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

Andy I've just seen you purchase in the classifieds :thumbs:
Well done on the 24-105, you will really like this lens :)
 
Andy - don't mean to be nasty about this, but maybe you should concentrate on enjoying/using the gear you have instead of constantly lusting after the next thing. I know it's something we are probably all guilty of to some extent, but you take it to extreme levels!
 
hashcake said:
Andy I've just seen you purchase in the classifieds :thumbs:
Well done on the 24-105, you will really like this lens :)
Click to expand...

Thanks :) :) :)

Grum wrote: Andy - don't mean to be nasty about this, but maybe you should concentrate on enjoying/using the gear you have instead of constantly lusting after the next thing. I know it's something we are probably all guilty of to some extent, but you take it to extreme levels!
Click to expand...

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT which is why this purchase had to be right. I do have a tendency to buy and sell (and loose money) far far too much and I really do want to stop so hopefully with 'L' glass things will change for the better. If only I was this extreme in bed, my wife would be very happy then!! :eek: :lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Andy, firstly, I think I'd echo the comments that you're slightly mental and obsessing over stuff that really is a little bit OTT. But then, I've made a career out of it in my industry, so who am I to talk?

Secondly, when I'm next at the unit in Godstone, would you like me to give you a shout so you can come and try my 24-105L on your camera? It's only a few minutes from your office, and might give you a chance to have a play with feeling hurried in a shop. Let me know and let's see if we can sort something out.

The weight thing may well be an issue for you if the 40d was too heavy, it's a fair lump of a lens, but I absolutely love it (choice was this or 24-70 2.8). It's sharp as a tack, and given the choice I'd buy it again. If you look at my flickr (shineondetail), the Goodwood FoS, Robyn & Finnley and 'Will & Elly studio' sets are all exclusively shot with the 24-105, albeit on a 5d2.
 
Shine On said:
Andy, firstly, I think I'd echo the comments that you're slightly mental and obsessing over stuff that really is a little bit OTT. But then, I've made a career out of it in my industry, so who am I to talk?

Secondly, when I'm next at the unit in Godstone, would you like me to give you a shout so you can come and try my 24-105L on your camera? It's only a few minutes from your office, and might give you a chance to have a play with feeling hurried in a shop. Let me know and let's see if we can sort something out.

The weight thing may well be an issue for you if the 40d was too heavy, it's a fair lump of a lens, but I absolutely love it (choice was this or 24-70 2.8). It's sharp as a tack, and given the choice I'd buy it again. If you look at my flickr (shineondetail), the Goodwood FoS, Robyn & Finnley and 'Will & Elly studio' sets are all exclusively shot with the 24-105, albeit on a 5d2.
Click to expand...

I seriously think I have some kind of 'compulsive purchase disorder'!! :D It is something I'm trying to combat! At least I admit to being a numpty :cuckoo::bonk::thumbs:

Thanks very much for the kind offer of coming down to my office but I have now purchased a used 24-105 with pro UV filter and free delivery for £600 which i think is a very fair price.

The weight issue is one that I may just have to live with and hoping the lens isn't too heavy and / or the lightness of the 550d will make things a bit easier.

At the end of the day there is no perfect lens that covers all eventualities so one has to put up with whats least important. The quality of the lens (IQ & Build) and focal length are whats most important and I don't think I can do better for £600. :cool:
 
AndyWest said:
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
Click to expand...

Andy
None of the images shown above are 100% views.

A 100% view of an image would show only a very small portion of the image. Of course you will see the sharpness better if they are shown. I know you've bought the 24-105 now and it's easily as sharp as my primes so I'm sure you will find the same.

Good luck with the new lens. UV filters can affect sharpness and focusing. I gave up using them a while back. The lens hood protects the glass (although the 24-105 hood is pretty small!

Cheers
Jim
 
BIG Thanks to everyone for all your help and advice. I'm sure I have chosen well and look forward to my 24-105.

And I promise not to pixel peep too much. Actually I have set the zoom in lightroom to 1:2 rather than 1:1 so it won't zoom in so much :D I still have the option to zoom in to 1:1 or even closer but I will resist! :lol:

Thanks everyone :thumbs:
 
I was looking for sample images to show sharpness but see you've already gone for a 24-105... I don't think you'll be disapointed, it's plenty sharp enough. Below is a snap taken with mine and a 100% crop from it, no sharpening applied to the image...

IMG_3504.jpg


IMG_3504crop.jpg
 
Thanks Peter. Getting me even more excited!!! :thumbs:
 
PerfectSpeed said:
You will never wish for f/4 IS when you have f/2.8 :nono: :p
Click to expand...
That's a bit of a sweeping statement. I have an issue where actually holding the camera perfectly still at anything below 1/250 is a challenge, IS is a great help to me, I can actually get away with 1/60....

Steve
 
postcardcv said:
I was looking for sample images to show sharpness but see you've already gone for a 24-105... I don't think you'll be disapointed, it's plenty sharp enough. Below is a snap taken with mine and a 100% crop from it, no sharpening applied to the image...

IMG_3504.jpg


IMG_3504crop.jpg
Click to expand...

At f7.1 these look very soft to me
 
Jelster said:
That's a bit of a sweeping statement. I have an issue where actually holding the camera perfectly still at anything below 1/250 is a challenge, IS is a great help to me, I can actually get away with 1/60....

Steve
Click to expand...
True, but I mainly shoot moving things.

I do lots of concerts and crowd shots, street photography and some sports so f/2.8 or higher is essential for me, as well as a speedlite.
 
Andy - I went through the same dilema as you when I wanted to take a step up from the kit 18-55 IS lens that my 450D came with. In the end I went with the 24-105 for a number of reasons, primarily extra range, wasn't that bothered about f2.8 and lower weight

It did feel a little over balanced on the 450D to begin with, but I think that was also down to the fact that the 18-55 is such a light lens. After a very short time, it just felt natural. I've since upgraded to a 7D and it feels spot on.

The 24-105 is my 'default' lens that I take the vast majority of pics with - really is a great walkabout/all rounder and I'm sure you'll love it. I never think 'what if' re: the 24-70 as I'm so happy with the 24-105 - I'm only a keen amateur and tend not to pixel peep much anymore, instead I try to enjoy my pics as I figured that if all I did was pixel peep, then I wouldn't be happy with that many pics!

You say that you're thinking of saving up for a 17-40L as 24mm may not be wide enough. Personally, I think you'd be better looking at a UWA lens as there's a lot of overlap between the 17-40 and the 24-105 - essentially you're only getting an extra 8mm.

I bought a Tokina 12-24mm as I felt this was a good match with the 24-105 - I really wanted their 11-16mm but no-one had it in stock :thumbsdown: - but having bought it can say that I am very happy with the 12-24mm - just took a little bit of getting used to.

You've also got the Sigma 10-20mm as well as the Canon 10-22mm in this space, both of which get raving reviews, or maybe even the Sigma 8-16mm.

I feel another can of worms thread coming on!!! :exit:

As others have said, put the 24-105 on your camera, get out and take some pics and most of all enjoy it! It's all too easy to constantly be on the upgrade path, whilst having perfectly good kit in your bag and that's not actually getting used! Trust me, I know! That's why I've decided I've spent enough (far too much actually!) on kit so am now just getting out there and enjoying it.

Just my 2p
 
The 'L' lens do have a certain 'feel' to them which i like. Not many lenses do.
 
I use the 24-105 for 80% of my wedding photography and the 85mm f1.8 prime for the other 20% - all on FF 5D classics.

For mid range zooms the 24-105 and the 24-70 are both very capable lenses and capable of rendering excellent images.

Don't get hung up on optical quality because it is SO very close.

Most of the images on my site were shot with the 24-105 and for those who want to see here's the link http://www.kentweddingphoto.co.uk/index.html
 
danski said:
Andy - I went through the same dilema as you when I wanted to take a step up from the kit 18-55 IS lens that my 450D came with. In the end I went with the 24-105 for a number of reasons, primarily extra range, wasn't that bothered about f2.8 and lower weight

It did feel a little over balanced on the 450D to begin with, but I think that was also down to the fact that the 18-55 is such a light lens. After a very short time, it just felt natural. I've since upgraded to a 7D and it feels spot on.

The 24-105 is my 'default' lens that I take the vast majority of pics with - really is a great walkabout/all rounder and I'm sure you'll love it. I never think 'what if' re: the 24-70 as I'm so happy with the 24-105 - I'm only a keen amateur and tend not to pixel peep much anymore, instead I try to enjoy my pics as I figured that if all I did was pixel peep, then I wouldn't be happy with that many pics!

You say that you're thinking of saving up for a 17-40L as 24mm may not be wide enough. Personally, I think you'd be better looking at a UWA lens as there's a lot of overlap between the 17-40 and the 24-105 - essentially you're only getting an extra 8mm.

I bought a Tokina 12-24mm as I felt this was a good match with the 24-105 - I really wanted their 11-16mm but no-one had it in stock :thumbsdown: - but having bought it can say that I am very happy with the 12-24mm - just took a little bit of getting used to.

You've also got the Sigma 10-20mm as well as the Canon 10-22mm in this space, both of which get raving reviews, or maybe even the Sigma 8-16mm.

I feel another can of worms thread coming on!!! :exit:

As others have said, put the 24-105 on your camera, get out and take some pics and most of all enjoy it! It's all too easy to constantly be on the upgrade path, whilst having perfectly good kit in your bag and that's not actually getting used! Trust me, I know! That's why I've decided I've spent enough (far too much actually!) on kit so am now just getting out there and enjoying it.

Just my 2p
Click to expand...
Spot on advice! thanks :thumbs: Regarding a UWA lens, I did have a Sigma for a short while and thought it was very poor. The Tokina is supposed to be good. I have a 17-85 for now so I'll wait till funds allow and see whats what then.

Thanks all.
 
:clap: Nice Shot

hashcake said:
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
Click to expand...
 
AndyWest said:
Spot on advice! thanks :thumbs: Regarding a UWA lens, I did have a Sigma for a short while and thought it was very poor. The Tokina is supposed to be good. I have a 17-85 for now so I'll wait till funds allow and see whats what then.

Thanks all.
Click to expand...

Sigma seem to be notorious for having dubious QA (only what I've read, never bought a Siggie) - but if you get a good one they seem to be very good UWA (apparently)

Maybe you were unfortunate and didn't get a good one! :shake:
 
I owned 24-105L then sold it and bought 24-70L.
I never regretted my decision (well I did initially due to the weight). It takes time to get used to it.

My friend has a 24-105L with a 40D and I made test shots against my 24-70 with 40D at the time. The brick is sharper even at f2.8 :D .

I also own Canon 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 and I confess they are sharper than the brick, though the brick is already sharp.

If you want image sharpness, then buy primes, but for versatility, depending on how you define it, you wont go wrong with either 24-105L or 24-70L... forget the stigma 24-70, I also owned one before.
 
"Sigma seem to be notorious for having dubious QA"

I'm sure it's mostly internet silliness and I'm sure most of the people spreading it have no direct experience and are just relating third hand rumour.

If one tenth of what you read about Sigma was true they'd have gone bust years ago :lol: and in fact on their posh lenses they give a very good warranty.
 
strobemonkey said:
I owned 24-105L then sold it and bought 24-70L.
I never regretted my decision (well I did initially due to the weight). It takes time to get used to it.

My friend has a 24-105L with a 40D and I made test shots against my 24-70 with 40D at the time. The brick is sharper even at f2.8 :D .

I also own Canon 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 and I confess they are sharper than the brick, though the brick is already sharp.

If you want image sharpness, then buy primes, but for versatility, depending on how you define it, you wont go wrong with either 24-105L or 24-70L... forget the stigma 24-70, I also owned one before.
Click to expand...


I also have the 85mm f1.8 and that it superb and the 50mm f1.4 will be in my camera bag some day soon. Just need to cover the 17-24 end now.
 
Gel said:
24-105L is sharper that the 24-70 I've had 2 of the 70mm's to prove it.
Click to expand...

In what way is that proof?

A friends 24-70 is sharper, distorts less and produces better colours than his 24-105.

My 24-70 was 'better' than the 24-105 I borrowed.

Both these experiences don't lead me to believe that, as a whole, the 24/70 is any sharper and better than the 24-105. It's not proof.
 
I think generally the 24-70 is sharper than the 24-105 but it's probably marginal and not worth worrying about. They are both stunning lenses.
 
Well i have just tried my new 24-105 f4L on my 550d and although not perfect (the images, not the lens) as it was a couple of quick shots in low light i must say I'm deeply in love :love: What a great lens and not too heavy. It really feels solid and very well built and looks new (07 lens) so I'm very happy :D

Here are a couple shots. Very little PP

Pond leaves: 1/160sec f4.5 ISO100
Lglass_Test01_800pix.jpg


Can't test a lens without my flying piggy! Focus on his right eye (you left): 1/320sec f4 ISO100
Lglass_Test02_800pix.jpg
 
AndyWest said:
Well i have just tried my new 24-105 f4L on my 550d and although not perfect (the images, not the lens) as it was a couple of quick shots in low light i must say I'm deeply in love :love: What a great lens and not too heavy. It really feels solid and very well built and looks new (07 lens) so I'm very happy :D
Click to expand...

We told you :)
 
AndyWest said:
I also have the 85mm f1.8 and that it superb and the 50mm f1.4 will be in my camera bag some day soon. Just need to cover the 17-24 end now.
Click to expand...

Get the 10-22 a superb lens on a crop camera
 
woof woof said:
"Sigma seem to be notorious for having dubious QA"

I'm sure it's mostly internet silliness and I'm sure most of the people spreading it have no direct experience and are just relating third hand rumour.

If one tenth of what you read about Sigma was true they'd have gone bust years ago :lol: and in fact on their posh lenses they give a very good warranty.
Click to expand...

I owned a Sigma 24-70 when I couldn't justify L lenses. I sold it quickly as it was very soft at f2.8. I then bought a Tamron 28-75 9still in my bag) and great for when I need the extra stop although very rare as the 24-105 is so good!

They are much of a muchness - Both top quality lenses that have slightly different uses depending on how you shoot.

I'd like a 24-70 but have the range covered from 17-200 in 2.8 already.
 
I'm looking at renting one of these lenses for an upcoming festival :D

*watches thread*
 
EOS_JD said:
Get the 10-22 a superb lens on a crop camera
Click to expand...

Out of all the UWA lenses I have seen the Canon 10-22 is by far the better one, shame it's SO expensive but affordable used I guess.
 
"Out of all the UWA lenses I have seen the Canon 10-22 is by far the better one, shame it's SO expensive but affordable used I guess."

The Canon isn't the best. Not in my experience anyway. I owned one and now have the Siggy 12-24mm which I think is far superior.

The Canon had vignetting which is completely absent from the Siggy on APS-C, the Canon distorted but again there just isn't any distortion with the Siggy on APS-C and the Siggy has more accurate colour but that's not really a big deal with digital. You lose 2mm with the Siggy 12-24mm but I think it's worth the compromise as it's such a good lens and FF compatible too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top