Canon 24-70L vs 24-105L

[Hardrock]

Anyone else read this review? Juza Nature Photography

I thought it was pretty interesting, from what I have read hear on TPF the 24-70 was tack sharp. Anyone have experience with both lens?

[TPF Sponsor]

[Sw1tchFX]

It's alright, pretty much in line with my experiences.

If I shot canon, and needed a midrange zoom, the 24-105 would be my only option. The 28-135IS sucks and the 24-70 is a little too boring.

Honestly, though, I wouldn't shoot Canon for their zoom lenses. I'd shoot canon becuase the 14L, 24L, 35L, 50 1.4, 85L, and 135L are all awesome lenses.

The only zoom lenses i would get if i shot canon would be the 70-200 f/4 IS or maybe the 24-105L if i needed flexibility. Otherwise, it's primes all the way.


That's what i'm doing with my Nikon system because they're new primes are pretty much setting the benchmarks. i've read lots of people say the new 24G is better than even the leica version(!) and my 50G is a much sharper and smoother lens than my friend's Canon 50 1.2 and 1.4's when printed. We did a side-by-side test in the studio, it was crazy. 50G on D700, 50L and 501.4 on the 5D mark 1, so they're both 12ish MP.

[IgsEMT]

The 28-135IS sucks

Definitely disagree with you.
I use that lens, when shooting Canon, and quality is amazing.

[Derrel]

I've heard from some pros that the 24-70 EF is not that good of a zoom. Juza's test target photos, plus the field samples, show that the 24-70 has pretty bad corner performance. The photo here http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...24-70_24mm.jpg shows absolutely horrible corner performance....just look at the lower left hand corner....it's dismally bad. That lens is not good enough for a 21MP, FF sensor camera.

I only own the 24-105 L ,and do not own the 24-70 L zoom, but Juza wrote that he had tested two samples of the 24-70,and both were bad; the first one was apparently so bad that he thought it was a bad sample, but now he has tested another 24-70 and as he wrote, the results are the same...and other people who are really "into" wide zooms say the 24-70-L needs an update...makes me think that it's just not optically that good. The wide-to-short telephoto zoom has never been "easy" to design or make--the lens has to cross types, from a wide angle to a normal to a short telephoto, and at wide angle focal lengths, depth of focus at the film plane (not to be confused with depth of field) can mean that incredibly small errors make for badly focused, soft images, and the wide angles of view (94 degrees IMMSMC at 24 on FF) make it hard to fully correct all optical flaws. And then,to top it all off, the lens is made at f/2.8 speed, which adds additional difficulties. The slower 24-105-L benefits from an f/4 maximum aperture, which is slower, and makes the design easier to build.

I dunno...I'm not enamored of the 24-70 or 28-70, heavy, tank-like f/2.8 zooms that weigh a kilogram or so, like the 24-70-L. I've owned a couple of these "coffee can lenses", and I just do not like the size and weight and the huge obnoxious profile they have, and the way they make the camera nose-dive all the time. What's weird is that Tamron's 28mm-75mm f/2.8, which is made of industrial plastics, is so,so,so good that it's more flare-resistant than a Canon 50/1.8, and it out-resolves many primes lenses, and is such a legendary lens that both Pentax and Sony have licensed it to be made for them,with their own proprietary style of rings and rubber coatings....and it offers about 90% of the optical performance of a Nikkor or Canon 24-70, but at 1/3 the weight and what is it now? 1/5th the price??

[Dallmeyer]

Anyone else read this review? Juza Nature Photography

I thought it was pretty interesting, from what I have read hear on TPF the 24-70 was tack sharp. Anyone have experience with both lens?

The 105 appears soft at 24mm below f8 with corner sharpness improved but less correction for CA.

At 35mm the 105 seems sharper both edge and center, a better center at 4/70, while the 24-70 seems snappier color.

The 24-70s speed allows better pictures at f4/70mm but seems prone to CA again by f8.


Unless, as the reviewer considers, the 24-70 is possibly a poor sample, i prefer the more subdued but natural appearance of the 105 images overall.

[Dallmeyer]

Yes, it is difficult enough it seems to make even a decent 24mm prime. I've only had one great one (a Pentax) the others suffer always CA. Maybe a 10-20 is a different undertaking as the whole length is superwide optically but i'm beginning to view all lower-than-28 to X zooms as potentially iffy territory. Its chalk and cheese - the differing focal lengths and formulas required. Chalky cheese seems to have profitable fanbase though!

I've heard from some pros that the 24-70 EF is not that good of a zoom. Juza's test target photos, plus the field samples, show that the 24-70 has pretty bad corner performance. The photo here http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...24-70_24mm.jpg shows absolutely horrible corner performance....just look at the lower left hand corner....it's dismally bad. That lens is not good enough for a 21MP, FF sensor camera.

I only own the 24-105 L ,and do not own the 24-70 L zoom, but Juza wrote that he had tested two samples of the 24-70,and both were bad; the first one was apparently so bad that he thought it was a bad sample, but now he has tested another 24-70 and as he wrote, the results are the same...and other people who are really "into" wide zooms say the 24-70-L needs an update...makes me think that it's just not optically that good. The wide-to-short telephoto zoom has never been "easy" to design or make--the lens has to cross types, from a wide angle to a normal to a short telephoto, and at wide angle focal lengths, depth of focus at the film plane (not to be confused with depth of field) can mean that incredibly small errors make for badly focused, soft images, and the wide angles of view (94 degrees IMMSMC at 24 on FF) make it hard to fully correct all optical flaws. And then,to top it all off, the lens is made at f/2.8 speed, which adds additional difficulties. The slower 24-105-L benefits from an f/4 maximum aperture, which is slower, and makes the design easier to build.

I dunno...I'm not enamored of the 24-70 or 28-70, heavy, tank-like f/2.8 zooms that weigh a kilogram or so, like the 24-70-L. I've owned a couple of these "coffee can lenses", and I just do not like the size and weight and the huge obnoxious profile they have, and the way they make the camera nose-dive all the time. What's weird is that Tamron's 28mm-75mm f/2.8, which is made of industrial plastics, is so,so,so good that it's more flare-resistant than a Canon 50/1.8, and it out-resolves many primes lenses, and is such a legendary lens that both Pentax and Sony have licensed it to be made for them,with their own proprietary style of rings and rubber coatings....and it offers about 90% of the optical performance of a Nikkor or Canon 24-70, but at 1/3 the weight and what is it now? 1/5th the price??

[inTempus]

It's pretty well known that there are quite a few bad samples of the 24-70 out there. Just because you use two of them doesn't mean it's a representative sample of what's out there or how the lens can perform if it's a "good" copy.

I have a "good" copy, and from what I've read I'm lucky. Mine is amazingly sharp and I've seen no flaws in any of my images that I could attribute to the lens.

I just shot this image today:

'
Larger: http://www.intempusphotography.com/p...3_mSp5B-X3.jpg

Click the link to the larger image. Look at the details. The lens blows me away and that's either on my 16MP 1D4 (used for this pic) or even my 21MP 5D2.

I won't give this lens up... even if they replace it down the road with a newer one. I might buy the newer one, but this one is staying with me for as long as I'm shooting Canon.

With that said, the 24-105 is a superb lens. I've shot with my buddy's many times and every time I walk away saying "I'm going to buy one". But then I don't because it would be a bit redundant... and I have no plans on getting rid of my 24-70.

If you don't need f/2.8 I would say the 24-105 is the lens to get though.

[Derrel]

Sounds like sample variation or manufacturing difficulties might be a problem for the 24-70 EF. Some lens designs are very hard to make, or tend to have really bad issues with elements becoming de-centered in actual-world usage. Nikon's old 50-300mm was known as a lens that was easy to get knocked out of alignment. Building these new, modern, complicated lenses involves a huge number of elements, and shims, and screws and retaining springs...Nikon's 25-85 AF-S is another lens that has some sample variation issues. These wide-to-short tele designs can be a bi-atch to build!!!

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L - Review / Test Report - Analysis
"MTF (resolution)
Well, I guess everybody has a nemesis and mine is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L. It took me 4 (f-o-u-r) samples of the lens to get a good one - please note: "good", not a "great" sample. The first three variants showed rather hefty centering defects which spoiled the results quite a bit.
This final sample exhibited a very good to excellent center resolution at wide-open aperture throughout the tested focal length range. The borders follow on a good to very good level. Stopping down lifts the center further into excellent territories and the borders improve gradually till about f/5.6 to f/8. The sweet spot of the lens is in the middle of the zoom range."
"Chromatic Aberrations
Lateral chromatic aberrations (CAs) can be visible at 24mm where the average width exceeds 1 pixel at the image border. At the other focal length CAs are practically negligible. All-in-all a very good characteristic for a standard zoom here."

"Verdict
The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L proved to be a worthy representative of the pro grade lens league ... if you can get a good sample. During the last two years four lenses has seen the lab with only one within specs - this is disappointing especially for a lens of this price class. If you´re lucky enough to get a decent sample you can expect a very high performance level, especially when stopped down a bit. Distortions, vignetting and CAs are well controlled. The build quality is superb with only the reverse zoom extension as a minor downside."--end quoted passage from PhotoZone---

Like so many things, if you get a "really good one" (wife, dog, hair cut, fishing spot, job) you will be very happy with it..but if yours is sub-par, well...you know...

[Dallmeyer]

@inTempus. It's a decent image and the quality is good but i'm unable to right click any EXIF from the linked image. What focal length/aperture is this?

[usayit]

I've owned both.... The only one left behind after a sell off is the 24-105L.

They way I see it, they are both intended for different purposes. If you need the f/2.8 aperture, then there is no question which you should use. If you need the flexibility of the focal range, then there is no question which you should use. I can't say one is better than the other for everyone, for all uses, for all photographers.

Reasons for keeping the 24-105L
* I was in need of a good walk around lens with good flexibility (focal range, IS).
* I already have fast lenses (primes)
* I also own a good ol'Tamron 35-105 f/2.8 Aspherical. Not as good.. but still excellent enough... when I do need a fast zoom.

[gryphonslair99]

I am more than satisfied with my 24-70 f2.8L. It has been recalibrated at the Irvine, CA service center and is very sharp now. When I bought it, it had a slight front focus issue. Now it's dead on.

[Hardrock]

Good info guys thanks! So I have not had to deal with a bad copy of a lens yet , are they repairable? Or do you have to trade it out for another lens?

[CMT]

I'll chime in - I originally upgraded from the 17-85 f/4-5.6 to the 24-70 on my 20D, and then switched bodies to my current 5D. The associated upgrades in image quality were suitably impressive, but it wasn't until I broke the lens mounting ring and had to send the 24-70 back to Canon that I saw an amazing difference in sharpness. I'm talking night and day - Perhaps I had one of the low quality copies initially, but whatever Canon did to it while back in their hands was nothing short of wonderful.

I took these on Sunday with the 5D 24-70 combo and couldn't be happier:





When I had to choose between the 24-70 and 24-105, to be honest I went with the 24-70 because I'd used other friends' copies of the lens and was smitten by the thing. I do wish I had considered the 24-105, but since I had an older 80-200 f/2.8L in my bag it wasn't really a contender at the time.

[Scatterbrained]

I haven't noticed any issues with my 24-70, but for me f/2.8 was more important than having the extra zoom as I am usually indoors with ambient light.

[tsaraleksi]

I've never had any issues with my 24-70, it's always been about as sharp as I could ask it to be. This is a good example of why I don't like picky picky online reviewing-- it doesn't really matter how a lens performs when photographing a chart, so long as it does what you want it to in the field.