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

menthel said:
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!
Click to expand...

I do not have Kerso's list to hand so can't compare prices. Any idea how much the 24-105 is from Kerso?
 
Its probably best to ask him for a list as they change all of the time, but in the last one I have its not just pennies. I will PM you as I am not sure Ian will want the prices spread all over the place if out of date!
 
AndyWest said:
I do not have Kerso's list to hand so can't compare prices. Any idea how much the 24-105 is from Kerso?
Click to expand...

This was his price last week: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM SLR Lens(white box)---719

I got mine from him a few months ago when they were £680 :)
 
Marcus Geezer said:
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?
Click to expand...

What tosh...... The 24-105 has a shallower depth of field at 105mm f5.6 than the 24-70 has at 70mm and F2.8. Just stand back a touch.
 
I had the exact same decision a week ago, couldn't make up my mind and decided to go for the 24-70L. A few days after I had a total change of heart..

As an amateur I'm looking for good quality lenses that are as flexible as possible and the extra reach of the 24-105L gives me that. The difference in the f stop doesn't really bother me because with the difference in price I can pickup a 50 f1.4.
 
17-55IS for you, you've got the 85 for long stuff but the 17-55 is sharp fast and has IS, it matches the 7d nicely so will outperform your body ;)
 
david1701 said:
17-55IS for you, you've got the 85 for long stuff but the 17-55 is sharp fast and has IS, it matches the 7d nicely so will outperform your body ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah but this doggy is saying "Buy the 24-105 f4L" :D

4502997132_c1e7d146c8_o.jpg


I must say that the 24-105 images on here are just stunning and look on par with the 24-70....

24-105 or 17-55 ??????????????????????
 
AndyWest said:
Yeah but this doggy is saying "Buy the 24-105 f4L" :D

4502997132_c1e7d146c8_o.jpg


I must say that the 24-105 images on here are just stunning and look on par with the 24-70....

24-105 or 17-55 ??????????????????????
Click to expand...

Are you koolpc in disguise? Its a difficult choice between the 3 actually and not one I am looking forward to making. If you don't have an UWA lens then the 17-55 would be my choice as I am not sure 24-105 is wide enough at the bottom end.
 
I use the 24-105 for the vast majority of my studio and weddings shoots and I have been very impressed with it!
 
24-105L is sharper that the 24-70 I've had 2 of the 70mm's to prove it.

If you need to be shooting a wedding at F/2.8 at 24mm, you should be using flash.
 
You're about a decisive as I am when it comes to picking kit, lol
 
gingerweasel said:
You're about a decisive as I am when it comes to picking kit, lol
Click to expand...

I hate it!!!! What i really want is a 17-135mm F1.4L IS USM for £600 now that would make me happy but of course will never happen.:D

Every lens and every option has a shortfall so i need to decide what shortfall is going to be the easiest to live with. I think it's down to if i need the 17mm end and going through my images it looks like i do. SO it looks like the 17-55 f2.8 IS is the best option to go for as i have the 85mm to compliment it.

That's what my head is saying....my heart....well......24-105L or 2 primes as i love the apertures!

Humph! :D
 
70mm isn't long enough, it just isn't.

24mm is wide enough for most things.

F2.8 whilst good at lower light situations means that unless you are bang on facing the target there will be areas out of focus.
So one person yay, a bride and groom or two people at an angle like at the alter, nay.

On a crop body the lens comes into it's own with a reach ranging from 38.5mm to 170mm(ish)

The 2.8 is bigger, heavier and I know I may get shot for this but just bump the ISO up a stop. Same shutter speed results though noise results depending on the camera.

Plus it's cheaper and sharper. Should be a no brainer :bonk:
 
Lostgear said:
What tosh...... The 24-105 has a shallower depth of field at 105mm f5.6 than the 24-70 has at 70mm and F2.8. Just stand back a touch.
Click to expand...

What tosh? Ha ha!

Ok.. in the equivalent focal range... feel better now?
 
Gel said:
70mm isn't long enough, it just isn't.

24mm is wide enough for most things.

F2.8 whilst good at lower light situations means that unless you are bang on facing the target there will be areas out of focus.
So one person yay, a bride and groom or two people at an angle like at the alter, nay.

On a crop body the lens comes into it's own with a reach ranging from 38.5mm to 170mm(ish)

The 2.8 is bigger, heavier and I know I may get shot for this but just bump the ISO up a stop. Same shutter speed results though noise results depending on the camera.

Plus it's cheaper and sharper. Should be a no brainer :bonk:
Click to expand...

Call me Mr thicky but which one are you promoting? It's been a long day! :D

One thing I forgot was that I found it annoying that 50mm wasn't long enough with my Tamron 17-50 so 55mm is going to have the same problem.
 
Well I had the same dilemma and was torn by the f2.8 of the 24-70 but in the end I went for the 24-105 as I wanted it as a main walkabout lens and hence the longer reach and less weight works for me.

I haven't been disappointed, the lens is fantastic and I've handheld it down to 1/8th successfully.

To be honest I don't think you'll be disappointed with either
 
just bought a 24-70 in the last month.

If you are used to IS as I was with my 17-55 2.8 it does take a bit of getting used to as the 17-55 is so good it can make you almost lazy due to the shutter speeds you can get away with!

Very pleased with 24-70. Gets really really sharp when stopped down to f4 onwards, can't say i'm blown away at 2.8 tbh. It would be nice to have a bit longer focal length but it's fine.

That said - if you are on a budget Tameron 28-75 2.8 is really very close to my Canon, scarily so!! That said mine does have a softer spot on one side but for £200 it's a steal. I'd also highly recommend 17-55 2.8.]

Some shots I did with the new lens (24-70) http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=243635
 
Gel said:
24-105L is sharper that the 24-70 I've had 2 of the 70mm's to prove it.

If you need to be shooting a wedding at F/2.8 at 24mm, you should be using flash.
Click to expand...

That doesn't prove anything other than the 24-105 you had was sharper than the two 70's you had. ;)

And what if you can't use flash in the church?
 
Gel said:
24-105L is sharper that the 24-70 I've had 2 of the 70mm's to prove it.

If you need to be shooting a wedding at F/2.8 at 24mm, you should be using flash.
Click to expand...

he's on cropso 24mm f2.8 becomes 40somethingmm at f4.5
 
Andy - Your going to be disappointed by all the canon lens in this thread as the Tamron your not happy with in this thread will out resolve all of them.
 
Well I'd also state the case for the 24-105 - My favourite most used lens (that and the 70-200 2.8L IS)

I have used the 24-70 too and it's very heavy whereas the 24-105 is light, sharp, contrasty and very versatile.

Yes the extra stop can come in handy (I have a Tamron 28-75 for those times) but rarely do I need to use it.

My favourite wedding image
MG_87111.jpg


Not my best portraits but this is standard for sharpness on the 24-105
KJG-138.jpg



Capture2.JPG
 
they're all soft with jpeg artefacts so not really the best judge of a lens, in fact everything at 800 px won't be
 
Jon, those shots don't impress me for sharpness at all, mate.
 
david1701 said:
they're all soft with jpeg artefacts so not really the best judge of a lens, in fact everything at 800 px won't be
Click to expand...



Only if you try to zoom in on an 800px image - they look sharp on my screens - THe wedding image is only slightly soft because it's shot through the veil - It's meant to be like that!
 
EOS_JD said:
Only if you try to zoom in on an 800px image - they look sharp on my screens - THe wedding image is only slightly soft because it's shot through the veil - It's meant to be like that!
Click to expand...

Which is why - as stated by someone earlier - it's pointless posting compressed images as examples. :)
 
I had a 24-105, but changed to the 17-55 a few months ago. I was reluctant to give up the build quality of the L, but on a crop body it just wasn't wide enough, enough of the time!

To be honest I wish I had made the change earlier, because the 17-55 has hardly been off my camera since. As a walkabout lens I find it perfect. It has a filter fitted and hasn't sucked in any dust and I think the image quality is better than the 24-105. I've also got the 85 1.8 and think the 17-55 is every bit as good, so if you like your 85...

BTW, have you checked that Park Cameras have the lenses in stock? They didn't when I bought mine, despite the website saying it was. I got mine from Jessops, who were quite happy to haggle, resulting in me getting a better deal than anywhere else. :)
 
robbys82 said:
just bought a 24-70 in the last month.

If you are used to IS as I was with my 17-55 2.8 it does take a bit of getting used to as the 17-55 is so good it can make you almost lazy due to the shutter speeds you can get away with!

Very pleased with 24-70. Gets really really sharp when stopped down to f4 onwards, can't say i'm blown away at 2.8 tbh. It would be nice to have a bit longer focal length but it's fine.

That said - if you are on a budget Tameron 28-75 2.8 is really very close to my Canon, scarily so!! That said mine does have a softer spot on one side but for £200 it's a steal. I'd also highly recommend 17-55 2.8.]

Some shots I did with the new lens (24-70) http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=243635
Click to expand...

Those are stunning images, really lovely.

I do think that L glass as with most lenses i guess have a 'feel' about them. This is very true of old manual lenses which i have a few and those images as with the dog earlier just look so 'L' :D

Not looked at the Tamron so will have a look.

Thanks to everyone for your help, it has narrowed my choices down considerably.
 
david1701 said:
they're all soft with jpeg artefacts so not really the best judge of a lens, in fact everything at 800 px won't be
Click to expand...

Now this is another thing, should i be so worried seeing as i save images at either 800pix or 1024 pix? No i shouldn't...BUT it does bother me as i like to see nice sharp images at 100% as i then know in my mind that even if you can't see it in the final pic i know it's still there.

Have i got some sort of mental health disorder or something similar? :D :D
 
the last time i was assisting at a wedding the videographer, an absolute cock of a guy basically slated the 24-105mm and said it was one of the worst lenses, no-one should use one, so many problems etc.

said it wasnt good enough for his assistant, only for his 13yo son at which point i stopped listening and tried to avoid him.

i love the 24-105mm f4, yeah it isnt f2.8 but the fact it goes that bit longer at the telephoto end does come in handy.
 
I have just been looking at image examples from the 17-40 f4L and OMG!:love: Very very nice. Nuts! Why did I look :bang:

I have been looking at my images for the last month and have counted up the following using the 17-50mm lens:

17-40mm = 362 images - nearly 1/2 at 17mm
between 40-50mm = 75 images - mostly at 50mm
using my 85mm prime = 55 images - just because i wanted to use it.

Just a thought but it could be an idea to get the 17-40 and use my 17-85 IS for the 'over 40mm' situations and save up for the 24-105. The 17-85 is supposed to be pretty good at the longer end!

My orig plan was to just get a 28mm f1.8 or 30mm f1.4 and be done with it!
 
or get the 17-55 2.8 :- P

maybe try renting one. bloody good lens

thanks for the complements too btw :-))
 
Lostgear said:
What tosh...... The 24-105 has a shallower depth of field at 105mm f5.6 than the 24-70 has at 70mm and F2.8. Just stand back a touch.
Click to expand...

When you stand back to get the same framing with the 24-105, the DOF increases
 
24-70 f/2.8 is a serious bit of kit, love mine, I'm holding on to it for when I go FF, and my 70-200 will live on a 7D, I always carry two body's so I always get the shot I want.

You will never wish for f/4 IS when you have f/2.8 :nono: :p
 
I would go for the 17-55mm 2.8 and 85mm f1.8.

Good combo and the 85mm prime should be very sharp.
 
The23rdman said:
That doesn't prove anything other than the 24-105 you had was sharper than the two 70's you had. ;)

And what if you can't use flash in the church?
Click to expand...

You bump the ISO a stop obviously or use a cheap prime.
I'd rather have a sharper, noisier image than a soft clean one if it's only going to be 1 stop in it.

The 17-55mm is a different focal range but better than the 24-70mm for sharpness.
You will need something else though as the range isn't that much.

The 24-105L and a used speedlite in TTL mode will give you so much more, there's isn't any argument for the 24-70 IMO

Also, sharpness aside, the colours are better with the 24-105L (Marginally) and the 24-70 is soft at 24mm whereas the 24-105L isn't.
Also, with the 24-70 there has always been a higher than usual number of 'issues' with the sharpnes and the 24-105L hasn't.
 
Gel said:
Also, with the 24-70 there has always been a higher than usual number of 'issues' with the sharpnes and the 24-105L hasn't.
Click to expand...

I feel you will find that most was down to user error as I have, once I got used to mine after a while my softer shots became nice and sharp.
 
Well I have just bought a used (From the For Sale Section)

24-105 f4L IS

So if the images are crap then it's down to user error!!! :D

Will now save for a 17-40 f4L for the wide end but the 17-85 will do for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top