I have both the f2.8LII and the f4LIS. The f2.8L is as good as the hype says, it's amazing. However, the f4 is very close in image quality, and is a even a little better in the corners on some focal lengths. Since I usually choose primes when shooting in low light, I rarely need the f2.8. I am actually considering selling the F2.8, and keep the f4. It's very, very good.
+Lars Kvinge Dit navn klinger dansk - er du dansker? I'm happy that you recommend the 24-70 as I've just ordered one.. Hope you are right that is is close to sharpness on the 2.8 (Y)
I remember watching this review back in the day; it's such a good review that it made me decide to go for the F4 as soon as I could afford it. I finally bought it at the end of 2016, and I have not regretted it. Image quality is amazing, it never ceases to amaze me. The size is perfect for carrying around, and I even use it for general street photography from time to time. The Macro is simple extra gravy, and it comes in handy in soooo many unexpected scenarios. A beautiful quality lens… Can't thank you enough… Oh, and Canon too :0)
I spent ages debating which 'standard' lens to get, and like you, I went for the 24-70 f4 L IS. With modern cameras handing high ISO's I reckon the macro feature and IS are much more desirable than one stop aperture. Did a wedding recently and got superb shots of food and other details with the marco feature without the need to switch lenses (or carry another one around!). Great lens, good choice!
Thanks for the opinion! It`s nice to see someone who talks about why he prefer something instead of showing samples (which we can find always a lot on the web anyway).
I really like your reviews and tutorials, they are never about bragging about what kit you've got but just down to earth sensible advice and opinions. I'm thinking of going with this lens to give my a in between choice between my ultra wides lenses and my telephoto lenses. I do have the 2.8L macro as most of my photography is wildlife, landscape and natural history, but the idea of have a midrange telephoto where I could be taking the photo of a tree and upon seeing an unusual flower I don't need to change my lens but just shift the one I have into a macro. The 4 stops of IS will be very useful too, avoiding having to use a tripod at times. I bought the Canon f4 70-200 IS and I can honestly say I haven't missed that one stop of light once but the £500 has been very useful.
Thanks for the perspective. I've been trying to decide between the new 24-105 and the 24-70 2.8. Now, thanks to you, I'm also considering the f4 24-70. I've used the old 24-105 for years, but never loved it the way I love my 70-200 2.8, and others.
The 24-70 f/4 IS is better than the 24-105 in my opinion. It has an extra stop of stabilization, it's sharper in most focal lengths, it's newer, lighter, smaller. In general, I think those are winning features. Think of it this way, do you really need that extra 35mm? 105mm isn't a very useful focal length in my opinion. 85mm, yes, but if you want that, get a prime (then you get some bokehlicious f/1.8 or lower aperture as well). The f/2.8 on the other 24-70 lens is nice, but it's not worth sacrificing the image stabilization, macro capabilities, size and weight, etc. Generally, I think the 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM is a better option. Even against the new 24-105mm f/4 L IS II USM.
Yes, the macro is a major reason why I'm considering this lens. I'm shooting with canon's ancient 50mm 2.5 compact macro lens...now that thing needs a USM!
I took the plunge and got one (the 24-70 f/4L IS USM) to replace a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. It is indeed sharp into the corners and captures incredible detail. But the best thing is the IS. I no longer get ANY shots spoiled by camera shake. The problem I have now is whether it is worth keeping the 100mm f/2.8 USM non-IS macro (I have a 70-200). What do you think?
excellent review, as I've been trying to decide between the 24-70 2.8 and f4 all week, plus also looking at the18-35 sigma art lens ..... nice to watch this review that's done in a really down to earth and relatable style....
Pete, thanks for this video. I've been contemplating this same move. I also, have the 100mm 2.8 macro and it just doesn't excite me. This excellent review helped me make a solid decision to move from the 24-105 to 24-70 f4. Appreciate this!! MM
thanks for the video. Should I buy the 6D with 24-105 f4L or should I go with 6D with 24-70 f4L? Another question; you said in macro mode you could go to 80mm. So I just wondered, can you shoot non-macro at 80mm?
thanks that was super helpful as I rented the 24-70 for a wedding video but now I am looking to buy and I needed to know the main differences between the 24-105 and the 24-70.... I was just hoping the macro capabilities were similar which you touched upon... Keep up the good work
A couple of Quick Questions. I have the 24-105 f4 - and am thinking of selling it and upgrading to this. I am looking to use it for everyday photography, some macro, and Video Work, and eventually maybe some events. Here we go: 1) I know the lens has a macro function, but does it really get you closer, considering the 24-105 has an extra 35mm? 2) Is there noticeably better sharpness? I'm leaning towards selling mine and trying to pick one up, but just want your take on it. Thanks!
My 105mil I sold because it was too big for being a 'travel' lens and not good enough for being an essential/main lens either. This one is has some pronounced strengths and is great for travel or being a single walk-around lens for casual shooting. Really didn't want to sink so much $ to get a boat anchor for the middle range which I seldom shoot in. That's what my 50mil is for.
In my experience, I haven't had the luxury of testing the 24-105 nor the 24-70 F/2.8, yet did upgrade from a 50mm f/1.8 to a 24-70 f/4. Currently, I simply cannot find a better replacement, regarding both quality and us ability.
Well that is an upgrade monetarily according to canonpricewatch.com, the 24-70 is currently selling for 760 USD and the 24-105 is 617 USD (although if you get the 24-105 in the 6d kit it comes out to about 530 USD, $1,830 total kit cost minus $1,300 for the 6d body).
Very informative video, thanks. I have the 24-105mm and I can't justify the price to change it to the 24-70mm. Plus, you no longer have that extra reach from 70-105 which may come in handy. I think I'd rather put the money towards a wide angle, like a 16-35. Thanks again!
Hi Pete EXCELLENT review of a lens I was considering; driven more by cost than "f2.8 not in stock" and I will go with the f4. Thanks keep up the good work
Have a 5D3 16-35(II) 24-105 70-200(II) Would you recommend the 24-70/4 as an upgrade for the 105 now that you tested it or should I pay for the 24-70/2.8(II)? Have read a lot of complaints about focus errors and that it's sharpness isn't that much greater than the 105.
Hi Pete. Now you have been a user of both lenses. Would you now after a year of use still recommend the 24-70 over the 24-105? Sharpness and weight is my main concern.. The 24-70 is more expensive but it it worth the extra bucks? And is the 4 stop IS noticeably better than the 3 stop is on the 105? Nice review by the way!! Though it is easy to be "colored" by a recently choice of purchase to justify ones decision. I'm not sure if it makes sense. But people tend to rate newly purchased equipment high. I don't think you would though. So what after one year of use? I hope you will reply! Thanks a lot!! Jakob
Hi Pete, Thanks for doing this comparison, it is very helpful. Having lived with the lens for a year now, is there anything you would change about the review or has it lived up to your expectations? Thanks again, Ian
Ian Daniel My pleasure! I still love the lens. Nice and sharp and accurate focus. Only issue Ive had with it is the zoom rubber ring grip coming a bit loose from the lens barrel because of how it sits in my Thank tank bag with pads supporting a little too tight around the lens.
There are these chinese underwater housings for 5d mark iii and they are all made for 24-105 lens. I wonder if there's a chance to fit a 24-70 (f4L) in that instead. If not, this is one argument to go for 24-105, obviously for those who might think about underwater photography at any point.
Hey Pete, so would you recommend the 24-70 f4 over the 24-105 f4 as good versatile lens for weddings after all these years?? considering the purchase as im trying to start in the business. Is f4 fast enough though? I do have a sigma art 35mm which is nice and sharp just no enough reach for a ceremony! Thanks
Leemon_01 hi, yes I’d recommend it. Because it saves you carrying a macro lens with you as well for detail shots. The 24-70 version is newer and better image quality. As for the f4 I never found it to be a problem using it during 100’s of shoots. The only time you might have difficulty is at say parties at night with low light and no flash. I’ve still used it but had to crank the iso up to around 3200 or so. But usually for low light situations I use my sigma art 35 anyway. 👍
@@PeteLeong Thanks, I really appreciate the reply Pete! Thats what i was hoping you were going to say! Would you recommend buying new or used? used is nearly half the price, but lord know how its been looked after and how old it is!
Leemon_01 I have no problem with buying used here in Japan as gear is generally well looked after and some camera stores grade their used gear and offer a warranty. If you can buy from a reputable seller I’d say no problems going with a used version.
@@PeteLeong Thank you again for taking the time out of your day to reply to me, you have honestly been very helpful. We have a number on reputable used dealers here in the UK. I am sure I will be making a purchase very soon! All the very best and continued success for the future :)
If you look at the T stops, you will see that the 24-70 f2.8 ii actually only gets 2/3 of a stop of light more than the 24-70 f4, and the f4 has 4 stops of IS!!!
@@AskhabovAhmad it wouldn't do anything for lighting but the 4 stops of IS would allow you to shoot at lower shutter speeds (lower shutter speeds make the image brighter) since its stabilize (not that much motion blurred on handheld), its helpful in low lighting conditions too since it will look sharp even if it only goes to f4 (which is not as fast as f2.8)
I applaud and regard your review highly but for that price I could have went the other way around and bought the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. The Tamron is a full stop of light better. But if convenience of having a macro capability, the Canon could be regarded as such.
while positioning 24-105 f4 towards down side my lens spins up and comes out to 105mm since there is no locking in it, well is that a problem which need to be repaired from service center or that it one thing which we had to deal with as it is there in it.
Currently im in between 24-105 4L mark i , 24-105 4L mark ii and 24-70 4L my main concern is sharpness. And ill be mostly using them doing event general shooting. Any thoughts? Also how is the mark ii 24-105 compared to the older one on sharpness?
don't have a full frame camera i have a crop sensor camera the canon 80d i guess when the prices goes down I'll buy me a full frame camera but for right now i only have the 80d and i want a good lens that can do everything with. I want a few pointers. I want to know how good this lens is and would it fits my canon 80d
I was disappointed that the 2.8 version didn't have IS, so I ended up going Tamron because now I won't buy any lens that doesn't have IS. I'm trying to avoid using my tripod as much as I can.
hello pete, i'm willing to buy a full frame dslr but can't decide: canon 5d mark iii or nikon d810, the thing is I'm a nikon shooter and own a d7000 for about 3 years now. anyway...I do love the color rendition on canon but also love the dynamic range on nikon too. I have read lots of reviews (even dxomark top sensors chart) and I'm starting to lose within all the informatiom (or misinformation). could you help me decide? thank you very much!
Hey Kenax, Ah just a few I post to my FB photo page like this one here facebook.com/fotoshisa/photos/a.524198204262717.137337.485182428164295/874045485944652/?type=1&theater or close up sample here www.flickr.com/photos/peteleongphotography/14430385703/
Hi Pete... awesome review man! A question, I'm from New Zealand and here we have the lens priced at $2200 NZD, but at a parallel import store it's only $1300 NZD. That's a saving of 900 bucks! Would you go for the parallel import or are they risky? Thanks.
Hi mate, thanks very much! Wow yeah thats pretty pricy. Maybe I should start exporting lenses over there from Japan. Im not familiar with the parallel import but its probably gray market so no insurance. I think it should be fine though but obviously cant say for sure as ive never used them. Can you not order straight from say b&h photo in the States or something like that?
I was watching the video and you started off by saying "my latest.." and I just thought that you would say "my latest acquisition" which ended up happening.. pretty creeped out by that!
Hi pete, very simple, honest and pro video! Thanks. However based on my searches 24-70 f4 L is usm that u chosed is much better since macro feature. You didn't mistake at all. Even on my aps-c camera 70d I'm planning to use it but i might add another wider lens like 50 f1.4 to cover needs because 24-70 on my current camera works as almost 36-112! Ill be glad if i know your opinion as well. Although I'm going for 5dmiii later on... Regards
Hey thanks mrz 1342! If on a 1.6x crop Id want to get an ultra wide zoom as well as I like to shoot wide. So maybe a 16-35 or something even wider. If your getting a 5D3 later then don't bother buying any crop sensor lenses.
Hi Pete love your reviews, just wanted to ask if this comes with a lens hood and if you think that this would be a good run around lens for a 70D which I hope on getting soon over my current 650D. The reason I prefer the 70D over the 6D which is not only a little bit more expensive but doesn't have the swivel screen, video functions and fast bursts as I use those all the time and might as well keep my 650D over the more expensive full frame 6D. So before anyone bites my head off about not going FullFrame those are my reasons. So im looking into this lens and hope that it meets my requirements, I was looking at the f/2.8 but that is much more expensive here in South Africa and doesn't have stabilisation for shooting video's which aren't always on tripods. I also like the macro feature a lot! Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks, Luqmaan!
Hi, Yes it does come with a hood. Great for a mixture of things. If I could only take one lens this would be it! Don't have to be full frame. I got along for years working as a photographer on crop dslrs. Main thing is good glass and this one is sharp, great to have IS for video and low light etc.. and being able to do very close up shots without the need of an extra lens is great! I don't find that I need 2.8 in this lens so much although of course it would be nice.
thanks Pete! great review. Im thinking of a really good wide angle Canon lens. I have a D5 Mark 3 what do you think of the Canon 16-35mm f.2.8 2 lens. I do a lot of large group shots. I have the canon 24-105mm L lens. and a 50mm fixed L lens and 70-200mm Canon 2.8. Any suggestions?
Hey thanks! Yeah the 2.8 version is very highly regarded. But quite a bit more expensive and wider filter thread than the new f4L version. The new f4 is also a bit sharper from what I see in tests. So Id recommend the new 16-35mm f4L IS. I love mine!
Thats the mount for my Spider Holster for who Im a proud ambassador. You can see it in use in my other videos or check out their website at spiderholster.com
Actuellement j'ai un Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 Contemporry sur mon Canon Eos 7D MKII (APS-C). Je compte me prendre un Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 et un Sigma 160-600mm. Entre les deux que prendre ? Virer mon 17-70 et le remplacer par un 24-70mm f28 ou prendre un 24-105mm f4 ?
Because I wasn't all that familiar with Tamron. And being that this lens would be a workhorse that gets used heavily everyday I wanted to make sure it was going to be able to stand up to the task. So I went with what I know and trust, L glass.
Could someone help me out? Because I really can't find any answers anywhere else. What is the pro's and con's of each lense? Which one is more bang for your buck? Which one is more better optimized for photography and videography? I'm really lost because I'm looking to invest in one or the other but all the reviews and 'this vs that' all vary in answers. Any reply would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!
it ultimately depends on what you want as indecisive as this response is lols. if you want a walk around lens the 24-105 is probably your better bet simply because you get more choices, there are definitely times when you are walking around and you see a bird you find pretty you dont want to scare or a cool sign you can't get close to. If you find you take photos of flowers or food or family the 24-70 is your best bet as you would almost never go to 105 any ways for those choices. the thing you have to ultimately ask yourself is how often are you going to be zooming? if you think you will never be photographing animals that get scared or signs, then the extra reach pretty much does nothing for you. and you may as well save money and save weight and get the 24-70. ppl might claim oen is sharper than the other, but unless a lens is severely flawed in optics/elements ALL modern lenses esp red ring ones (obviously) should be capable of great images in great hands., so unless you are pixel peeping or planning to blow your images up huge, that kind of sharpness difference is ridiculously not even worth comparing lol one last fact is that USUALLY zoomes that try to take more focal ranges on tend to not do as good, but like i said earlier as these are modern lenses, i'd imagine the optics to be superb and any slight lack of sharpness is probably not even noticable, though constant aperture lenses are optically a lot more efficient than varying aperture type. also note that the more zooming a lens almost certainly has a FAR more complex element/group composition, which could potentially mean costlier repairs (not sure how pricing goes, but i'd imagine primes are a lot easier to fix) i'm not the original video maker, just someone looking up lenses before classes start and saw your question so figured i'd chime in. if they both have os then really you're just deciding on what kind of range you want. If you don't shoot macro to begin with that isn't an advantage for the 24-70. keep in mind though that some ppl haven't used macro simply because they never tried and never wanted to take the risk of buying one for 800$ to find they hate it, so if you think you'd like to dable in the macro shots (shooting things like small flowers or insects or texture) then the 24-70 has a huge advantage too.
Man, i really didn't think I'd get this kind of reply. I really need to thank you because of your response. You really helped clear some air over some stuff that's been over my head, especially the whole "one is better than the other" one. I'll keep in mind what you said. Thanks man, you really helped me out! !
So you sacrificed 80 millimeters of zoom for a macro feature? How often is that going to be useful in portrait or wedding photography? This move makes no sense unless your only shooting macro which a quality set of extension tubes would have been cheaper.
Krista Gantt Sorry nothing much Ive posted on line yet. Mostly wedding and engagement stuff only which is pretty much just on my facebook.com/fotoshisa page.
What's your technical justification to choose a tradeoff between f2.8 and f4? I am in a dilemma whether to choose 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4 and what's the convincing thing to spend extra $600 for f2.8 aperture.
You should have waited for the F2.8 lens since you seem to be a wedding photographer. Low light and bokeh are essentials for a wedding shoot. If macro is what you needed than its good for you. I myself will get the 2.8 when I replace my 24-105 L 2.8 lens.
Bokeh is over-rated..if your subject is far from background you can still get great bokeh with f4 and also when you use f2.8 you can't shoot more than 1 person in same frame you will notice other person will be slightly out of focus.. just try to keep shooting at f 2.8 and if you care not careful of your distance from your subject your subjects will be out of focus... when you use flash you dont care about low light.. you can just bump up your iso and use a slow shutter and flash will freeze your subject ..how many stops differences from f2.8 to f4 ? just bump up ISO .. you need good light to create great images during weddings you need a nice fall of light on your subjects..
+Deep Desire You do know bumping up ISO will create noisy images. Slowing down the shutter in a wedding will most likely get you blurier motion-like images. There are always some down sides of adjusting the above two settings, and hence my suggestion of getting an f2.8
Anish Karan what is the stop difference between f4 and f2.8 ? how much bump of ISO are we talking about ? when you use flash you can freeze the motion..you can use it to creative effect..on a full frame it has better noise handling capabilities.. for me f2.8 is totally useless and expensive and don't tell me you will shoot group of 3-4 people at f2.8 ..try doing this and then pixel peep the subjects you will notice how the focus is on all the subjects..
+Deep Desire Flash is another subject altogether. I shoot people at f2.8 with my friend's lens on a full frame and they are all in focus. You gotta align your subjects parallel to the camera though.
Ah very different purposes for those. The 135 f2 is one of my favorite lenses. Fantastic for portraits but a bit limited for other things that the 24-70 could be used for. Depends what you mainly plan to shoot. As for the trade I would say its a good trade!
The macro is feature very cool, but if you do some standard test shots compared to the 24-70 f2.8 II and even the 24-105 f4, you'll see its so so soft in comparison... for best result I took some photos of a document and I was very disappointed, and i've looked around and most people are saying the same. You can pickup the 24-70 f2.8 really cheap compared to the 24-70 f2.8 II and theres not much difference to talk about really. Personally i'd take it back and get a prime macro, that is if you even need one at all. I'm guessing that you sold your last one because you didn't use it.
My Canon 24-105 just quit on me. In any setting but the widest angle, the lens stops down, the mirror goes up but it won't come back down without switching the camera off. The preview button stops the iris down but it won't release. SO, do you want to sell your 24 - 105, Pete? if so, email me alan at jampot ,ca Alan
Oh sorry to hear. Sounds like your aperture blades got stuck. I had that happen to me once before on an older Sigma lens. If thats the problem it can be fixed. My 24-105 is long gone sorry.
For anyone wanting to see a sample with the macro capability of this lens here a sample i shot www.flickr.com/photos/peteleongphotography/14430385703/
Wonderful shots bro....
I have both the f2.8LII and the f4LIS. The f2.8L is as good as the hype says, it's amazing. However, the f4 is very close in image quality, and is a even a little better in the corners on some focal lengths. Since I usually choose primes when shooting in low light, I rarely need the f2.8. I am actually considering selling the F2.8, and keep the f4. It's very, very good.
Good to know thanks. I don't need the 2.8 either.
+Lars Kvinge Dit navn klinger dansk - er du dansker? I'm happy that you recommend the 24-70 as I've just ordered one.. Hope you are right that is is close to sharpness on the 2.8 (Y)
+Jakob Engel Jeg er norsk. Good luck with the f/4 L IS!
Cool! yes its a good versatile lens especially for when you need to switch to macro quickly such as in weddings.
I remember watching this review back in the day; it's such a good review that it made me decide to go for the F4 as soon as I could afford it. I finally bought it at the end of 2016, and I have not regretted it. Image quality is amazing, it never ceases to amaze me. The size is perfect for carrying around, and I even use it for general street photography from time to time. The Macro is simple extra gravy, and it comes in handy in soooo many unexpected scenarios. A beautiful quality lens… Can't thank you enough… Oh, and Canon too :0)
I spent ages debating which 'standard' lens to get, and like you, I went for the 24-70 f4 L IS. With modern cameras handing high ISO's I reckon the macro feature and IS are much more desirable than one stop aperture. Did a wedding recently and got superb shots of food and other details with the marco feature without the need to switch lenses (or carry another one around!). Great lens, good choice!
Thanks for the opinion! It`s nice to see someone who talks about why he prefer something instead of showing samples (which we can find always a lot on the web anyway).
I really like your reviews and tutorials, they are never about bragging about what kit you've got but just down to earth sensible advice and opinions. I'm thinking of going with this lens to give my a in between choice between my ultra wides lenses and my telephoto lenses. I do have the 2.8L macro as most of my photography is wildlife, landscape and natural history, but the idea of have a midrange telephoto where I could be taking the photo of a tree and upon seeing an unusual flower I don't need to change my lens but just shift the one I have into a macro. The 4 stops of IS will be very useful too, avoiding having to use a tripod at times. I bought the Canon f4 70-200 IS and I can honestly say I haven't missed that one stop of light once but the £500 has been very useful.
Thank you! All the best!
Thanks for the perspective. I've been trying to decide between the new 24-105 and the 24-70 2.8. Now, thanks to you, I'm also considering the f4 24-70. I've used the old 24-105 for years, but never loved it the way I love my 70-200 2.8, and others.
just wondering do you have the 70-200 is or the is mkII
The 24-70 f/4 IS is better than the 24-105 in my opinion. It has an extra stop of stabilization, it's sharper in most focal lengths, it's newer, lighter, smaller. In general, I think those are winning features. Think of it this way, do you really need that extra 35mm? 105mm isn't a very useful focal length in my opinion. 85mm, yes, but if you want that, get a prime (then you get some bokehlicious f/1.8 or lower aperture as well). The f/2.8 on the other 24-70 lens is nice, but it's not worth sacrificing the image stabilization, macro capabilities, size and weight, etc. Generally, I think the 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM is a better option. Even against the new 24-105mm f/4 L IS II USM.
Yes, the macro is a major reason why I'm considering this lens. I'm shooting with canon's ancient 50mm 2.5 compact macro lens...now that thing needs a USM!
I took the plunge and got one (the 24-70 f/4L IS USM) to replace a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. It is indeed sharp into the corners and captures incredible detail. But the best thing is the IS. I no longer get ANY shots spoiled by camera shake. The problem I have now is whether it is worth keeping the 100mm f/2.8 USM non-IS macro (I have a 70-200). What do you think?
Recently picked up the 17-40mm f4, loving it so far! I actually forgot Canon brought out a 24-70 f4! Looks great Pete, enjoy it :)
Cheers mate! Yeah that 17-40 is one of my main work horses. Its even taken a nasty 1.5m fall to concrete and still works fine.
excellent review, as I've been trying to decide between the 24-70 2.8 and f4 all week, plus also looking at the18-35 sigma art lens ..... nice to watch this review that's done in a really down to earth and relatable style....
Thanks! Yes the Sigma Art would be a great choice. But only for a crop sensor I think.
Pete, thanks for this video. I've been contemplating this same move. I also, have the 100mm 2.8 macro and it just doesn't excite me. This excellent review helped me make a solid decision to move from the 24-105 to 24-70 f4. Appreciate this!! MM
Great glad to hear it Maine SixString ! Thanks for your comment and enjoy the new lens!
I've decided, I'm buying the -70 instead of the -105! Can't wait to start using it
thanks for the video.
Should I buy the 6D with 24-105 f4L or should I go with 6D with 24-70 f4L?
Another question; you said in macro mode you could go to 80mm. So I just wondered, can you shoot non-macro at 80mm?
thanks that was super helpful as I rented the 24-70 for a wedding video but now I am looking to buy and I needed to know the main differences between the 24-105 and the 24-70....
I was just hoping the macro capabilities were similar which you touched upon...
Keep up the good work
A couple of Quick Questions. I have the 24-105 f4 - and am thinking of selling it and upgrading to this. I am looking to use it for everyday photography, some macro, and Video Work, and eventually maybe some events.
Here we go:
1) I know the lens has a macro function, but does it really get you closer, considering the 24-105 has an extra 35mm?
2) Is there noticeably better sharpness?
I'm leaning towards selling mine and trying to pick one up, but just want your take on it.
Thanks!
My 105mil I sold because it was too big for being a 'travel' lens and not good enough for being an essential/main lens either. This one is has some pronounced strengths and is great for travel or being a single walk-around lens for casual shooting. Really didn't want to sink so much $ to get a boat anchor for the middle range which I seldom shoot in. That's what my 50mil is for.
In my experience, I haven't had the luxury of testing the 24-105 nor the 24-70 F/2.8, yet did upgrade from a 50mm f/1.8 to a 24-70 f/4.
Currently, I simply cannot find a better replacement, regarding both quality and us ability.
Hey thanks very much Carlos!
Well that is an upgrade monetarily according to canonpricewatch.com, the 24-70 is currently selling for 760 USD and the 24-105 is 617 USD (although if you get the 24-105 in the 6d kit it comes out to about 530 USD, $1,830 total kit cost minus $1,300 for the 6d body).
Very informative video, thanks. I have the 24-105mm and I can't justify the price to change it to the 24-70mm. Plus, you no longer have that extra reach from 70-105 which may come in handy. I think I'd rather put the money towards a wide angle, like a 16-35. Thanks again!
Hi Pete EXCELLENT review of a lens I was considering; driven more by cost than "f2.8 not in stock" and I will go with the f4. Thanks keep up the good work
So why did you get 24-70 f/4 again vs Sigma 24-105 f/4?
thx nice review....some people claim that this lens is +2/3 stops compared to the 24-105 at same aperture. Have you noticed that? cheers
Have a 5D3 16-35(II) 24-105 70-200(II)
Would you recommend the 24-70/4 as an upgrade for the 105 now that you tested it or should I pay for the 24-70/2.8(II)?
Have read a lot of complaints about focus errors and that it's sharpness isn't that much greater than the 105.
Hi Pete. Now you have been a user of both lenses. Would you now after a year of use still recommend the 24-70 over the 24-105?
Sharpness and weight is my main concern..
The 24-70 is more expensive but it it worth the extra bucks?
And is the 4 stop IS noticeably better than the 3 stop is on the 105?
Nice review by the way!! Though it is easy to be "colored" by a recently choice of purchase to justify ones decision. I'm not sure if it makes sense. But people tend to rate newly purchased equipment high. I don't think you would though. So what after one year of use?
I hope you will reply! Thanks a lot!! Jakob
what did u do? im on the same dilemma atm.
Mike Catch i did go for the 24-70 and I'm quite happy with it..
Hi Pete,
Thanks for doing this comparison, it is very helpful. Having lived with the lens for a year now, is there anything you would change about the review or has it lived up to your expectations?
Thanks again,
Ian
Ian Daniel My pleasure! I still love the lens. Nice and sharp and accurate focus. Only issue Ive had with it is the zoom rubber ring grip coming a bit loose from the lens barrel because of how it sits in my Thank tank bag with pads supporting a little too tight around the lens.
Thanks for the speedy response, good to know it lives up to the promises.
There are these chinese underwater housings for 5d mark iii and they are all made for 24-105 lens. I wonder if there's a chance to fit a 24-70 (f4L) in that instead. If not, this is one argument to go for 24-105, obviously for those who might think about underwater photography at any point.
I use the 24-70 f4 and the 70-200 f4 - perfect combination :-)
Very helpful Pete. I've subscribed based on this. Was having a hard time deciding between the 24-70 f/4 or the f/2.8. Your video has helped. Thanks.
Hey Pete, so would you recommend the 24-70 f4 over the 24-105 f4 as good versatile lens for weddings after all these years?? considering the purchase as im trying to start in the business. Is f4 fast enough though? I do have a sigma art 35mm which is nice and sharp just no enough reach for a ceremony! Thanks
Leemon_01 hi, yes I’d recommend it. Because it saves you carrying a macro lens with you as well for detail shots. The 24-70 version is newer and better image quality. As for the f4 I never found it to be a problem using it during 100’s of shoots. The only time you might have difficulty is at say parties at night with low light and no flash. I’ve still used it but had to crank the iso up to around 3200 or so. But usually for low light situations I use my sigma art 35 anyway. 👍
@@PeteLeong Thanks, I really appreciate the reply Pete! Thats what i was hoping you were going to say! Would you recommend buying new or used? used is nearly half the price, but lord know how its been looked after and how old it is!
Leemon_01 I have no problem with buying used here in Japan as gear is generally well looked after and some camera stores grade their used gear and offer a warranty. If you can buy from a reputable seller I’d say no problems going with a used version.
@@PeteLeong Thank you again for taking the time out of your day to reply to me, you have honestly been very helpful. We have a number on reputable used dealers here in the UK. I am sure I will be making a purchase very soon! All the very best and continued success for the future :)
If you look at the T stops, you will see that the 24-70 f2.8 ii actually only gets 2/3 of a stop of light more than the 24-70 f4, and the f4 has 4 stops of IS!!!
what the Image stabilizer stops does for lighting ? i didnt get "and the f4 has 4 stops of IS!!!"
@@AskhabovAhmad it wouldn't do anything for lighting but the 4 stops of IS would allow you to shoot at lower shutter speeds (lower shutter speeds make the image brighter) since its stabilize (not that much motion blurred on handheld), its helpful in low lighting conditions too since it will look sharp even if it only goes to f4 (which is not as fast as f2.8)
lol a few beers.. Sounds like something I'd do. Thanks for the review!
Have you ever tried to shoot the same picture, once with the 24 - 70 at 70 mm and also with the 70 - 200, again at 70 mm? If yes, waht was the result?
I applaud and regard your review highly but for that price I could have went the other way around and bought the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. The Tamron is a full stop of light better. But if convenience of having a macro capability, the Canon could be regarded as such.
Hi. Does the lock work on all focal length? Btw nice video,it helps me decide bet this and 24-105. Cheers from New Zealand!
Alayan Projects Nah it only locks at 24mm. Glad it helped!
while positioning 24-105 f4 towards down side my lens spins up and comes out to 105mm since there is no locking in it, well is that a problem which need to be repaired from service center or that it one thing which we had to deal with as it is there in it.
It's normal as the lens ages
Wow, great review. I learned something new about this lens, thank you.
Don’t you miss the 70-105mm focal length?
Thanks, Pete!
did you hear any stabilizer noise being picked up by in camera mic? the 24-105mm is very noisey for example when making videos.
Yes sometimes it was possible to hear but I've since switched to different Rode mics and its all good now.
8/18/2020 Just found this video, thank you for this.
Currently im in between 24-105 4L mark i , 24-105 4L mark ii and 24-70 4L my main concern is sharpness. And ill be mostly using them doing event general shooting. Any thoughts? Also how is the mark ii 24-105 compared to the older one on sharpness?
I am thinking to get this lens. Do you still like it? Thank you.
don't have a full frame camera i have a crop sensor camera the canon 80d i guess when the prices goes down I'll buy me a full frame camera but for right now i only have the 80d and i want a good lens that can do everything with. I want a few pointers. I want to know how good this lens is and would it fits my canon 80d
I was disappointed that the 2.8 version didn't have IS, so I ended up going Tamron because now I won't buy any lens that doesn't have IS. I'm trying to avoid using my tripod as much as I can.
hello pete, i'm willing to buy a full frame dslr but can't decide: canon 5d mark iii or nikon d810, the thing is I'm a nikon shooter and own a d7000 for about 3 years now. anyway...I do love the color rendition on canon but also love the dynamic range on nikon too. I have read lots of reviews (even dxomark top sensors chart) and I'm starting to lose within all the informatiom (or misinformation).
could you help me decide?
thank you very much!
hello Pete! Do you have any sample shots from this lens like portrait and the macro?tnx Pete
Hey Kenax, Ah just a few I post to my FB photo page like this one here facebook.com/fotoshisa/photos/a.524198204262717.137337.485182428164295/874045485944652/?type=1&theater or close up sample here www.flickr.com/photos/peteleongphotography/14430385703/
Hi @pete, whats your thoughts 2 years down the lane after your review? should i go for 24 70 F4?
Hi Pete... awesome review man! A question, I'm from New Zealand and here we have the lens priced at $2200 NZD, but at a parallel import store it's only $1300 NZD. That's a saving of 900 bucks! Would you go for the parallel import or are they risky? Thanks.
Hi mate, thanks very much! Wow yeah thats pretty pricy. Maybe I should start exporting lenses over there from Japan. Im not familiar with the parallel import but its probably gray market so no insurance. I think it should be fine though but obviously cant say for sure as ive never used them. Can you not order straight from say b&h photo in the States or something like that?
I was watching the video and you started off by saying "my latest.." and I just thought that you would say "my latest acquisition" which ended up happening.. pretty creeped out by that!
Hi pete, very simple, honest and pro video! Thanks. However based on my searches 24-70 f4 L is usm that u chosed is much better since macro feature. You didn't mistake at all. Even on my aps-c camera 70d I'm planning to use it but i might add another wider lens like 50 f1.4 to cover needs because 24-70 on my current camera works as almost 36-112! Ill be glad if i know your opinion as well. Although I'm going for 5dmiii later on... Regards
Hey thanks mrz 1342! If on a 1.6x crop Id want to get an ultra wide zoom as well as I like to shoot wide. So maybe a 16-35 or something even wider. If your getting a 5D3 later then don't bother buying any crop sensor lenses.
why wouldn't you just get a step down ring for the 24-70mm 2.8?
You'll get vignetting at the wider focal lengths.
Do you have any sample images with your new lens?
I'm still trying too get this lens
Thank you for the video. Please advise me the best filters for 24-70mm.
Hi Pete, just wondering, do your 24-105L had a zoom creep issue?
Hi, No I never had a problem with creeping.
Hi Pete love your reviews, just wanted to ask if this comes with a lens hood and if you think that this would be a good run around lens for a 70D which I hope on getting soon over my current 650D. The reason I prefer the 70D over the 6D which is not only a little bit more expensive but doesn't have the swivel screen, video functions and fast bursts as I use those all the time and might as well keep my 650D over the more expensive full frame 6D. So before anyone bites my head off about not going FullFrame those are my reasons. So im looking into this lens and hope that it meets my requirements, I was looking at the f/2.8 but that is much more expensive here in South Africa and doesn't have stabilisation for shooting video's which aren't always on tripods. I also like the macro feature a lot! Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks, Luqmaan!
Hi, Yes it does come with a hood. Great for a mixture of things. If I could only take one lens this would be it! Don't have to be full frame. I got along for years working as a photographer on crop dslrs. Main thing is good glass and this one is sharp, great to have IS for video and low light etc.. and being able to do very close up shots without the need of an extra lens is great! I don't find that I need 2.8 in this lens so much although of course it would be nice.
Thanks for your video. That was a useful review.
cheers! glad it was of use!
I came to your video for the 24-105mm, but am now considering buying the 24-70mm.
Hi pete leong ! Can you please tell me which lens is best for wedding photography ... Which has the good quality between canon 24-70f4 & 24-105 f4 ?
Neither... 24-70 f2.8 II. The f2.8 will help you freeze the motion better and help considerably in poor or dark light situations.
+Stephen Wild He asked which one is better. Jesus.
The 24-70f4l IS is better.
But the 24-105f4l IS will be fine though.
Great review. Thank you.
thanks Pete! great review. Im thinking of a really good wide angle Canon lens.
I have a D5 Mark 3 what do you think of the Canon 16-35mm f.2.8 2 lens. I do a lot of large group shots. I have the canon 24-105mm L lens. and a 50mm fixed L lens and 70-200mm Canon 2.8. Any suggestions?
Hey thanks! Yeah the 2.8 version is very highly regarded. But quite a bit more expensive and wider filter thread than the new f4L version. The new f4 is also a bit sharper from what I see in tests. So Id recommend the new 16-35mm f4L IS. I love mine!
Subscribed based on this very practical review. Thanks!
Good review!
This was very helpful! Thanks so much!
Thank you, probably will focus on 24-70 F4 L :)
Between de 24-70 f4 and 24-105, which one has the better bokeh? Thank you!
Neither newb
They're both f/4. So they're the same.....
thank you
is this good for filming for outdoor sports?
dear pete.. is this Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L USM IS great on crop sensor@7d mk i ???
+mc sabai Yes
Whats that metal part below the camera? Is it for a strap? Where did you buy it?
Thats the mount for my Spider Holster for who Im a proud ambassador. You can see it in use in my other videos or check out their website at spiderholster.com
***** Thanks!
excellent review thanks!
Actuellement j'ai un Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 Contemporry sur mon Canon Eos 7D MKII (APS-C). Je compte me prendre un Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 et un Sigma 160-600mm. Entre les deux que prendre ?
Virer mon 17-70 et le remplacer par un 24-70mm f28 ou prendre un 24-105mm f4 ?
Why didnt you take tamron 24-70 f/2.8 if you wanted f/2.8?
Because I wasn't all that familiar with Tamron. And being that this lens would be a workhorse that gets used heavily everyday I wanted to make sure it was going to be able to stand up to the task. So I went with what I know and trust, L glass.
If your going to do low light shooting or night photography I'd rather have the 24-70 2.8.
is it good for video as well?
Could someone help me out? Because I really can't find any answers anywhere else.
What is the pro's and con's of each lense? Which one is more bang for your buck? Which one is more better optimized for photography and videography? I'm really lost because I'm looking to invest in one or the other but all the reviews and 'this vs that' all vary in answers. Any reply would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!
it ultimately depends on what you want as indecisive as this response is lols.
if you want a walk around lens the 24-105 is probably your better bet simply because you get more choices, there are definitely times when you are walking around and you see a bird you find pretty you dont want to scare or a cool sign you can't get close to. If you find you take photos of flowers or food or family the 24-70 is your best bet as you would almost never go to 105 any ways for those choices.
the thing you have to ultimately ask yourself is how often are you going to be zooming? if you think you will never be photographing animals that get scared or signs, then the extra reach pretty much does nothing for you. and you may as well save money and save weight and get the 24-70.
ppl might claim oen is sharper than the other, but unless a lens is severely flawed in optics/elements ALL modern lenses esp red ring ones (obviously) should be capable of great images in great hands., so unless you are pixel peeping or planning to blow your images up huge, that kind of sharpness difference is ridiculously not even worth comparing lol
one last fact is that USUALLY zoomes that try to take more focal ranges on tend to not do as good, but like i said earlier as these are modern lenses, i'd imagine the optics to be superb and any slight lack of sharpness is probably not even noticable, though constant aperture lenses are optically a lot more efficient than varying aperture type.
also note that the more zooming a lens almost certainly has a FAR more complex element/group composition, which could potentially mean costlier repairs (not sure how pricing goes, but i'd imagine primes are a lot easier to fix)
i'm not the original video maker, just someone looking up lenses before classes start and saw your question so figured i'd chime in.
if they both have os then really you're just deciding on what kind of range you want. If you don't shoot macro to begin with that isn't an advantage for the 24-70. keep in mind though that some ppl haven't used macro simply because they never tried and never wanted to take the risk of buying one for 800$ to find they hate it, so if you think you'd like to dable in the macro shots (shooting things like small flowers or insects or texture) then the 24-70 has a huge advantage too.
Man, i really didn't think I'd get this kind of reply. I really need to thank you because of your response. You really helped clear some air over some stuff that's been over my head, especially the whole "one is better than the other" one. I'll keep in mind what you said. Thanks man, you really helped me out! !
glad i was of help to you
Very very usefull! Thumbs up man!
Great review. you look like an offspring of Jeremy Renner and Robert Downy Jr if ever they got a little busy...
So you sacrificed 80 millimeters of zoom for a macro feature? How often is that going to be useful in portrait or wedding photography? This move makes no sense unless your only shooting macro which a quality set of extension tubes would have been cheaper.
My question exactly, why did Canon come up with this lens? A better lens would be a 24-70 F2.8L IS lens
A 24-70 f/2.8 with IS and the macro capabilities, seems like it'd be pretty cool. I'm fairly new to this though...
That would be too heavy and impractical.
Timi - Well, I guess that's my inexperience talking, then. ;)
C141421356
;)
And another $500 more
Krista Gantt Sorry nothing much Ive posted on line yet. Mostly wedding and engagement stuff only which is pretty much just on my facebook.com/fotoshisa page.
Canon 24-70 f4L vs tamron 15-30 f2.8 ????
都是看自己的需要，用的場合與BUDGER，才選什麼鏡~
What's your technical justification to choose a tradeoff between f2.8 and f4? I am in a dilemma whether to choose 24-70 f2.8 or 24-105 f4 and what's the convincing thing to spend extra $600 for f2.8 aperture.
i've been contemplating for a while. I had the 24-105 before i had my 5d. Now i wana upgrade to 24-70 but can't justify the cost..
Yeah I was in the same boat. Was thinking to go for the 2.8 but couldn't justify the cost. I found the f4 a nice upgrade though.
Perfect!
You should have waited for the F2.8 lens since you seem to be a wedding photographer. Low light and bokeh are essentials for a wedding shoot. If macro is what you needed than its good for you. I myself will get the 2.8 when I replace my 24-105 L 2.8 lens.
I mean when I replace my 24-105 F4 lens
Bokeh is over-rated..if your subject is far from background you can still get great bokeh with f4 and also when you use f2.8 you can't shoot more than 1 person in same frame you will notice other person will be slightly out of focus.. just try to keep shooting at f 2.8 and if you care not careful of your distance from your subject your subjects will be out of focus...
when you use flash you dont care about low light.. you can just bump up your iso and use a slow shutter and flash will freeze your subject ..how many stops differences from f2.8 to f4 ? just bump up ISO .. you need good light to create great images during weddings you need a nice fall of light on your subjects..
+Deep Desire You do know bumping up ISO will create noisy images. Slowing down the shutter in a wedding will most likely get you blurier motion-like images. There are always some down sides of adjusting the above two settings, and hence my suggestion of getting an f2.8
Anish Karan what is the stop difference between f4 and f2.8 ? how much bump of ISO are we talking about ? when you use flash you can freeze the motion..you can use it to creative effect..on a full frame it has better noise handling capabilities.. for me f2.8 is totally useless and expensive and don't tell me you will shoot group of 3-4 people at f2.8 ..try doing this and then pixel peep the subjects you will notice how the focus is on all the subjects..
+Deep Desire Flash is another subject altogether. I shoot people at f2.8 with my friend's lens on a full frame and they are all in focus. You gotta align your subjects parallel to the camera though.
hi, do you resident in japan? are they 5d3 and 1dx?
Yes I live in Okinawa, Japan. 5D3 and 1D4 8)
the karate island :D
love from greece dude :)
so, i got myself 24-70 F4. how do you think if i trade it with 135 F2? is it win or lose?
Ah very different purposes for those. The 135 f2 is one of my favorite lenses. Fantastic for portraits but a bit limited for other things that the 24-70 could be used for. Depends what you mainly plan to shoot. As for the trade I would say its a good trade!
@@PeteLeong thank you .
The macro is feature very cool, but if you do some standard test shots compared to the 24-70 f2.8 II and even the 24-105 f4, you'll see its so so soft in comparison... for best result I took some photos of a document and I was very disappointed, and i've looked around and most people are saying the same. You can pickup the 24-70 f2.8 really cheap compared to the 24-70 f2.8 II and theres not much difference to talk about really. Personally i'd take it back and get a prime macro, that is if you even need one at all. I'm guessing that you sold your last one because you didn't use it.
My Canon 24-105 just quit on me.
In any setting but the widest angle, the lens stops down, the mirror goes up but it won't come back down without switching the camera off. The preview button stops the iris down but it won't release.
SO, do you want to sell your 24 - 105, Pete? if so, email me alan at jampot ,ca
Alan
Oh sorry to hear. Sounds like your aperture blades got stuck. I had that happen to me once before on an older Sigma lens. If thats the problem it can be fixed. My 24-105 is long gone sorry.
pretty unconvincing. basically too impatient to wait for the 24-70 f2.8.
F2.8 costs double or more
You look like a Great value Tony stark. lol
Should have waited for the 2.8
I'd rather have the 70-105 range than a macro mode.
"up" grade
is it good for portrait as well? debating between 24-70 and 24-105....
Yes very good and sharp. Just make sure your at the long end of the zoom range if your doing closer portraits for a more flattering look. 8)
If getting a new lens or upgrading? Yes this is a good lens. If you already have the 24-105 f/4? Then, no. The 24-70 f/4 is only a tad better in IQ.
they are both unsuitable for portraits. f4 is nothing good. u get virtually no bokeh
KK
What serious wedding photog doesn't have a macro specific lens for ring shots etc? this was a dumb choice imho. But I like your reviews!
What a douche bag comment
Subscribed based on this very practical review. Thanks!
Glad you dig it. Thank you!