of gear in photography).