For the price of 24-70 f/2.8, I got the RF 24-105 F/4 , RF 16mm F/2.8, RF 35mm F/1.8, RF 50mm F/1.8, RF 85mm F/2 . I bought them all used in like new condition.
I photograph lots of kids doing lots of activities, and the 24-105 is hands down the better option for me.....70mm sometimes wouldn't be long enough. One thing people don't speak much about is the F4 gives you a bit more depth of field around the focus area. I find I have more usable images, because for subjects that are active like kids, I don't have the luxury of focusing on their eyes, so I need a bit more depth of field because I sometimes I only have time to focus on an ear or a shoulder. If I really need a blurry background, I just use the longer focal length. When I was taught to shoot weddings, we shot mostly at F8, and we had to learn composition techniques to eliminate distracting backgrounds. I feel that skill is being lost these days. Thanks for posting!
Great video. From my experience: if you can only afford ONE lens for everything, including low light situations, and you want to be able to have a shallower dof in some photos - 24-70. If you own some prime lenses - 24-105 will be better in every scenario. Studio - it's the most favourite lens of many renown photographers, like Lindsey Adler, Eli Infante, Sue Bruce, etc. Hikes and travel - weight, more reach. The old, EF version was pretty bad but RF is one of the best lenses Iv'e ever used on a Canon camera for sure. All the best!
I have both. Both excellent lens. The 24-105 is my go to travel and landscape lens. The 24-70 is my go to event lens, as well as part of my portrait kit. You can’t go wrong with either.
James you’re my favorite RUclipsr right now , Appreciate your videos and work! Been debating these two and I’d definitely be getting the 24-105 now that i’ve seen them compared so eloquently. I wish you 10k+ subs this year
Thanks James, this one was a pleasure to watch once more! I decided for the 24-105mm when I switched to the R system, as it is much more versatile and lighter, and thus a great travel companion. If maximum background blur is required, I use primes anyway (or my 70-200). And I like the way the 24-105 renders colours, too.
If you are not a pro the 24-105 is good enough. 2.8 is better in low light without flash. For critical work pros are going to use faster primes for the most part. I have both and use the 24-105 for travel. For events I switched to RF28-70 f2. WOW!
In sunny outdoor or well-lit environments where both options are available, it should be difficult to tell the difference unless compared side by side. However, if the goal is to increase shooting variations, I believe the brighter aperture of the 24-70 lens would be more advantageous.
Just came back from 2weeks oversea roadtrip. Brought 24-105f4 with me. Initially, I though that I might not enough background blur for portrait & might not bring subject close enough when I need tele. But after all, this len can do everything I needed, while giving me lightweight & versatility.
Great video man, I am not a professional photographer just an enthusiast, but I have been undecided between these two specific lenses for weeks, your video specially your side-by-side photo comparison and how the extra reach of the 24-105mm made a real difference in your portrait mode has finally allowed me to make a decision, 24-105mm it is. Thanks again, cheers. 🍻
I bought the RF 24-70 f/2.8 and the extra stop is ESSENTIAL in low-light situations. Do yourself a favor and just get the 24-70. Need a bit extra reach, zoom in with your feet or with cropping.
Thank you so much. This is the video I am looking for. You include the distance between you and the subject for every focal length so I can get the idea for how far you shot from the subject for every focal length. A lot of RUclipsrs I have seen don't show that.
This has been the best video for my needs. I really appreciate you making this video to compare these 2 lenses given that they are so different in price.
I bought the RF 24-105 because the RF 24-70 was more than I wanted to spend. In hindsight, after watching your video, Im glad I picked up the 24-105. It's just as sharp and more versatile. Thanks for the content!
Another well executed video James. I have both zooms the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM sits on my R6 MKII because its a great video as well as stills lens given the extra reach. I do however prefer the RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM on the Canon R5 which is my go too camera for portraits. Both are improved lenses over the previous EF counter-parts.
Thank you James for another great comparison video. I have opted for the RF 24-70 F4 as my standard lens due to wanting a bit of extra background separation compared with the F4 and then also bought the RF 70-200 F4 based on the excellent results from your portrait lens comparison video which I think does a fantastic job for the price and size. Keep up the great work!
I've recently picked up the 24-105mm 2.8 Z, which is a beast along with the R5C. But I think I'll pick up the 24-105 f4 as a smaller version for light travel-it seems nice.
Great comparison! It opend my eyes for composition diferences. I shoot with 24-70 and my taste of background blur can take them apart quite easily, bit i realized i want longer focal lenght too. Especialy the comparison of the face shape and background magnification was enlightening to me.
I just saw the 24-70 2.8 going on a cashback "sale" so i started to look up reviews, i currently own the R5 with the 24-105 f4 and thanks to your video i will keep the 24-105. If i really need the background separation, i have the 50 1.2 and the 85 f2 or the 100mm 2.8 (tehe macro lense) so i feel like i have more than enough options. And if i (rarely) are asked for some portrait shots i can easily controll the situation and dont need flexibility, hence i can easily work with a prime. Since i do mostly landscapes, the 24-105 is a rally neat compantion on hikes. Going to iceland in summer, i will probably take my trinity with me (15-35 2.8, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8) since we will mostly travel by car and those three lenses fit in my shimoda x30 just so. But i expect the 24-105 to be on the camera for most of the time. I noticed that i get much more stressed if i constantly have to change lenses on travels and thus mess up shots because i have too many options. The 24-70 2.8 is definitely a good option for someone doing lots of event shoots, but those people might even go for the 28-80 f2, although that beast is a whole other weight class - litteraly :D - I just feel i would waste the 2.8s potential as i mostly shoot around f8 anyway
Thanks for this video. I enjoyed. I think this video is the only one out there which compares the images from these 2 lenses, including comparing them up to their longest focal lengths. Nice.
I traded in my 24-105 F4 for the 24-70 F2.8. I miss the extra 35mm but I shoot college sports so I'll always have a 70-200 2.8 with me on another body. And in most other situations I'll have two bodies with me, an R7 and R6 so if I need the reach, I can pop it on the R7. But as a travel general purpose lens the 24-105 is probably the better choice for most folks.
I had the 24-70mm, compared to the 24-105mm for a bit, and then immediately put it back in the box and sold it. The only difference I could tell was the 24-105mm had a bit more distortion and vignetting, but otherwise it was about as sharp as the 24-70mm. I realised I'd rather the extra zoom, more compact size, and lower weight (And price) than the 1 stop of light difference and slight extra bokeh. There are definitely times where 1 stop would help me, like when I'm shooting at 3200 ISO, but those times are a lot more rare than the versatility I get from the 24-105mm. I bought the 15-35mm f/2.8, so I can still get the bokeh/extra stop at shorter focal lengths, but also get a wider lens too. I think the 15-35mm coupled with the 24-105mm is so much more versatile. Next is which 70-200mm to get, I'm leaning on the f/4 for the same reasons (It's so much smaller, lighter, cheaper) but I would really like f/2.8, just not sure about the bulk.
Hi James, you really saved me! I've been stuck between the two for weeks and, thanks to your great video, I now have a really clear idea. For my use, the 24-105 f4 is perfect! Thank you so much!
I tried the Tamron G2 2.8 from Canon EF mount but it couldn’t not compete with the 24-105mm. The 24-105 is my used lens in the studio and the quality is amazing. The rendering of the 24-70 is slightly better but no when you try to justify the price.
Hi, another great informative video James. With the comparisons in the green house the window in the background was the giveaway. I had the RF24-105 for four years before "upgrading" to the RF24-70. I agree the 24-105 is more versatile for travel and recently like you state the 70mm was just quite not enough and the RF70-200 needed to come out. I do enjoy the extra separation the 24-70 gives
Your comparison work is always outstanding! I'd suggest branching out and comparing 2 new things each day: M: 2 raindrops; T: 2 salad forks; W: 2 toothbrushes; etc., etc. I would tune in daily!
Outside, the 24-105 is a clear winner. Sadly most events I’ve worked professionally are indoors with the worst lighting imaginable. The 2.8 can save you in situations like that, and the extra stops of light is what makes that lens a good option for people. Yes I use a flash as well, and have used a flash indoors with the 24-105, but always found indoor lighting to be that lens’s biggest opponent. 24-105 is my favorite lens in any other shooting condition.
You should get the exact same background separation of a 70mm F.28 shot at 100mm in F4. (70*4/2.8=100) So in that sense, the lighter lens still offers the possibility for more background separation. Of course you don't get the exact same composition as you do at 70mm and you need to be physically able to step back as well. But it is worth to keep in mind.
@@gustavosantiagofotografia To get the same angle of view on a cropped frame you divide the focal length of the full frame lens by the magnification factor, in case of a APS-C body this is roughly 1.5. So your 105mm FF lens gives the same FOV as a 70mm APS-C lens. To get the same depth of view (on that 70mm APS-C lens), you multiply the F stop of the 105mm full frame lens by the magnification factor, so 2.8*1.5=4.2. Since the difference between F2.8 and F4 is slightly less than the multiplication factor, a FF lens that gives the same depth of field as 70mm F2.8 lens in F4 would be 100mm (but it will give a slightly wider field of view since 100mm < 105mm)
I have both and could easily live with just one. That said I don’t use them interchangeably. I prefer the 24-105 for street and travel photography. Also as a second or third lens for wildlife. The 24-70 seventy I prefer for events, any basically interior photography involving people. It’s just my a personal taste. You could easily do it all with either lens and get great results as the video clearly shows.
Excellent work! 🙂In my opinion, close headshots look most natural at 105mm. However, I've made the experience that young women in particular often prefer the distance-distorted look of lower focal lengths.
Thank you Julian! I've noticed the same! I think people are so used to seeing them selves on wide angle phone cameras these days we have become accustomed to it.
Thank you so much for all the effort you’ve made to show the performance of each lens in that comparison. I like you’re calm way with beautiful images that we can enjoy, hope you keep on doing these videos and support the canon shooters over the over dominant Sony world on RUclips cheers
Thanks for this! I was considering taking my 24-70 F2.8 L on a trip over my 24-105 F4 L for better portraits of my fellow travelers, but this really helped me see how I can better use my 24-105 for portraits. I just subscribed.
Great review, well done! I decided for the RF 24-70f2.8 because of the better corner image quality. Not important for portraits, but with the R6 and 20Mpx is not really room for cropping and soft corners are just another issue, especially printed
Hi James, great comparison. I have the 24- 105 4L and for travel it’s outstanding . It’s all I took on a six week trip all over China and all I really needed. If I repeated the trip I’d toss in the RF 16mm and RF 24mm as they weigh nothing and would have given me a bit more scope for my indoor shots. Cheers , BTW here in NZ the RF 24-105 4L is NZ $2000 and the 24 -70 2.8 L is NZ$ 4200 so not being a portrait shooter for me the choice was obvious 😀
Thank you Chris! It really is a stunning lens. Super versatile and glad to hear it served you well on your travels. I keep meaning to try the 16mm prime. Let me know how you like it if you get chance
@@JamesReader Hi James, to be honest I haven’t really given the 16mm a lot of work, my original thoughts were “street” when attached to the R5 as it doesn’t have that intimidating look to it . I have the RF 14-35 which I have found incredibly useful and it’s surprising how much extra the difference between 14 and 16 makes even though some reviewers, I think, have given it a bit of flak at the 14 end. Of Canons “cheaper” primes I found their newer RF24 1.8 to be really the most useful especially indoors . This entire video ruclips.net/video/VgzlJ3iMJB0/видео.html at the Len Lye Gallery in New Plymouth was filmed exclusively with the 24. Being retired Canon’s L series primes for me are just impossible to justify in terms $$ for my usage especially not being a portrait photog. Sorry I couldn’t be more helpful.😀
It’s chalk and cheese in low light. In the evening, in the morning, in the forest, the f4 becomes compromised very quickly due to low shutter speeds and camera shake when hand held.
An absolutely awesome comparison, thank you James! I was contemplating upgrading my old EF 24-105 F4 to the newly announced RF 28-70 F2.8 IS for my R8 body, and was wondering exactly that - would I get similar background blur for portraits just by using the longest 105mm end of the EF instead of 70mm@f2.8! Considering the new non-L RF 28-70 F2.8 costs basically exactly as much as RF 24-105 F4, and both of these lenses are 2- 3x more expensive than used EF 24-105 F4 or EF 24-70 F2.8, the main upside for the new RF 28-70 F2.8 is its light weight for travel. But then you pay ~1k USD/Eur/GBP for slashing only 300g from the old EF 24-105 F4 + EF-RF adapter combo by going to RF 28-70 F2.8.
I’ve owned the EF version 24-105 I and II and when I upgraded to the R5c I didn’t even look at the 24-70. I went straight to the 24-105. In video it looses a bit in light but with the R5c duel ISO 3200 low light isn’t a huge deal breaker. I’d much rather have the extra reach. I use this lens everywhere and with even F4 shot properly with subject to background distance you really can’t tell for the most part. Now I want the 135mm 1.8 and I’d be happy
I have the 24-70 and at times drives me nuts not having that extra reach, but I do a lot of events and losing that 1 stop might make a difference doing church events, thought about the 105 2.8 but the price ouch.
24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 will do job for most of the people and with great quality. No need to keep changing all those prime lens, or continuously change your position forward or backward while taking photos. Most of the time, having less number of lens (means having zoom lens) actually helps.
I just sold my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 with the Canon EF-RF control ring mount after a 10-day trip. It was heavy (1.2kg, I know RF24-70 f2.8L is lighter at 900g, but I can't afford it); I didn't go faster than f4 at all, since I was only out during the day; there was at least a handful of time everyday when I wished to have further reach. I have a set of cheap primes (16, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85. I started learning with primes and I'm letting my kids play with them), I can take one or two of them in my bag if I ever need faster lenses. As you've said, I would rather go with the lighter, with longer reach and save a few bucks. Also, most people start shooting with f1.8 (the cheaper primes), the 28-70 f2 seems to be the better upgrade when speed is the concern. F4 for daylight and f2 for lowlight if money isn't a problem.😂
Through stumbling upon some deals too good to pass up, I own both the 24-105 and the 24-70. I've tried to love the 24-105. Maybe my copy is a mediocre one, but it is just not in the same league as the 2.8 lens - sharpness, color, and it just lacks that hard to describe pop of a great lens. My 24-70 does have it. It's stunning. The 24-105 is "OK." I recently got the RF 14-35 f4, and that is also better quality than my 24-105. I first got my 24-105 when all I had was my RP, and I was so underwhelmed by the RP. I just couldn't get sharp images. So I got an R5 and love it, but it makes me wonder if the RP was as uninspiring as I thought. Maybe it was my 24-105 holding it back. So, I''ve retired the 24-105 and will probably sell it. I have the RF 70-200 2.8, so for everything other than travel with lots of walking, I use that if I need something longer. Frankly, in at least half of your shots in this comparison, I find the IQ of the 24-70 to be noticeably better, in contrast to your comments. I'm interested in the new 24-105 2.8. If it's as great as I nope, that may be the ideal lens for me. We'll see.
Thank you for your excellent video. Well planned out and presented. Switching over to mirrorless & full frame, from Canon 90D APSC.. Awaiting arrival of R6 Mark 2 + 24-105. Your video assured me I made the right choice of lens. Really good examples from both f4 & 2.8. Have a small channel & looking fwd to upping the visual quality of my videos. Thanks again and all the Best from Fremantle West Aus 🙂
Really interesting review, thanks. I have the 24-105 F4 and was researching whether the 24-70 F2.8 was worth the upgrade. I think you have convinced me it's not, especially at my level!! Especially as I'm more likely to use it in a landscape environment.
I actually searched your channel for this comparison earlier in the week, you must have read my mind. Loving your comparison work, keep up the great work on your channel! p.s I figured there'd be a bigger difference in background blur, guess I'm keeping my 24-105 :)
Great video. One thing though; when you did the studio portrait, it would have been great to see the difference (if there are any) with the 24-70 at f2.8, and the 24-105 at f4 at 70 mm. Then again with the 24-70 at f4, and the 24-105 both at 70 mm and F4. I suspect that there is little difference. There is no question that when it comes to traveling, the 24-105 is so much lighter. Again, great video!
For my style of shooting and what I shoot most of the time, I prefer the versatility of the 24-105 over the 24-70 2.8. I actually do have a 28-70 f2/8 but it's an older FD mount lens that I use an adaptor with. Also, I have to use manual focus as it doesn't have AF. It still yields great images believe it or not.
the 24-70 is so much sharper as you can see in the close ups. both lenses are very cool. the price difference is the sharpeness difference. thanks for the comparison... :)
I carry a pack with an R5 and two lenses for travel. Walk around, indoor and outdoor, the RF 24- 70 f2.8, a little heavy, but my absolute go to. For landscape reach, RF 70- 200 f4. This is a marvelous light and compact lens to pack, given its versatility and image quality.
In low light, it makes sense embrace 24mm- 70mm @ f2.8, pushing to the 70mm as needed. At f4 this lens is superb. Outdoor, shooting landscape at distance, the 70- 200 is amazing @ f4… such a beautiful lens the full range. Quality of image, excellent!
@@vinvanidI have these 2 lenses, rf24-70 2.8L, rf70-200L f4, and at 70mm @ f4 they are both identical. My rf70-200L is incredibly sharp even when using the 1.6 crop option to get a little closer, in fact some photos of birds I've taken look like cardboard cutouts that's been stuck on a background. I owned the ef version of this lens and it was rubbish.
The RF 24-105mm F4L lives on my R6ii most of the time. I do have a couple of primes, plus the rest of the F4L trinity to cover other situations when needed, but the 24-105 is my goto lens when I have no idea what I will need. On a related note, I have the RF 100-400mm that lives almost exclusively on my R7.
For someone who doesn't have a budget to own both, I think the 24-105 f4 is the best kit you could ever wish for. As for light, its just one stop: modern cameras can handle a bump in ISO. As for Bokeh, just ask your model to take 2 steps forward and you obviously take 2 steps back. The extra distance from the background and the 105mm will make an equally nice bokeh.
One stop is a huge difference in low light. Bumping the ISO is not the same. If you don’t care about noise levels or degraded quality, then save the money and get an EF 24-105😊
@@AlejandroMaagno if you read my comment carefully, I mention modern cameras. My old Canon 200D can get a fairly good image up to 1600 ISO, for newer cameras it's not a problem. If you're one of those persons who absolutely has to shoot 100 ISO, I'd say you're too focused on image quality and not enough on story telling and composition! I just gave my opinion, considering price performance of both lenses, this video example and my use case. If you don't need the range and favour low light, by all means go with the f2.8! I value range and price more, so I'd settle for the f4.
@@JaySilva88 I wish more people see it the way you do. 1-stop difference is a bump of ISO, and if it's going be a condition THAT BAD for an f/4 lens then the f/2.8 would work almost as bad too.
Awesome Video ! i can´t dicide if i wanna buy a 24-105 or a 24-70 (panasonic) so this video comes very handy with the comparison, even its canon i will awesome at some point all the brands kinda work in the same way. The 24-70mm at 24mm 2.8 is the clear winner no doubt in my opinion BUT i am shocked how awesome the 24-105 performce the further you zoom out until the point at 70mm when it beats the 24-70mm and then has even 35mm more to spare.
I just took the plunge into the Canon R ecosystem (from an old 7D+EF-S 17-55 f/2.8). I was debating between these two lenses. I ended up going with the 24-70 f/2.8. I think it's clear if I were only going to have one lens ever, the 24-105 would be the better lens for the extra reach. But I think most of us who go with the 24-70 f/2.8 are going for the "holy trinity" with the 70-200 f/2.8 and 15-35 f/2.8 in mind for future purchases. I knew the 24-105 would, for me, need to be supplemented with other lenses (wide and tele) and I didn't want to buy those other two lenses and then wonder if I should have spent a little more in the middle zoom lens range.
I'm a wildlife shooter so I don't have much need for either of these lenses but I did pick up the 24-105 for a trip to Botswana and it was great there. After seeing this video I feel better that I saved money not going with the 24-70.
I've owned the EF version of both lenses 24-70mm F2.8 / 24-105mm F4is when I had my 1dxii and Now that I own my R5c... I own the 24-105mm F4 and I have to say I could really ever notice the difference for the PRICE difference and the extra reach the 105 gives me over the 70mm you can pretty much neglect any difference in out of focus area at 70mm 2.8 or 105mm F4 "IF You know what you are doing" with relation to subject to background distance. I only loose bit of light with the F4 but shooting at ISO 3200 esp for C-log and having duel ISO makes things easy and photo with editing and de-noise it's really no big deal. IF you want to have the 24-70 and 70-200 then that is a fantastic combo, however.... I have the 24-105 and plan to get the 100-500 RF lens which will be insane coverage and then toss in my 50mm 1.8 and potentially a 135mm 1.8 RF lens that should cover A LOT of ground. The 70-200 is a fantastic lens too but paired with the 24-105 it's almost a waste and becomes essentially a 105-200 F2.8 IMO. Just some food for thought and my experience.
as someone still clinging on the 5D3 and EF versions. I do think the 2.8 is favourable, for porait focla length, when the 70-105 section is preferred, one always have a 70-200 F4 IS for the job done even better, but in lower light, the F2.8 is always that extra stop of light available, which can't be replaced, and someone with L glass I think would always pack that light 70-200 for real mid telephoto shot anway
I have the RF24-70L2.8, and if I need to get a bit closer, I just switch to the 1.6 crop option on my R6Markii or switch to my RF70-200L I think if you already own the RF70-200L then it would make more sense to go for the RF24-70 2.8.L
Excellent review as always and a great model! Your reviews are more than just reviews it’s a nice aesthetics to them. I have the 24-105 but not the 24-70. I thought I would get to many disadvantages because of the f4 but Canon have done something exceptional in lens design of this one. It’s perfect for gimbal jobs. I have wide aperture primes to complement it. Many times I find f2.8 is not enough to blur the background of a whole figure portrait. For portrait focused jobs I think the one you kept is better. The f4 version is almost as sharp as my TSE EF 24mm at 24mm! Canon’s RF glass is just fantastic. I agree with the model that 70mm looks best on her. It’s probably more like how one would perceive her in real live.
Again, great video James! Last year I sold my 24 105 F4 and bought the 28 70 F2, but sometimes regret the sell (not the buy) because of the handling, travel capability, versatility and weight. But having both is also a little to much… Thanks again for your work, creating these videos and helping people making their decisions!
Through the range of the 24-70 the difference between the 2.8 and the 4 are quite significant to me. Any photographer can tell which lens shot what image when they are side-by-side. Not saying the 24-105 is not a great lens. Just saying there is most definitely a noticeable difference. IS and more reach are the advantages of the 24-105 though. However, in my kit I would choose the 24-70.
I do combat photography and before a trip, I always think about having the 24-105 or even renting one, but I usually take the RF 35mm 1.8 because it is a good all-rounder. I had the EF 25-105 on my 5DM4 but I sold it not long after because I love the effect of the wider aperture and scene separation which was missing on the f4. The f4 is good for journalists who take standard boring pictures, but as a photojournalist, I love the wide-open shots. I took the 28-70 f2 beast on one trip and I knew it would be heavy, but did it anyway. It was awesome and loved the shots in darker environments but wouldnt do it again. Weight ratio when wearing extra kit, gets annoying.
Great job on a fair comparison. Helped a lot but you didn't make the decision for me! hahah... What would be cool is to maybe talk about why it makes to have all part of the range covered. For example, if I get the 24-70 my second lens is the 100-500. What am I missing from 70 to 100? Either way, great video and thank you.
In the 5 plus years that I was photographing events that covered weddings, baptisms, birthdays, portraits and family photos i found that having a F 2.8 zoom lenses like the 24-70 mm along with a selection of fast prime lenses essential for that type of photography, you tend to be working with less light and it gives you more background separation than an F4 lens. You can use the 24-105 or 120mm f4 for portrait shooting but you have to be more mindful of your background. So if you want to photograph events professional level than the 2.8 and lower is a better option.
A good and helpful comparison. My takeaway from this video is that you can fudge the background blur with the slower lens *if* able to back up a bit and *if* you're OK with the flatter perspective. The older considerations about low light just don't apply to modern cameras under normal lighting scenarios because of how well they perform at high ISO. It was not mentioned, but we're assuming here that both perform well at their extremes of 24mm and 70/105mm in terms of vignetting or chromatic aberrations or barrel distortions?? I like the idea of the 24-105 for versatility and then use a prime once you've discovered your favorite focal length for whatever you frequently shoot with. I'm also tempted by the 85, not because of its macro or IS or even because it's faster than either of these, but because it's a safe bet I'd likely prefer 85 for most portraits anyway.
I bought the 24-105 F4 first when I was shooting Canon and intended to get the 24-70 2.8 but I was happy enough with the 24-105 that I stuck with that until I abandoned Canon after shooting with their cameras many years due to their anti consumer behavior.
![BOLIVIA vs. COLOMBIA [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zg15uVWjuf4/mqdefault.jpg)
Simply buy 24-105 + 50mm 1.8 and 85 1.8 for portrait. for the price of 24-70 2.8.
Never thought of that 😂😂😂
RF 35 1.8
Not the same image quality... there is no free lunch...
For the price of 24-70 f/2.8, I got the RF 24-105 F/4 , RF 16mm F/2.8, RF 35mm F/1.8, RF 50mm F/1.8, RF 85mm F/2 . I bought them all used in like new condition.
@@aristosmichael9749 Exactly what I mean.
I photograph lots of kids doing lots of activities, and the 24-105 is hands down the better option for me.....70mm sometimes wouldn't be long enough.
One thing people don't speak much about is the F4 gives you a bit more depth of field around the focus area. I find I have more usable images, because for subjects that are active like kids, I don't have the luxury of focusing on their eyes, so I need a bit more depth of field because I sometimes I only have time to focus on an ear or a shoulder. If I really need a blurry background, I just use the longer focal length.
When I was taught to shoot weddings, we shot mostly at F8, and we had to learn composition techniques to eliminate distracting backgrounds. I feel that skill is being lost these days.
Thanks for posting!
5:55 cemented my decision. Thanks so much for this comparison, so useful!!
Great video. From my experience: if you can only afford ONE lens for everything, including low light situations, and you want to be able to have a shallower dof in some photos - 24-70. If you own some prime lenses - 24-105 will be better in every scenario. Studio - it's the most favourite lens of many renown photographers, like Lindsey Adler, Eli Infante, Sue Bruce, etc. Hikes and travel - weight, more reach. The old, EF version was pretty bad but RF is one of the best lenses Iv'e ever used on a Canon camera for sure.
All the best!
Very sound advice Jack, completely agree. Thank you for watching!
I have both. Both excellent lens. The 24-105 is my go to travel and landscape lens. The 24-70 is my go to event lens, as well as part of my portrait kit. You can’t go wrong with either.
Nice ❤ Is a much difference in sharpness between those 2?
@@cosmindanes9435 F2.8 is crisper on higher resolution bodies. I see no difference on R6 between the two.
@@Sergei__vi got an R with 30 , you think the difference is noticeable?
Maybe the best comparison of this kind I’ve seen, congratulations for the video!
Wow, thanks so much!
James you’re my favorite RUclipsr right now , Appreciate your videos and work! Been debating these two and I’d definitely be getting the 24-105 now that i’ve seen them compared so eloquently. I wish you 10k+ subs this year
Thank you so much Shaquille, that's really encouraging to hear!
Thanks James, this one was a pleasure to watch once more! I decided for the 24-105mm when I switched to the R system, as it is much more versatile and lighter, and thus a great travel companion. If maximum background blur is required, I use primes anyway (or my 70-200). And I like the way the 24-105 renders colours, too.
Thank you for watching Tom. Completely agree with you, 24-105 plus a few primes is a great setup. Really wish I could keep the 24-105 for travel too.
If you are not a pro the 24-105 is good enough. 2.8 is better in low light without flash. For critical work pros are going to use faster primes for the most part. I have both and use the 24-105 for travel. For events I switched to RF28-70 f2. WOW!
In sunny outdoor or well-lit environments where both options are available, it should be difficult to tell the difference unless compared side by side. However, if the goal is to increase shooting variations, I believe the brighter aperture of the 24-70 lens would be more advantageous.
Just came back from 2weeks oversea roadtrip. Brought 24-105f4 with me. Initially, I though that I might not enough background blur for portrait & might not bring subject close enough when I need tele. But after all, this len can do everything I needed, while giving me lightweight & versatility.
Really glad to hear the lens worked well for you. It really is so useful when travelling
Great video man, I am not a professional photographer just an enthusiast, but I have been undecided between these two specific lenses for weeks, your video specially your side-by-side photo comparison and how the extra reach of the 24-105mm made a real difference in your portrait mode has finally allowed me to make a decision, 24-105mm it is. Thanks again, cheers. 🍻
I bought the RF 24-70 f/2.8 and the extra stop is ESSENTIAL in low-light situations. Do yourself a favor and just get the 24-70. Need a bit extra reach, zoom in with your feet or with cropping.
Thank you so much. This is the video I am looking for. You include the distance between you and the subject for every focal length so I can get the idea for how far you shot from the subject for every focal length. A lot of RUclipsrs I have seen don't show that.
Thank you Ken! I’m really glad the video helped.
This has been the best video for my needs. I really appreciate you making this video to compare these 2 lenses given that they are so different in price.
I bought the RF 24-105 because the RF 24-70 was more than I wanted to spend. In hindsight, after watching your video, Im glad I picked up the 24-105. It's just as sharp and more versatile. Thanks for the content!
Another well executed video James. I have both zooms the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM sits on my R6 MKII because its a great video as well as stills lens given the extra reach. I do however prefer the RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM on the Canon R5 which is my go too camera for portraits. Both are improved lenses over the previous EF counter-parts.
Thank you Jeff! That's a great combo, really wish I could keep the 24-105, for video alone it's so versatile on full frame.
Thank you James for another great comparison video. I have opted for the RF 24-70 F4 as my standard lens due to wanting a bit of extra background separation compared with the F4 and then also bought the RF 70-200 F4 based on the excellent results from your portrait lens comparison video which I think does a fantastic job for the price and size. Keep up the great work!
Thank you for watching Mark, I really appreciate the kind feedback 🙏
There is no RF 24-70 F4 , but there is RF 24-70 F2.8
I've recently picked up the 24-105mm 2.8 Z, which is a beast along with the R5C. But I think I'll pick up the 24-105 f4 as a smaller version for light travel-it seems nice.
Still waiting for mine to arrive, how are you liking it?
Great comparison! It opend my eyes for composition diferences. I shoot with 24-70 and my taste of background blur can take them apart quite easily, bit i realized i want longer focal lenght too. Especialy the comparison of the face shape and background magnification was enlightening to me.
Thank you Johnny! Really glad the video helped.
I just saw the 24-70 2.8 going on a cashback "sale" so i started to look up reviews, i currently own the R5 with the 24-105 f4 and thanks to your video i will keep the 24-105.
If i really need the background separation, i have the 50 1.2 and the 85 f2 or the 100mm 2.8 (tehe macro lense) so i feel like i have more than enough options. And if i (rarely) are asked for some portrait shots i can easily controll the situation and dont need flexibility, hence i can easily work with a prime. Since i do mostly landscapes, the 24-105 is a rally neat compantion on hikes.
Going to iceland in summer, i will probably take my trinity with me (15-35 2.8, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8) since we will mostly travel by car and those three lenses fit in my shimoda x30 just so. But i expect the 24-105 to be on the camera for most of the time. I noticed that i get much more stressed if i constantly have to change lenses on travels and thus mess up shots because i have too many options.
The 24-70 2.8 is definitely a good option for someone doing lots of event shoots, but those people might even go for the 28-80 f2, although that beast is a whole other weight class - litteraly :D - I just feel i would waste the 2.8s potential as i mostly shoot around f8 anyway
Thanks for this video. I enjoyed. I think this video is the only one out there which compares the images from these 2 lenses, including comparing them up to their longest focal lengths. Nice.
Thank you for the kind words. Glad you liked the video!
Finally this video helps me to select RF24-105 f4 but RF35 f1.8 will be the next.
Thank you so much for this , I was struggling to choose but I think for the price difference I’ll go with 24-195
Thank you for watching!
I traded in my 24-105 F4 for the 24-70 F2.8. I miss the extra 35mm but I shoot college sports so I'll always have a 70-200 2.8 with me on another body. And in most other situations I'll have two bodies with me, an R7 and R6 so if I need the reach, I can pop it on the R7. But as a travel general purpose lens the 24-105 is probably the better choice for most folks.
I had the 24-70mm, compared to the 24-105mm for a bit, and then immediately put it back in the box and sold it. The only difference I could tell was the 24-105mm had a bit more distortion and vignetting, but otherwise it was about as sharp as the 24-70mm. I realised I'd rather the extra zoom, more compact size, and lower weight (And price) than the 1 stop of light difference and slight extra bokeh. There are definitely times where 1 stop would help me, like when I'm shooting at 3200 ISO, but those times are a lot more rare than the versatility I get from the 24-105mm.
I bought the 15-35mm f/2.8, so I can still get the bokeh/extra stop at shorter focal lengths, but also get a wider lens too. I think the 15-35mm coupled with the 24-105mm is so much more versatile. Next is which 70-200mm to get, I'm leaning on the f/4 for the same reasons (It's so much smaller, lighter, cheaper) but I would really like f/2.8, just not sure about the bulk.
Great video, James! RF 24-105 at 105 f4 is really nice for portrait!
Thank you Gustavo! Totally agree
Hi James, you really saved me! I've been stuck between the two for weeks and, thanks to your great video, I now have a really clear idea. For my use, the 24-105 f4 is perfect! Thank you so much!
I tried the Tamron G2 2.8 from Canon EF mount but it couldn’t not compete with the 24-105mm. The 24-105 is my used lens in the studio and the quality is amazing. The rendering of the 24-70 is slightly better but no when you try to justify the price.
I can't decide between these two Tamron 24-70 or RF 24-105. I love talking portraits and want the longer focal length.
Hi, another great informative video James. With the comparisons in the green house the window in the background was the giveaway. I had the RF24-105 for four years before "upgrading" to the RF24-70. I agree the 24-105 is more versatile for travel and recently like you state the 70mm was just quite not enough and the RF70-200 needed to come out. I do enjoy the extra separation the 24-70 gives
Your comparison work is always outstanding! I'd suggest branching out and comparing 2 new things each day: M: 2 raindrops; T: 2 salad forks; W: 2 toothbrushes; etc., etc. I would tune in daily!
Haha 😂 thank you so much!
Outside, the 24-105 is a clear winner. Sadly most events I’ve worked professionally are indoors with the worst lighting imaginable. The 2.8 can save you in situations like that, and the extra stops of light is what makes that lens a good option for people. Yes I use a flash as well, and have used a flash indoors with the 24-105, but always found indoor lighting to be that lens’s biggest opponent. 24-105 is my favorite lens in any other shooting condition.
I love your the way how you compare lenses! It is really unique. Thank you and keep it up please! ❤
You should get the exact same background separation of a 70mm F.28 shot at 100mm in F4. (70*4/2.8=100) So in that sense, the lighter lens still offers the possibility for more background separation. Of course you don't get the exact same composition as you do at 70mm and you need to be physically able to step back as well. But it is worth to keep in mind.
Where can I find that information? Is that a general equation?
@@gustavosantiagofotografiathat's not an equation at all. But the logic is applicable. Use a DOF calculator for checking up.
@@gustavosantiagofotografia To get the same angle of view on a cropped frame you divide the focal length of the full frame lens by the magnification factor, in case of a APS-C body this is roughly 1.5. So your 105mm FF lens gives the same FOV as a 70mm APS-C lens. To get the same depth of view (on that 70mm APS-C lens), you multiply the F stop of the 105mm full frame lens by the magnification factor, so 2.8*1.5=4.2. Since the difference between F2.8 and F4 is slightly less than the multiplication factor, a FF lens that gives the same depth of field as 70mm F2.8 lens in F4 would be 100mm (but it will give a slightly wider field of view since 100mm < 105mm)
@@Eikenhorst thank u so much for the detailed explanation!
@@8787200 thank you!
I have both and could easily live with just one. That said I don’t use them interchangeably. I prefer the 24-105 for street and travel photography. Also as a second or third lens for wildlife. The 24-70 seventy I prefer for events, any basically interior photography involving people. It’s just my a personal taste. You could easily do it all with either lens and get great results as the video clearly shows.
Excellent work! 🙂In my opinion, close headshots look most natural at 105mm. However, I've made the experience that young women in particular often prefer the distance-distorted look of lower focal lengths.
Thank you Julian! I've noticed the same! I think people are so used to seeing them selves on wide angle phone cameras these days we have become accustomed to it.
@@JamesReader Haha, yes 24mm is the new 85mm it seems...
Interesting, I hadn't thought of this before but I assume that's because of the wide use of iPhone cameras!
Thank you so much for all the effort you’ve made to show the performance of each lens in that comparison. I like you’re calm way with beautiful images that we can enjoy, hope you keep on doing these videos and support the canon shooters over the over dominant Sony world on RUclips cheers
Thank you so much! I really appreciate the kind words.
Thanks for this! I was considering taking my 24-70 F2.8 L on a trip over my 24-105 F4 L for better portraits of my fellow travelers, but this really helped me see how I can better use my 24-105 for portraits. I just subscribed.
Great review, well done! I decided for the RF 24-70f2.8 because of the better corner image quality. Not important for portraits, but with the R6 and 20Mpx is not really room for cropping and soft corners are just another issue, especially printed
how about corner darkness (vignetting) of 24-70 F2.8, some reviews says it was darker than 24-105
Hi. nice video. My favorite is the RF 24-105MMM F4. As for travel, portrait. I personally use the 15-35mm f2.8 at night. But for landscape, 24-105mm.
6:18 the color grading on the b-rolls is marvelous!
Thank you so much!
My purchased lens 24-105mm will be delivered to the Philippines from Japan. This video provides me a clear insight.
Hi James, great comparison. I have the 24- 105 4L and for travel it’s outstanding . It’s all I took on a six week trip all over China and all I really needed. If I repeated the trip I’d toss in the RF 16mm and RF 24mm as they weigh nothing and would have given me a bit more scope for my indoor shots. Cheers , BTW here in NZ the RF 24-105 4L is NZ $2000 and the 24 -70 2.8 L is NZ$ 4200 so not being a portrait shooter for me the choice was obvious 😀
Thank you Chris! It really is a stunning lens. Super versatile and glad to hear it served you well on your travels. I keep meaning to try the 16mm prime. Let me know how you like it if you get chance
@@JamesReader Hi James, to be honest I haven’t really given the 16mm a lot of work, my original thoughts were “street” when attached to the R5 as it doesn’t have that intimidating look to it . I have the RF 14-35 which I have found incredibly useful and it’s surprising how much extra the difference between 14 and 16 makes even though some reviewers, I think, have given it a bit of flak at the 14 end. Of Canons “cheaper” primes I found their newer RF24 1.8 to be really the most useful especially indoors . This entire video ruclips.net/video/VgzlJ3iMJB0/видео.html at the Len Lye Gallery in New Plymouth was filmed exclusively with the 24. Being retired Canon’s L series primes for me are just impossible to justify in terms $$ for my usage especially not being a portrait photog. Sorry I couldn’t be more helpful.😀
I would have liked to see some low-light photography as well where the 2.8 shines - leaving it out feels like an incomplete comparison.
Would of liked to but unfortunately didn’t have the opportunity! Thank you for watching.
It’s chalk and cheese in low light. In the evening, in the morning, in the forest, the f4 becomes compromised very quickly due to low shutter speeds and camera shake when hand held.
What’s the point, the 2.8 will be full stop better than the F4. We know this already.
You have a Canon R camera…. Raise the ISO 😱 and shoot away……..
F4 or F2.8 both are too high for low light situations. Then you better get 1.2-1.8 or get a trypod
An absolutely awesome comparison, thank you James!
I was contemplating upgrading my old EF 24-105 F4 to the newly announced RF 28-70 F2.8 IS for my R8 body, and was wondering exactly that - would I get similar background blur for portraits just by using the longest 105mm end of the EF instead of 70mm@f2.8! Considering the new non-L RF 28-70 F2.8 costs basically exactly as much as RF 24-105 F4, and both of these lenses are 2- 3x more expensive than used EF 24-105 F4 or EF 24-70 F2.8, the main upside for the new RF 28-70 F2.8 is its light weight for travel. But then you pay ~1k USD/Eur/GBP for slashing only 300g from the old EF 24-105 F4 + EF-RF adapter combo by going to RF 28-70 F2.8.
I’ve owned the EF version 24-105 I and II and when I upgraded to the R5c I didn’t even look at the 24-70. I went straight to the 24-105. In video it looses a bit in light but with the R5c duel ISO 3200 low light isn’t a huge deal breaker. I’d much rather have the extra reach. I use this lens everywhere and with even F4 shot properly with subject to background distance you really can’t tell for the most part.
Now I want the 135mm 1.8 and I’d be happy
5:54 WOW you caught me with that one! Great comparison!
I have the 24-70 and at times drives me nuts not having that extra reach, but I do a lot of events and losing that 1 stop might make a difference doing church events, thought about the 105 2.8 but the price ouch.
24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 will do job for most of the people and with great quality. No need to keep changing all those prime lens, or continuously change your position forward or backward while taking photos. Most of the time, having less number of lens (means having zoom lens) actually helps.
Thank you James for your very best voice comparison of this two lenses, I was able to follow every word you said.😊😊😊
Thank you so much!
I just sold my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 with the Canon EF-RF control ring mount after a 10-day trip. It was heavy (1.2kg, I know RF24-70 f2.8L is lighter at 900g, but I can't afford it); I didn't go faster than f4 at all, since I was only out during the day; there was at least a handful of time everyday when I wished to have further reach. I have a set of cheap primes (16, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85. I started learning with primes and I'm letting my kids play with them), I can take one or two of them in my bag if I ever need faster lenses. As you've said, I would rather go with the lighter, with longer reach and save a few bucks.
Also, most people start shooting with f1.8 (the cheaper primes), the 28-70 f2 seems to be the better upgrade when speed is the concern. F4 for daylight and f2 for lowlight if money isn't a problem.😂
Through stumbling upon some deals too good to pass up, I own both the 24-105 and the 24-70. I've tried to love the 24-105. Maybe my copy is a mediocre one, but it is just not in the same league as the 2.8 lens - sharpness, color, and it just lacks that hard to describe pop of a great lens. My 24-70 does have it. It's stunning. The 24-105 is "OK." I recently got the RF 14-35 f4, and that is also better quality than my 24-105. I first got my 24-105 when all I had was my RP, and I was so underwhelmed by the RP. I just couldn't get sharp images. So I got an R5 and love it, but it makes me wonder if the RP was as uninspiring as I thought. Maybe it was my 24-105 holding it back. So, I''ve retired the 24-105 and will probably sell it. I have the RF 70-200 2.8, so for everything other than travel with lots of walking, I use that if I need something longer. Frankly, in at least half of your shots in this comparison, I find the IQ of the 24-70 to be noticeably better, in contrast to your comments. I'm interested in the new 24-105 2.8. If it's as great as I nope, that may be the ideal lens for me. We'll see.
Thank you for your excellent video. Well planned out and presented. Switching over to mirrorless & full frame, from Canon 90D APSC.. Awaiting arrival of R6 Mark 2 + 24-105. Your video assured me I made the right choice of lens. Really good examples from both f4 & 2.8. Have a small channel & looking fwd to upping the visual quality of my videos. Thanks again and all the Best from Fremantle West Aus 🙂
nice review I was hoping for. this channel really under rated.
Thank you so much!
Really interesting review, thanks. I have the 24-105 F4 and was researching whether the 24-70 F2.8 was worth the upgrade. I think you have convinced me it's not, especially at my level!!
Especially as I'm more likely to use it in a landscape environment.
I actually searched your channel for this comparison earlier in the week, you must have read my mind.
Loving your comparison work, keep up the great work on your channel!
p.s I figured there'd be a bigger difference in background blur, guess I'm keeping my 24-105 :)
That's great to hear Andrew! Thank you for watching
Thank you, James. I just got this lens and I'm really enjoying it so far.
You’re welcome! Congrats on the new lens. It’s an amazing one
For travel. Lightweight, compact is a must. I'll bring my rf 14-35 and rf 50 f1.8
Totally agree. I love that 14-35. One of my favourite RF lenses
This was a great review and comparison. Thank you!
Thank you!!
one of the most helpful reviews ive ever seeeen thank youuu
Thank you!
Great video. One thing though; when you did the studio portrait, it would have been great to see the difference (if there are any) with the 24-70 at f2.8, and the 24-105 at f4 at 70 mm. Then again with the 24-70 at f4, and the 24-105 both at 70 mm and F4. I suspect that there is little difference. There is no question that when it comes to traveling, the 24-105 is so much lighter. Again, great video!
I am using 105 lens and you have told all I can say. Thank you for that great comparison.
Thank you Serkan!
It was one of the best video that i have seen already about comparation of those lenses. Thank you so much God Bless you and your way.
Thank you so much!
For my style of shooting and what I shoot most of the time, I prefer the versatility of the 24-105 over the 24-70 2.8. I actually do have a 28-70 f2/8 but it's an older FD mount lens that I use an adaptor with. Also, I have to use manual focus as it doesn't have AF. It still yields great images believe it or not.
Great comparison here. I use the EF versions of both lenses, love em!
Thank you!
the 24-70 is so much sharper as you can see in the close ups. both lenses are very cool. the price difference is the sharpeness difference. thanks for the comparison... :)
Great comparison most awaited....
Thank you!
I carry a pack with an R5 and two lenses for travel. Walk around, indoor and outdoor, the RF 24- 70 f2.8, a little heavy, but my absolute go to. For landscape reach, RF 70- 200 f4. This is a marvelous light and compact lens to pack, given its versatility and image quality.
From your experience, what's better, 70mm of 24-70 or 70-200 at the same F4 aperture ?
In low light, it makes sense embrace 24mm- 70mm @ f2.8, pushing to the 70mm as needed. At f4 this lens is superb. Outdoor, shooting landscape at distance, the 70- 200 is amazing @ f4… such a beautiful lens the full range. Quality of image, excellent!
@@vinvanidI have these 2 lenses, rf24-70 2.8L, rf70-200L f4, and at 70mm @ f4 they are both identical. My rf70-200L is incredibly sharp even when using the 1.6 crop option to get a little closer, in fact some photos of birds I've taken look like cardboard cutouts that's been stuck on a background. I owned the ef version of this lens and it was rubbish.
@@MrBrockley3 wow great, thank you for your insight 👍
A very helpful video thank you. Went for the 24-70 in the end its great.
24-105 is the best lens for the price and versatility its the first lens you need to buy 🥰🥰🥰
The RF 24-105mm F4L lives on my R6ii most of the time. I do have a couple of primes, plus the rest of the F4L trinity to cover other situations when needed, but the 24-105 is my goto lens when I have no idea what I will need. On a related note, I have the RF 100-400mm that lives almost exclusively on my R7.
For someone who doesn't have a budget to own both, I think the 24-105 f4 is the best kit you could ever wish for.
As for light, its just one stop: modern cameras can handle a bump in ISO.
As for Bokeh, just ask your model to take 2 steps forward and you obviously take 2 steps back. The extra distance from the background and the 105mm will make an equally nice bokeh.
One stop is a huge difference in low light. Bumping the ISO is not the same. If you don’t care about noise levels or degraded quality, then save the money and get an EF 24-105😊
@@AlejandroMaagno if you read my comment carefully, I mention modern cameras. My old Canon 200D can get a fairly good image up to 1600 ISO, for newer cameras it's not a problem. If you're one of those persons who absolutely has to shoot 100 ISO, I'd say you're too focused on image quality and not enough on story telling and composition!
I just gave my opinion, considering price performance of both lenses, this video example and my use case. If you don't need the range and favour low light, by all means go with the f2.8! I value range and price more, so I'd settle for the f4.
@@JaySilva88 I wish more people see it the way you do. 1-stop difference is a bump of ISO, and if it's going be a condition THAT BAD for an f/4 lens then the f/2.8 would work almost as bad too.
Excellent video. Now I need to know if I should get the 24-105 or the 24-240...
It's the same story, 24-240 is better as a travel lens.
Awesome Video ! i can´t dicide if i wanna buy a 24-105 or a 24-70 (panasonic) so this video comes very handy with the comparison, even its canon i will awesome at some point all the brands kinda work in the same way. The 24-70mm at 24mm 2.8 is the clear winner no doubt in my opinion BUT i am shocked how awesome the 24-105 performce the further you zoom out until the point at 70mm when it beats the 24-70mm and then has even 35mm more to spare.
I have rf24-105 f4L(rf16 f2.8,rf35 f1.8) for travel,walk around and general purpose.And i have rf28-70 f2L and rf85 f1.2L for my portrait work.
Best comparison, thank you, I will go for 24-105 because my camera handle low light pretty well and having more extra reach works better to me
Thank you so much! Great choice, you’ll love the lens!
Awesome comparison and breakdown between the two lenses James, and a really good video layout. Definitely earned a Sub here!
Thank you so much!
I just took the plunge into the Canon R ecosystem (from an old 7D+EF-S 17-55 f/2.8). I was debating between these two lenses. I ended up going with the 24-70 f/2.8. I think it's clear if I were only going to have one lens ever, the 24-105 would be the better lens for the extra reach. But I think most of us who go with the 24-70 f/2.8 are going for the "holy trinity" with the 70-200 f/2.8 and 15-35 f/2.8 in mind for future purchases. I knew the 24-105 would, for me, need to be supplemented with other lenses (wide and tele) and I didn't want to buy those other two lenses and then wonder if I should have spent a little more in the middle zoom lens range.
This is exactly the review what I wanted.👍👍👍Good job😄
Thank you!!
I'm a wildlife shooter so I don't have much need for either of these lenses but I did pick up the 24-105 for a trip to Botswana and it was great there. After seeing this video I feel better that I saved money not going with the 24-70.
I've owned the EF version of both lenses 24-70mm F2.8 / 24-105mm F4is when I had my 1dxii and Now that I own my R5c... I own the 24-105mm F4 and I have to say I could really ever notice the difference for the PRICE difference and the extra reach the 105 gives me over the 70mm you can pretty much neglect any difference in out of focus area at 70mm 2.8 or 105mm F4 "IF You know what you are doing" with relation to subject to background distance. I only loose bit of light with the F4 but shooting at ISO 3200 esp for C-log and having duel ISO makes things easy and photo with editing and de-noise it's really no big deal.
IF you want to have the 24-70 and 70-200 then that is a fantastic combo, however.... I have the 24-105 and plan to get the 100-500 RF lens which will be insane coverage and then toss in my 50mm 1.8 and potentially a 135mm 1.8 RF lens that should cover A LOT of ground.
The 70-200 is a fantastic lens too but paired with the 24-105 it's almost a waste and becomes essentially a 105-200 F2.8 IMO. Just some food for thought and my experience.
as someone still clinging on the 5D3 and EF versions. I do think the 2.8 is favourable, for porait focla length, when the 70-105 section is preferred, one always have a 70-200 F4 IS for the job done even better, but in lower light, the F2.8 is always that extra stop of light available, which can't be replaced, and someone with L glass I think would always pack that light 70-200 for real mid telephoto shot anway
I have the RF24-70L2.8, and if I need to get a bit closer, I just switch to the 1.6 crop option on my R6Markii or switch to my RF70-200L I think if you already own the RF70-200L then it would make more sense to go for the RF24-70 2.8.L
Excellent review as always and a great model! Your reviews are more than just reviews it’s a nice aesthetics to them. I have the 24-105 but not the 24-70. I thought I would get to many disadvantages because of the f4 but Canon have done something exceptional in lens design of this one. It’s perfect for gimbal jobs. I have wide aperture primes to complement it. Many times I find f2.8 is not enough to blur the background of a whole figure portrait.
For portrait focused jobs I think the one you kept is better. The f4 version is almost as sharp as my TSE EF 24mm at 24mm! Canon’s RF glass is just fantastic. I agree with the model that 70mm looks best on her. It’s probably more like how one would perceive her in real live.
Thanks so much Martin!
Great video. Special thanks for the comparison and raw files.
Thank you for watching!
This is a very good vs. I am considering which lens to buy. The F2.8 is twice as expensive, but the difference in effect is not that big.
Great review, so we’ll executed, helpful, no nonsense. Thanks James.
Thank you so much!
This video was incredibly helpful. Thank you
Thank you Bailey!
Really want to see the 24-105 F4 vs the new 28-70 F2.8. What's more important, the L glass and extra range or the faster aperture but non L lens.
Again, great video James! Last year I sold my 24 105 F4 and bought the 28 70 F2, but sometimes regret the sell (not the buy) because of the handling, travel capability, versatility and weight. But having both is also a little to much… Thanks again for your work, creating these videos and helping people making their decisions!
Thank you so much Erik!
Steve McCurry shot with Nikon's 24-120 f/4 for years and he's a masterful portraitist.
Through the range of the 24-70 the difference between the 2.8 and the 4 are quite significant to me. Any photographer can tell which lens shot what image when they are side-by-side. Not saying the 24-105 is not a great lens. Just saying there is most definitely a noticeable difference. IS and more reach are the advantages of the 24-105 though. However, in my kit I would choose the 24-70.
Thanks for a great comparison!
Super helpful James!
Thank you!
I do combat photography and before a trip, I always think about having the 24-105 or even renting one, but I usually take the RF 35mm 1.8 because it is a good all-rounder. I had the EF 25-105 on my 5DM4 but I sold it not long after because I love the effect of the wider aperture and scene separation which was missing on the f4. The f4 is good for journalists who take standard boring pictures, but as a photojournalist, I love the wide-open shots. I took the 28-70 f2 beast on one trip and I knew it would be heavy, but did it anyway. It was awesome and loved the shots in darker environments but wouldnt do it again. Weight ratio when wearing extra kit, gets annoying.
Sounds like the 28-70 f2 is the perfect lens for your situation!
Good I bought the 24-105 for video content.
The bokeh of the 24-70 is softer and more pleasing, but the differences are very subtle.
Great job on a fair comparison. Helped a lot but you didn't make the decision for me! hahah... What would be cool is to maybe talk about why it makes to have all part of the range covered. For example, if I get the 24-70 my second lens is the 100-500. What am I missing from 70 to 100? Either way, great video and thank you.
In the 5 plus years that I was photographing events that covered weddings, baptisms, birthdays, portraits and family photos i found that having a F 2.8 zoom lenses like the 24-70 mm along with a selection of fast prime lenses essential for that type of photography, you tend to be working with less light and it gives you more background separation than an F4 lens. You can use the 24-105 or 120mm f4 for portrait shooting but you have to be more mindful of your background. So if you want to photograph events professional level than the 2.8 and lower is a better option.
For group photos of your kind of photography, does 2.8 is enough or you must to stop down for good all-in-focus faces ?
A good and helpful comparison. My takeaway from this video is that you can fudge the background blur with the slower lens *if* able to back up a bit and *if* you're OK with the flatter perspective. The older considerations about low light just don't apply to modern cameras under normal lighting scenarios because of how well they perform at high ISO.
It was not mentioned, but we're assuming here that both perform well at their extremes of 24mm and 70/105mm in terms of vignetting or chromatic aberrations or barrel distortions??
I like the idea of the 24-105 for versatility and then use a prime once you've discovered your favorite focal length for whatever you frequently shoot with. I'm also tempted by the 85, not because of its macro or IS or even because it's faster than either of these, but because it's a safe bet I'd likely prefer 85 for most portraits anyway.
I bought the 24-105 F4 first when I was shooting Canon and intended to get the 24-70 2.8 but I was happy enough with the 24-105 that I stuck with that until I abandoned Canon after shooting with their cameras many years due to their anti consumer behavior.
Theyre all horrible, I cant be positive about any of the current brands they are all flawed