24-70L vs 24-105L image quality difference

AndyWest

AndyWest

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,400
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Just thinking out loud here before I purchase a new lens.

I have been looking at image examples of both the Canon 24-70 f2.8L & 24-105 f4L and I can see a big difference in IQ. The 24-70 is a fair bit better in my opinion and I wonder if the extra weight and cost is worth it for non pro but keen amateur and if i'm right that there is a difference in IQ.

I would love the 24-105 but i'm pretty dissapointed in the IQ with a lot of the images although I guess all owners will rate it very highly indeed.

Are the Sigma versions up to the same IQ?
 
Given the level of pixel peeping fussyness you have demonstrated with all your previous purchases I suggest the 24-70L and only ever shoot it bettween f5.6 and f11.

On a serious note I think you would be disapointed with the sigma lens even though many find it perfectly acceptable.
 
cant speak for the 24-70 but i have a 24-105 and think its brilliant, im also a keen amateur and new to this whole pp'ing lark, both of these pictures have minimal pp'ing :D

IMG_4136.jpg


IMG_4141.jpg
 
Andy, I'm currently having the exact same dilemma.
 
I've yet to see a photo taken with a 24-105L IS f4 that's not been sharp.
You need to get away from this pixel peeping malarkey.
Take a good photo, get it printed on A3, hang it on the wall and look at it from 3 metres away.
This is the first photo I took with mine a few months ago.

4502997132_c1e7d146c8_o.jpg
 
These lenses are often debated on here. Opinions are divided as you'd expect.
Trouble is, when you've bought the 24-105 (great lens) you'll wish you had f2.8 !
 
The one thing that i think would put me off the 24-70 is the size and weight. I have seen these handled on youtube abd they do look hefty!

I can't see images as i'm at work so i'll have a look at them when i get home.
 
trevorbray said:
These lenses are often debated on here. Opinions are divided as you'd expect.
Trouble is, when you've bought the 24-105 (great lens) you'll wish you had f2.8 !
Click to expand...

For this reason, Andy, I'm seriously considering the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and an 85mm f/1.8. Should be a little cheaper than the 24-70, gives a little more reach (and an extra stop) and should be around the same price if not a little cheaper.
 
trevorbray said:
These lenses are often debated on here. Opinions are divided as you'd expect.
Trouble is, when you've bought the 24-105 (great lens) you'll wish you had f2.8 !
Click to expand...

SO many people have mentioned that the IS is very good and 2.8 isn't that much of an issue!
 
AndyWest said:
The one thing that i think would put me off the 24-70 is the size and weight. I have seen these handled on youtube abd they do look hefty!

I can't see images as i'm at work so i'll have a look at them when i get home.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about that I changed from a 24-105 to a 24-70 and find that although its heavier the 24-70 balances very nicely and is no problem to handle.
 
The23rdman said:
For this reason, Andy, I'm seriously considering the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and an 85mm f/1.8. Should be a little cheaper than the 24-70, gives a little more reach (and an extra stop) and should be around the same price if not a little cheaper.
Click to expand...

I have the 85mm f1.8 and it is a superb lens. The 17-55 2.8 would be a deff purchase but people have called it the hoover as it sucks in dust due to the build quality not being that great. The glass in the 17-55 is suposed to be L quality but because the lens was designed for EF-S they couldn't call it 'L'.
 
paul_g said:
I wouldn't worry about that I changed from a 24-105 to a 24-70 and find that although its heavier the 24-70 balances very nicely and is no problem to handle.
Click to expand...

I have a 550d so will be an issue on such a light body. Would the 24-105 also be a weight issue?
 
AndyWest said:
I have the 85mm f1.8 and it is a superb lens. The 17-55 2.8 would be a deff purchase but people have called it the hoover as it sucks in dust due to the build quality not being that great. The glass in the 17-55 is suposed to be L quality but because the lens was designed for EF-S they couldn't call it 'L'.
Click to expand...

I've read that re hoovering dust, but if you add a good quality filter it's sealed.
 
AndyWest said:
I have a 550d so will be an issue on such a light body. Would the 24-105 also be a weight issue?
Click to expand...

Any heavy glass will, Andy. I tried an 85mm f/1.2 on my 40D ungripped and it was way, WAY over balanced.
 
AndyWest said:
I have a 550d so will be an issue on such a light body. Would the 24-105 also be a weight issue?
Click to expand...

A grip would help the balance, once I fitted one to my 50D it felt so much better with 24-105 and 70-200.
 
The23rdman said:
I've read that re hoovering dust, but if you add a good quality filter it's sealed.
Click to expand...

Good point! Also 2.8 and IS would be uber cool!! :D
 
AndyWest said:
I have a 550d so will be an issue on such a light body. Would the 24-105 also be a weight issue?
Click to expand...
Well I've just tried it on the wifes 400D and I still prefer the handling of it to her 17-85. It does make the body look a bit undernourished though :lol:
 
hashcake said:
A grip would help the balance, once I fitted one to my 50D it felt so much better with 24-105 and 70-200.
Click to expand...

I sold my 40d cos it was too heavy!
 
AndyWest said:
The one thing that i think would put me off the 24-70 is the size and weight. I have seen these handled on youtube abd they do look hefty!
Click to expand...

I don't find the weight difference to be a big issue, on the contrary I quite like the size and sturdiness of it. I walk around with my 24-70 all day without problems.

If you have the possibility head to a store and ask to try both out on your camera and see how they feel.

I've used both lenses, but in the end opted for the 24-70 because of the IQ. But they are both very good, and you will find an equal amount of replies suggesting each of them.

EDIT: I just saw this:
AndyWest said:
I sold my 40d cos it was too heavy!
Click to expand...

Well. Then you probably shouldn't get any of those two lenses. Maybe the 35mm f/1.4 instead. Mmmm, yummy!
 
The23rdman said:
Then why on earth are you looking at these lenses? Buy a couple of primes instead. ;)
Click to expand...

That is option number 2 :thumbs:

I thought a 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 and my 85mm f1.8 would cover my requirements. The 50mm f1.4 is a lens i have lusted after since starting this hobby but can't decide between the canon or Sigma 28mm as both are great but i think the Sigma is a tad better.
 
I have not experienced the 24-105 but hopefully I can add something to this?

I bought the Canon 24-70 about two months ago and the sharpness and the bokeh of the lens still amazes me. I would heartily recomend it as a good all rounder lens where the low light capability of the F2.8 on a walkabout type zoom is a godsend and can really help to add a creative touch to images having so far used this for portraits, an indian engagement ceremony and family stuff. I think the F2.8 helps the subject matter 'pop' out of the screen, which I don't quite think you'll get with the F4?

Here are a few examples taken using this lens on my 40D. I hope photobucket does them justice....

2010_07_11_9999_141800.jpg


2010_07_10_9999_23800.jpg


EDIT: Oh and it is a heavy beast, but its a small price to pay for the results it helps you achieve.
 
I'm off to Park cameras tomorrow so I'll take my camera and see if I can try some lenses out than I can see the results on my iMac from my 550d. I'll try not to pixel peep too much!! :D
 
AndyWest said:
That is option number 2 :thumbs:

I thought a 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 and my 85mm f1.8 would cover my requirements. The 50mm f1.4 is a lens i have lusted after since starting this hobby but can't decide between the canon or Sigma 28mm as both are great but i think the Sigma is a tad better.
Click to expand...

I've looked at those too, although I quite fancy the 30 f/2 instead of the 28.
 
The23rdman said:
I've looked at those too, although I quite fancy the 30 f/2 instead of the 28.
Click to expand...

30 f2 mmmmm, not looked at that one!

Edit: Can't find either canon or Sigma 30mm f2. Do you mean the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Canon 35mm f2? The canon 35mm f2 is highly rated!
 
Marcus Geezer said:
I have not experienced the 24-105 but hopefully I can add something to this?

I bought the Canon 24-70 about two months ago and the sharpness and the bokeh of the lens still amazes me. I would heartily recomend it as a good all rounder lens where the low light capability of the F2.8 on a walkabout type zoom is a godsend and can really help to add a creative touch to images having so far used this for portraits, an indian engagement ceremony and family stuff. I think the F2.8 helps the subject matter 'pop' out of the screen, which I don't quite think you'll get with the F4?

Here are a few examples taken using this lens on my 40D. I hope photobucket does them justice....

2010_07_11_9999_141800.jpg


2010_07_10_9999_23800.jpg


EDIT: Oh and it is a heavy beast, but its a small price to pay for the results it helps you achieve.
Click to expand...

Thery look a little soft, Marcus. Must be Photobucket though.
 
AndyWest said:
I'm off to Park cameras tomorrow so I'll take my camera and see if I can try some lenses out than I can see the results on my iMac from my 550d. I'll try not to pixel peep too much!! :D
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't pixel peek day one shots from the 24-70. I got mine and initially thought it was rubbish compared to the 24-105 :eek:
Turned out it was me. I found there was a learning curve to handling it compared to the 24-105. Thank god I found out on a fun shoot not a wedding!
 
AndyWest said:
That is option number 2 :thumbs:

I thought a 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 and my 85mm f1.8 would cover my requirements. The 50mm f1.4 is a lens i have lusted after since starting this hobby but can't decide between the canon or Sigma 28mm as both are great but i think the Sigma is a tad better.
Click to expand...

I have those three, they are an outstanding trio, only thing I missed is the zoomyness which is why I now have them alongside a 24-70L as backup kit

your problem is crop, 38mm is 45mm ish equivalent so you have no wide lens
 
I wouldn't both basing you choice of images posted on a board with a maximum resolution of 800px - you can make camera phone pic's look good at that size - you need links to 100% raw files or 100% jpgs to make any sort of informed choice and preferably from a body the same as yours.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
I wouldn't both basing you choice of images posted on a board with a maximum resolution of 800px - you can make camera phone pic's look good at that size - you need links to 100% raw files or 100% jpgs to make any sort of informed choice and preferably from a body the same as yours.
Click to expand...

or even better find someone with one, go to the pub and plaaaayyyyy, they'll get you to the sweet spots and its a more social experience
 
david1701 said:
I have those three, they are an outstanding trio, only thing I missed is the zoomyness which is why I now have them alongside a 24-70L as backup kit

your problem is crop, 38mm is 45mm ish equivalent so you have no wide lens
Click to expand...

I have a 17-85 IS USM coming soon (used) so that should deal with the wider end....untill i get a 17-40L :D
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
I wouldn't both basing you choice of images posted on a board with a maximum resolution of 800px - you can make camera phone pic's look good at that size - you need links to 100% raw files or 100% jpgs to make any sort of informed choice and preferably from a body the same as yours.
Click to expand...

Very fair comment.... :)
 
I've used the old 28-70 f2.8 for some time and love it - the image quality is amazing and it always nails the focus, when the shots are poor I know it's my fault. I recently got my hands a 24-105 f4 to compare it and have not been massively impressed. The extra range and the IS can be useful but I find the results are not as consistently good - when it nails a shot it is superb but I get too many shots that are just off. I'd go for the 24-70 f2.8 everytime, sure it's heavier and has a more limited range but the images more than make up for it.

That said, if you sold the 40D and and went to a 550D due to weight issues then I suspect either lens will be to heavy.
 
Ive used the 17-55 is on a 7d and it is a stunning lens, i now have a 24-70 on a 5dmkII and it gives IQ that is around the same ballpark as the 17-55 although its a little more contrasty giving better over all results. The 24-70 does have a learning curve especially used on a FF wide open due to the shallow DOF so dont automatically feel you have a duff lens at first. Mine also needed MA of +7 at the long end which is where i use it most.

The amount of MA doesnt remain the same over the whole focal length in my experience but i prefer to set the MA on the long end as its where i use it and when shooting wide any minor front or back focus isnt obvious unless you peep, i dont.
 
At the end of the day I think the 24-70 is out my price range so it's down to:

24-105 f4L - yum but not convinced...hmmm £799 (white box) from Park Cameras

17-55 f2.8 IS - Yummy lens and would go with 85mm f1.8 that I have. Dust issues rectified with decent filter. £799 from Park Cameras

28mm f1.8 & 50mm f1.4 (Canon) Light but no zoom. £702 from Park Cameras

Sigma 28mm f1.8 & Canon 50mm f1.4 Light but no zoom £645 from Park Cameras.

Kerso will be a little cheaper But i can drive to Park. If I went the prime rout I can afford Lightroom 3 upgrade. Also i will at the end of the day have 17-85mm lens if needing the zoom but would be nice not to have to keep swaping lenses.

Choices choices!
 
Kerso a little cheaper? I think you will find you could get the 24-105 and the lightroom upgrade for Park's price! Patience is a virtue.

Edit: Also the siggy 50mm 1.4 is supposed to be bettre than the canon. May be worth considering!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top