24-105 vs 24-70

[mustard131]

Hi,
I am shooting on a 7d, and currently using my tamron 18-270 which I bought with the camera, and am looking at upgrading to a few good quality lenses.
The first one I want is either the 24-105L f4, or the 24-70L f4, however I am undecided on which to get. Why is there such a price difference between them? What are the pros and cons of each?
I want it for a bit of a variety of shooting, and plan on using it for my main lens whilst I travel south america at the end of the year- Chile, Argentina, Peru (Machu Picchu!). Whilst I will still have my tamron for the extra reach as I will not have the funds to buy 2 new lenses before leaving.
I like to do a variety of photography- landscape, portraits, do a lot of whitewater kayaking photography, plus just every day random photos. I do know neither are that wide so are not fantastic for landscape.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
Cheers.

[Kym]

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is great value as is the Sigman 24-70/2.8, both being faster than the 24-70L

[ameerat42]

Thought 1: is there something terribly wrong with your current lens?
Thought 2: have you thought about the "practicality" of using a lens of more restricted focal range on such a trip?
Thought 3: will you be taking the 18-270 along with you as well as any newer lens you get?
Thought 4: if you thought "yes" to thought 3, then why?
Am(an afterthought).

[mustard131]

I have not looked into those options Kym, I will though, thanks.

I am not the biggest fan of my current lens. Obviously, yes the range is fantastic, however the quality is not. The Af is quite slow, and sometimes often inaccurate, lots of distortion and vignetting, doesn't seem too sharp, and I'd like a constant aperture.
The practicality will be different to what I am used to yes for sure. However I am finding myself switching my lens between my tamron and my 50mm f1.8, and do not find this annoying at all, so the practicality of having to switch a lens to get more zoom does not phase me. THe new lens is not only for the trip to South America, that's just where it will get it's first proper use. I plan on using it as part of an ever improving kit for years to come.
I do plan on taking my other lens, simply for the extra zoom though. Although, ideally I will have another new lens to go along with this one (undecided on that too, 70-200, 7-300, 100-400) however I do not think that will happen in time for this trip unfortunately.

[ameerat42]

I see. Can't talk about the other two you mentioned. I was using the Σ70-300 until I got a 50-500.
It was a fairly good lens for the price (~$200). But, go and check the reviews
for it and go onto Flickr to check some of its images. Do this for any lens you're thinking about.

[Warbler]

The 7D is an APS-C sensor, so why don't you look at some of Canon's EF-S lenses. They're generally cheaper than the "L" lenses, and there are some very good lenses amongst them. They'll be lighter too. Consider these three:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM

These cover the wider end of what you currently have, with the 10-22 going much wider. All are very well regarded lenses and would be long-term acquisitions if you're planning on staying with the APS-C format. Of course if you're planning the move to FF, then buy EF lenses.

[Burrster]

I have not used the 24- 70 F4L, but have used the 24 - 105 f4L. I think both lenses will give you a quality improvement over the Tamron. My biggest concern for the 24 - 70 F4L is the focus shift displayed by it ( pronounced in macro mode - see the review at photozone.de) and of course the price. The 24 - 105 has more chromatic aberrations, which is a pet hate of mine. That said I think the differences to consider are price, focal length range, and macro mode vs none. In my opinion, I'd most likely go for the 24 - 105 for the focal range/ price. as for the long lens purchase, I can highly recommend the canon 70 - 200 F4L IS USM. It been a solid lens in my kit, so my future upgrade to the 2.8 version has alot to live up to!

Update - I can vouch for the canon 10 -22 lens too! was my favourite before going full frame.

[Kym]

I have not used the 24- 70 F4L, but have used the 24 - 105 f4L. I think both lenses will give you a quality improvement over the Tamron.
On a crop sensor (7d) the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is quite stunning and sharp, I can't see the f/4 L being any better. On a 35mm sensor there might be a difference at the edges.

[Burrster]

On a crop sensor (7d) the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is quite stunning and sharp, I can't see the f/4 L being any better. On a 35mm sensor there might be a difference at the edges.

I meant over the Tamron 18 - 270, currently owned by the OP - my mistake for not clarifying.

[mustard131]

Thanks heaps for all your replies everyone!
I do plan on upgrading to FF at some stage, and plan on doing that before another lens upgrade. So I would rather spend the little bit extra now and get EF lenses.
I will however look into the other lenses that have been recommended above.
Thanks everone!

[Analog6]

I haven't used the 24-70 but I did have a 24-105 and it is a great lens, full frame or crop camera. I found it became my most used lens. You'll find it ideal for a first lens on your trip. Emjoy!

[Unbound]

The 24-105 was my first lens upgrade and I have been quite happy with it, or at least I was until I read about the ribbon problem with it.

[rackham]

The 24-105 was my first lens upgrade and I have been quite happy with it, or at least I was until I read about the ribbon problem with it.

... have you had a ribbon problem with it though?

[Bennymiata]

I haven't used the 24-70F4, but I have used the 24-105 for some years, and it has served me well.
One of the biggest differences you will see when comparing it to your current lens is the colour and contrast of the 24-105 is much better.

I know the 24-105 does have some minor problems with barrel distortion and colour fringing, but in real world use, the pictures it produces are very, very good indeed.

There is some talk it may be discontinued shortly, so I'd get in while I can.
The lens is relatively very cheap (especially if you buy a "white box" version) and will very quickly become your everyday lens.
Around 75% of all my shots are taken with it and I have around a dozen other lenses to use, but find this lens does almost everything I need.

[Unbound]

... have you had a ribbon problem with it though?

No, I haven't but that isn't to say it might not develop eventually. If I had known about this problem before I bought the lens I might well have opted for something else.

[Fruengalli]

My suggestion for travel on a crop would be a Canon 15-85 efs (effectively a 24-105 on the 7d)....check the reviews & most are excellent.

[I @ M]

Maybe sit back a while and see how the rumoured Sigma 24-105 F/4 (http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/sigma-24-105-f4-dg-os-outed/) works both optically and price wise.

If their recent lens releases are anything to go by this one will be both excellent and inexpensive -----

[mustard131]

The lens is relatively very cheap (especially if you buy a "white box" version) and will very quickly become your everyday lens.


What do you mean a 'white box' versn? What's the difference?

I will have a look into the sigma 24-105.

Thanks

[Tannin]

The 24-105 was my first lens upgrade and I have been quite happy with it, or at least I was until I read about the ribbon problem with it.

The ribbon problem does not apply to new lenses, only old ones manufactured before about ... oh ... maybe three years ago? A long time, anyway. New 24-105s all have the redesigned ribbon which does not have the problem. The same applies if you have an old 24-105 which has been repaired - the repairers use the new part, so the problem won't come back.

The one real problem with the 24-105 is the bad barrel distortion between 24 and about 27mm. Yes, you can fix it in software but it's still a pain. The 24-70/4 is better in that regard. Nevertheless, the combination of lower price, similar IQ (varies with FL but on average about the same as the 24-70/4), and significantly greater range makes the 24-105 a winner in my book. I'm actually a bit confused as to Canon's motivation for releasing the 24-70/4. Although it is apparently a very good lens, I can't figure out what purpose it serves or who they intend to sell it to. It costs more and does less than the older 24-105, so why produce it at all? Still, it's always good to have a choice, and maybe the convenience of a quasi-macro mode could be important to some buyers.

[Unbound]

The ribbon problem does not apply to new lenses, only old ones manufactured before about ... oh ... maybe three years ago? A long time, anyway. New 24-105s all have the redesigned ribbon which does not have the problem. The same applies if you have an old 24-105 which has been repaired - the repairers use the new part, so the problem won't come back.

.


Ah, thanks for the advice, Tony, you have put my mind at rest.

[Bennymiata]

White Box versions are those lenses that were originally packed into kits like the 5D3 with 24-105 lens, where the purchaser doesn't want the lens and only the camera.
As they were supplied with a kit, the cost of the lens is a bit less than if bought separately, so if the kit is broken up, you can pick up the lens in a white box, instead of the black box for some saving in cost.
Exactly the same lens etc., just a but cheaper.

There is some talk that the newer 24-70 F4 lens will also start going into kits soon, so there will also be white box versions of this available too.

[William W]

Hi,
I am shooting on a 7d, and currently using my tamron 18-270 . . . plan on using it for my main lens whilst I travel I like to do a variety of photography- landscape, portraits, do a lot of whitewater kayaking photography, plus just every day random photos. I do know neither are that wide so are not fantastic for landscape.

I use the EF24 to 105/4 IS. It is my favourite 'travel and holiday lens - BUT I use it on EOS 5D's.

Most of the ‘negatives’ of each of the two lenses you mention are reckoned in Laboratory Tests are mostly are not applicable in real world shooting: moreover on an APS-C camera any of the ‘negatives’ which are at the edges of the field of view you’ll never see anyway.

If I only had a 7D - I would buy the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM as my main working zoom lens: I have used this lens and it is an EXCELLENT Lens. Consider that you get Image Stabilization, a stop faster and also 7mm wider that either of the two lenses that you are considering. For a "one lens - travel lens on a 7D" I cannot see any reason that I would consider either of the two lenses you mention if I could buy the 17 to 55/2.8 IS - also as you said if you want extra reach you will get it with the 18 to 270 that you already own.

If your budget can be extended then, sell the 18 to 270 and buy the EF70 to 200F/4 IS as a companion for the 17 to 55/2,8 IS

Most importantly, I think that you should be aware and consider carefully the reality of the limitations of having a main working zoom on an APS-C Camera which is extends only to 24mm at the wide end.

WW

[aalex]

i own 24-105mm, 24-70mm v1 and v2. Use it with 5dm3. 24-70mm v2 is very significantly better than the other 2. As for my preference, 24-70 v2 is first, and 24-105mm would be my second choice.:flowersnap:

[William W]

i own 24-105mm, 24-70mm v1 and v2. Use it with 5dm3. 24-70mm v2 is very significantly better than the other 2. As for my preference, 24-70 v2 is first, and 24-105mm would be my second choice.:flowersnap:

I don't think that the "24-70mm v1 and v2" are lenses that the OP is asking about.

I understand that the OP is asking about the EF 24 to 105 F/4L IS USM and the EF 24 to 70 F/4 IS USM

WW

[unistudent1962]

Most importantly, I think that you should be aware and consider carefully the reality of the limitations of having a main working zoom on an APS-C Camera which is extends only to 24mm at the wide end.

There seems to be a perception that the only way to "improve" your images is to move up to L Lenses and Full Frame bodies. One of the problems with this is that L lenses are not made in focal lengths that are suitable for APS-C bodies. As a result we are seeing more and more posts being made by people who are buying L lenses that aren't won't fulfil their requirements on the APS-C body they are using NOW because they MAY "upgrade to full Frame in the future".

For me, the upgrade path isn't necessarily going to be to FF, so I've bought lenses that fulfil my needs NOW. As you can see from my signature, there's a mixture of EF and EF-S. I've bought L lenses that cover the telephoto range, and EF-S lenses that cover the wide to mid-tele range. This is because there simply ISN'T an L lens that fulfilled my needs as a "walkaround" lens.

As William has said, the 24- range of lenses aren't wide enough on an APS-C body. The (Canon) choice is then down to the 17-55 or the 15-85. As almost all of my photography is undertaken outdoors, a fixed aperture wasn't a huge priority, and 55 wasn't long enough for me, so I went for the 15-85. It's not an L, but the build and image quality is very good, and I doubt that under normal conditions the majority of viewers would be able to tell the difference between images taken with it and an L lens. IF I ever go FF I'll need a FF UWA and a 24- lens. Until then I've got 10-400 covered by lenses that fulfil my needs NOW.

[William W]

Mark has articulated quite clearly some of the specific questions that I think you should consider (thank you Mark).

I’ll add that using a zoom lens with the widest FL being 24mm, there is the consideration of the number of additional lens changes which might be necessary. For example I’ve read often of people buying the EF-S 10 to 22 F/3.5 ~ 4.5 and EF 24 to 105 F/4L as the ‘ideal’ two zoom lens kit for APS-C and then a few months later the realization of how inconvenient the FL = 22~24mm for a lens change-over, actually is in real life shooting for most general photographic situations.

If we are to get into lab talk - another consideration is, that whilst the smaller APS-C sensor will only see part of the image circle of any EF Lens – and therefore (as one example) it will NOT see any of the lens aberrations which are at the edges: on the other hand, the EF-S are range of lenses are optically maximized for the Smaller Image Circle and the smaller sensor, whereas the EF Lens are not.

On the matter of wanting L Series Lenses: I’ll add that L Series lenses are very high quality and produce very good images, but that does NOT mean, that NON L Series Lenses cannot. There are certain criteria that L Series Lenses must meet, to acquire the “L” red band – and one criterion is that lens must mount to all camera bodies of the Series. In this regard, the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM can NEVER be an L Series Lens, no matter how good an image maker it is, because it CANNOT mount to all EOS bodies.

WW

[Wretched]

If you can afford it, the 24-70 f2.8L is my most-used lens on my 7D. It's super sharp and will do anything. I use it for published car photography by day and shoot concerts with it at night. Love it.

[Arg]

My tip is not to 'plan on upgrading to FF at some stage'. This approach makes you buy the wrong lenses for your current photography. That is IMHO too high a price to pay; trying too hard to save too little money.

e.g. buy a 17-55 f2.8 IS and you won't regret it, and being Canon it will sell well when (dare I say 'if') you go full frame.

[mustard131]

Thanks heaps for all the posts, they have definitely got me thinking more about what I want to do with my photography. Unfortunately this has meant it didn't give me a straight out answer though, although I think I was dreaming with that thought. haha. It does mean that when my final decision is made it will be one with a lot of thought and research gone in to it.

My other question is weather proofing. How important is it? I do a lot of shooting based around my sport of whitewater kayaking, and am often near waterfalls, and out in the rain, so my camera and lenses do get a bit of moisture. Obviously I try to eliminate this as best as possible, but sometimes it's unavoidable. The 7d comes with good weather proofing, but it is only as good as the lens attached. This was another reason I was thinking of L series lenses. Does this change anyones recommendations?

Thanks in advance!!

[William W]

My other question is weather proofing. How important is it? I do a lot of shooting based around my sport of whitewater kayaking, and am often near waterfalls, and out in the rain, so my camera and lenses do get a bit of moisture. Obviously I try to eliminate this as best as possible, but sometimes it's unavoidable. The 7d comes with good weather proofing, but it is only as good as the lens attached. This was another reason I was thinking of L series lenses. Does this change anyones recommendations?

Not mine, no.

WW

[dcurry]

I know I'm a bit late on this thread but I have a 7D, the Tamron 18-270 (which I quite like) and I just ordered the 24-70 f4 so I'll let you know how it performs.

Dave

[mustard131]

Yeah thanks Dave, that would be great!

[acko]

I bought the 24-105 when I bought the 40D and is has been a great walk around lens for me.
Having bought the 6D I find it is brilliant on that too.
Because I take a number of motor sport photos, I find the slightly higher magnification is usefull.

[dcurry]

Yeah thanks Dave, that would be great!

24-70 arrived a couple of days ago and a big difference to the Tamron. Sharper and colours seem better. I'm loving it. The 18-270 will now live on the 650D as a second.

Dave.

[Speedway]

One of the problems with this is that L lenses are not made in focal lengths that are suitable for APS-C bodies. As a result we are seeing more and more posts being made by people who are buying L lenses that aren't won't fulfil their requirements on the APS-C body they are using NOW because they MAY "upgrade to full Frame in the future".

???????????? I use Both L and other lenses that are designed for full frame sensors That does not mean they are not suitable for crop sensor cameras. I and many others use the 70-200 L on crop sensor bodies and find no problems with the focal length. My 2 main lenses on the 7D are the 70-200 L and a Sigma 17-50 F2.8 Which is similar to what William recomended. I don't have a problem with the gap between 50 & 70 as a few paces fixes this and with a 2X extender on the 70-200 I cover a lot of ground.
Cheers Keith

[basketballfreak6]

hey mate, i had the 24-105, was a very nice lens, but my beef with it while on crop was that it's just not wide enough, so if you can deal with that (or have an UWA to compliment the 24-105) then i think it's a good choice, otherwise 15-85 would be a very good choice as well

between 24-70 f4 and 24-105 the advantage of the 24-70 would be better IQ also ability to macro, but it does annoy me to lose that 35mm of zoom, so i guess you have to work out your priorities, also whether or not you think it's worth paying extra for the 24-70 f4