Comments on: Canon EF 24-105/4 L IS vs 24-70/2.8 L

By: Giorgi Bastos Coelho

Giorgi Bastos Coelho — Tue, 21 May 2013 17:43:37 +0000

Olá! Então, comprei uma 24 105 há pouco tempo e a uso com uma 5 D e estou fascinado com o resultado, é uma objetiva muito boa mesmo…

By: Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 L USM

Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 L USM — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 01:58:52 +0000

[...] http://terragalleria.com/blog/2009/11/11/canon-ef-24-1054-l-is-vs-24-702-8-l/ [...]

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:05:56 +0000

I’ve just bought the 24-105/4 to create a light, carry-anywhere kit with my 5D mk II (well, light compared to a 1Ds mk II + 24-70/2.8!).

So far today I’ve done a quick test shooting my ribbed garage door, which highlights any distortion. The barelling and pincushioning are indeed pretty strong, as is the chromatic aberation. Not really good enough to wear the L designation but the trade-ff for light weight I guess. I’ve found an excellent plug-in called PTLens that automatically corrects all of this based on meta data, which I suspect will be a life saver.

By: nintendo dsi r4

nintendo dsi r4 — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:02:32 +0000

This lens will be somewhat less expensive than the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM once the “new and shiny” premium has worn off. Not hugely less expensive; the slower maximum aperture makes it less expensive, but that’s probably pretty much cancelled by the extended zoom range, and IS adds a fair bit to the price. But once it’s been on the market a while, the price will fall below that of the 24-70.

I, too, am planning to replace my 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM with the 24-105 (but not until the price falls). I found IS very useful on the 28-135 on a film body, particularly at the long end, but also sometimes at wider focal lengths. Now that I’m on a 1.6-crop body, the lens becomes more of a telephoto and IS becomes even more useful. I’m sure IS would be very useful for me on the 24-105.

By: Kayam

Kayam — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:20:19 +0000

QT,

Thanks for this, very helpful. I’ve recently acquired the 24-105 to shoot with a 5D (Mark I) and I’m simply blown away by the combination in terms of sharpness.

Also, enjoyed your photos of Elephanta. I’d taken some photographs there some years ago using film and a Pentax SMC 28-80 (kit lens) and was naturally very disappointed. Am looking forward to seeing what the 24-105 can do at Elephanta, and your pictures are very encouraging!

By: QT Luong

QT Luong — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:03:56 +0000

See my post about sharpness measured with Imatest. My understanding is that neither Canon nor Nikon test their lenses individually, while manufacturers such as Zeiss and Leica do so. However, a Canon 20/2.8 costs $500, while a Zeiss 21/2.8 is $1500.

By: Christoph

Christoph — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:05:35 +0000

I’m interpreting your comments regarding “a lot of sample-to-sample variation” to be “laid-back.” For the money of these lenses, I’m highly dissappointed with the “quality” being produced. I have the Nikon 17-55 2.8 … and also consider it to be soft. It cost $1600 when I purchased it.
I would think that at these prices we should have the expectation that each lense be spot-on and not a crap shoot. What do you think?

By: QT Luong

QT Luong — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:26:55 +0000

It could be that the Nikon is even sharper, but I’d certainly not call the 24-105 soft. I suspect that you got a poor sample of the lens. There is a lot of sample-to-sample variation. While replacing mine, I’ve ordered 3. See upcoming post blog with test results.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:12:09 +0000

I agree, I love this lens (the 24-105), but sadly is a bit soft. I have been carrying around my D3 with the 24-70 from NIkon, and have been happier. I shoot and carry both Nikon and Canon gear

By: Garry Black

Garry Black — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:45:28 +0000

I’ve used many lens throughout my career. And Quang-Tuan, I have to agree with you that the 24-105/4 is also my favourite all purpose general lens. Excellent choice!!! And great review.