Canon 24-70L Vs 24-105L

[nossie]

I bought the 105. It was my first L lens so I favoured more range of good glass over speed. It's a great range but I'm not convinced about the bokeh. I worry if I'm missing out. How much difference does it make to a shot? The f4 subjects certainly don't seem so isolated when compared with the 70-200L @ f2.8 but I know that's hardly a proper comparison.
I fell into doing some small gig band work - musicians lit in the darkeness by 3 measly lights so I know I'd like the f2.8 over the f4 for that work.
All in all I wonder if I should sell it and buy the 24-70. Would the financial loss in trading be worth the gains in quality (if there are any at all).

Has anyone compared the 2 lenses side by side? Would a 70 owner like to formulate some comparison tests with me?

Ray

70-200L-2.8-ISO1600

[TPF Sponsor]

[Big Mike]

I don't have either...but I've read a few comparisons...mostly from wedding photographers.

The consensus seems to be that the speed is worth the loss of range (and the extra weight). IS, is great...but it won't freeze blur from subject movement. Having said that, the newest cameras are so good at high ISO, that F4 might not be a problem for freezing action...but DOF is obviously thinner at F2.8.

As for quality...they are both 'L'...so it's good...but I get the feeling that the 24-70 might have an edge here. I don't know about the bokeh...good question.

[usayit]

I've had both and sold the 24-70mm. Both are awsome lenses and at the same focal length and aperture, they produce similar bokeh. I found both pleasing to the eye and both have the same number of aperture blades; eight. The 24-70mm is the ferrari of standard zooms and the 24-105 is the landrover "do it all" walk around lens. Of course the 24-70 will produce a shallower DOF at f/2.8 so in that respect it is the winner. On the other hand, I do believe the DOF might be shallower at 105mm f/4 than 70 at f2.8 with the subject at the same distance.... (I'm not sure.. this is all subjective really... you'll be standing farther back at 105mm)

You have to remember that doing a bokeh comparison will require you to test both lenses at the same focal length at the same aperture. Comparing either it to the 70-200mm (I am assuming at the farther end of the focal range) is a bit different.... different focal length and different aperture.

Honestly.. if bokeh (more of it) is your goal, you really should invest into some medium telephoto primes.. even the inexpensive (relatively) are more capable of isolating your subject. May I suggest the 85mm f1.8.

[THORHAMMER]

I think that the 24-70 is a LOT sharper then the 24-105. Although the 24-105 is a good lens..

[usayit]

I usually don't like to post comparisons but....

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...s/28-105.shtml

I agree with all that is written the article. When I owned both, one was not a "clear" winner over the other... just two different lenses with different purposes. I do ~not~ agree with thorhammer that the 24-70 was "A LOT" sharper (perhaps back focusing issue?). In fact... at the same "normal" focal lengths both stopped down, I could not tell any differences between the two.

A little clip from the article:

"At 24 mm the 24-105 mm lens is definitely better at the edges at f4 and f5.6. This finding is slightly surprising to me as f4 is the maximum aperture for the 24-105 mm lens, whereas the 24-70 mm is stopped down by one stop. By f8 the lenses are hard to tell apart. They are equally good at the centre."

Read the Afterward at the bottom.... He sums up the two lenses very nicely.



These two lenses are compared A LOT.... anyone who tries to tell you one is a "clear" winner over the other has not spent a lot of time with both.

[THORHAMMER]

You might be onto something, I only got to use the 24-105 once, and it was an early release. maybe it wasn't calibrated right. But it stuck in my mind really well, ....

You cant argue with those mtf charts, wide open it looks great.