I only rented the 24-70 f/4 so no longer have it for testing, I didn't notice any ovals but I do have sample images you could take a look at on my blog, linked under video.
11:15 It appears that the 24-70 f4 @f4 is actually equal to or possibly even sharper in focus than the 2.8 lens @f4 but that the depth of field is less indicating a more open aperature setting on the f4 lens @f4. Notice the details on the red book face and the quicker transition into bokeh on the f4 lens.
The field curvature is massively different in all three lenses that's what does that. I've been comparing my 24-70 2.8 ii to my 24-105 F/4. In some test the 24-70 2.8 ii blows the 24-105 away. In other test, at the same exact distance with the same settings, the 24-105 will look better because there is more in focus at F/4 on the sides. It appears that the 24-70 2.8 ii is curving toward the camera and the 24-105 is curving away from the camera. The curve is fairly massive on the 24-70 2.8 ii. You won't notice it with portraits or anything but I noticed it during Landscape. There was more in focus with the 24-105 F/4 at F8 in a certain shot. But then I moved, did a shot on another subject, more in focus on the 24-70.
I found the copy I tested to be sharper across the range than the 24-105, around the 50mm mark they were very close but otherwise the 24-70 was the clear winner especially when looking at the edges and corners.
Hi Toby. Nicely done video. Have you thought about calibrating your lenses to your camera before doing the tests? I use lens align pro (you can also use a ruler) but have found that all my lenses suffered from small degrees of misalignment and were improved by micro-adjusting them. You can also adjust both sides of the zoom. Just a thought.
So if you are somebody that shoots mostly non-moving subjects in low light, would it be a good idea to switch from a 24-70 f2.8 I to a 24-70 f4 IS? The Weight savings (12oz!) is also worth looking at. I just can't decide whether losing a stop of light and 12oz of weight is worth the IS and smaller package.
I agree that the 24-105 is one of the real values in Canon's line up. Along with the 70-200 f/4 lens. I wish I had done a distortion comparison at the wide end when I had all three :/
I just purchased the 24 70 f4 white box for 799. The 2.8 was 1,749. No brainer for me. I went with the f4 for my 80d. So I actually get more of a 35 to 115 which makes it a versatile lens for me. Great video
I really needed something to replace my kit lens and at the same time I wanted to buy a macro lens. The Canon 24 - 70 f/4 IS + Macro was the obvious choice and I love it. f/4 is great, IS for me is essential and that macro feature makes the lens amazing. Many people are saying that is overpriced, but I if you get it second hand in good condition makes it a great choice!
Hello, 24-70 2.8 II how does compare to the first version? Price is similar also to the 24-70 F4 IS which is suggested for the hires 5DS/R. 24-70 IS L the way to go? What's the camera used for the test btw?
Hello from Greece. Ever since I subscribed to your channel I 've been wathing and learning. Thank you for that. Now, here is the question. I already own an EOS 70D, purchased with the 18 - 135 and I also have the 70 - 200 f2,8 L IS II USM. I think that it's time to upgrade from the 18 - 135 to something better, but before I go out and spend some money, I have the following question. Suppose that you shoot with the 24 - 70 f2,8 II at 70mm and the same picture, with the same settings on camera with the 70 - 200 f2,8, again at 70mm. Will those two pictures be the same? I suppose not. Have you ever tried a test like this before? Thank you in advance, Michael.
Even if its the mk1? Ive seen some reviews that say and also show pics where the 24-70 f4 loses in sharpnessto the 24-105... Im a bit confused actually :/
Hi Toby nice video. For me pull is Macro as I want to do occasional macro photos. One question for which non of the reviews in you tube mentioned is in macro mode does AF & IS work or in macro it is manual?
Toby...I'm torn between the 24-70 f4 or the 35mm f2 both have IS which is a must for me because I mainly shoot video and stability is important to me. Right now I have the 10-18 stm. What do you think I should pair it with out of the two? I only have enough funds for one lens?
I'd be interested to know whether the 24-70 f/4 is sharper cropped in to a 105mm equivalent at 70mm vs. the 24-105 at 105mm. Maybe that could make up for the better zoom range of the 24-105? Although I guess the background compression would still be better on the 24-105 @ 105mm, right?
Hi toby, just watched these videos, i'm going on a trip to bruges for christmas and need an all round lens, i looked at the sigma 24-105 f4 and I'm wondering how the canon 24-70 f4 compares to this purely on image quality, would you take it over the sigma? Thanks.
Looking at these results, I think 24-105 is real bang for buck. Thanks for a great video, I would have loved to see distortion comparisons at wide end as well.
after a month of reading, talking and listening, things are now clear and i've chosen my lens. i am curious though, that canon did not make a 27-70 f4 with IF, as in the 16-35. is it because of the extra b it of zoom range??? or, maybe the addition of a close-up capability?? i've never purchased a zoom lens before, having always insisted on primes. so the telescoping action i'll need to get used to. thanks for the video!! kenneth
Hi, great review! I was going to buy the 24-70 f2.8 mk1 but know i think ive switched to the 24-70 f4, i want it mainly for lall day lens and portraits. I also have a 16-35 f2.8 mk2 in a crop body. What you think?
Hi toby, very insightful videos. while deciding between 24-70 f2.8 (original version) vs. 24-105 f4.0 on canon 6D, I wanted to check with you how much high ISO performance of 6d can make up for loss of aperture with 24-105?
I heard they said 24-70 f4 bokeh is not so round and appeared oval shape. Can you run some test on this? Maybe a bokeh comparison of 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-70mm f4 would be nice?
Thanks so much for these videos. I’m currently sending back my first 24-105 from eBay because they didn’t tell me it had a dent on the mount 🙄. After feeling it on my M6ii, it was a bit too heavy for my liking anyway. I’d rather keep using the fantastic 18-150. But what I’m looking for is a pro lens for my semi-pro work and these are the 3 I was considering. The macro mode is very intriguing, but I think sharpness is just so good on the 2.8 that I have no choice. They’re forcing my hand to splurge. Idk who “they” are since these are ancient lenses… but yea…
Hi CameraRec Toby, I am having trouble deciding which to get Canon 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-70 f/4 IS. I use to have canon efs 17-55 f.2.8 IS and due to my drunken friends dropped and my photography became boring back to the efs18-55 sigh 20min of focusing and noise. Anyways I want to replace a better build and lens than the efs 17-55 IS which had dust problem. I like to take in low lighting and indoors most but all which need a fast lens like the efs 17-55 IS. CameraRec Toby can you do a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 vs Canon 24-70 f2.8 in action night time and indoors and daytime and light. and compare in video and image Please :). The 24-70 f2.8 is missing IS :( so that why I don't know which to get.
would you recon the 24-70 would be a better lens ?? i did give away my 24-105 but am still confused if i should purchase the 24-70 f4 ?? how would you say its better ?? please help me out here thanks
how about the new sigma 24-105 F4 that has just come out? how does it compare? is it sharper than the canon 24-105 - could it be the ultimate walkaround and video lens?
wow, super interesting! I really enjoyed this comparison. Were all the test shots hand held? or on tripod? I really don't know if the 1.2 stops difference is worth giving up the IS. If the tests were handheld then not having IS doesn't seem to matter, but I've just always had a Canon lens with it. I'm so torn. Very true what you said IS doesn't help with a moving subject but I have no idea what is better.
I think something people dismiss or forget about the extra 35mm of the 24-105 is not just that "little extra" reach, but the compression it provides. 70mm is not very good for something like a headshot (distorts facial features and you see more of background). 105mm is truly in that magical portrait range and compresses the background significantly, better isolating your subject. As far as versatility is concerned, the 105 is the better of all three, as it covers wide angle to close-up portraits.
Coming back to Canon, I made the mistake of selling my Canon 24-70 2.8 when I went with Sony. I REALLY need to make enough money to get it back. I have the 24-105 now and I like it for a lot of things. However I quickly noticed the sharpness difference. The other thing I noticed, doing landscapes, and especially in HDR is the 24-105 has more CA than any lens I've used. It can get pretty extreme at that. Even though I made the mistake of selling the 24-70, at least this time I'll get to get the newer version II of it. I'd pick the 24-105 over the 24-70 F/4. Even though the 24-70 F/4 is sharper, I just feel like if I'm going to have to go to F/4 I'd rather sacrifice some on the corners and go ahead and be able to go from 70-105. Especially since that is portrait range. I shoot my portraits with a 100mm prime now, it's extremely sharp but I did used to shoot most all of them with the 24-70 at 70. But I really like about 100mm or 135mm.
Probably i watched too many Columbo episodes..Can you tell me how is possible that the clock tower marks the same time. At the same time!!!... in the two different lenses!!! Have you used two different tripod?...
If you don't have to have f/2.8 across that 24-70 range the f/4 version is really nice. Depending on the percentage of portraits you will be taking, you may want that f/2.8.
Given that the title says "24 - 70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS" I was expcting those 2 face to face at some point.. did I miss it? aside from 5 seconds while switching pictures I think you always compared one of those two against the 2.8
I hope that I did not come of as abrasive in my last comment to Part. 1. This video proves that the MK2 is the king of standard zooms. Looking at this video show that the Mk2 has more clarity, and it is very bright and make the other lenses don't look as sharp. Each lens here is a winner. The 24-105mm f/4 IS is for the pro tog who don't like to change his lenses as much. 24-70 f/4 will appeal for videos and those who don't need f/2.8. I like your comment at around 1:10. Good lens test, thanks.
Thank you for this useful video I mot sure I might own one of the sharpest 24-105 My primary shooting is fashion happens many times the images sharpness was in edit overwhelming.Personally love shooting above 5.6 the 24-105 is my choice lens besides that the extra 35mm range cant be beat. For me is hard to justify a 2.8 aperture for $ 2300.00 . One lens that usually shoot max 2.0 is my 50mm 1.2
The difference in sharpness between 24-105 F4/5.6 and 24-70 II are huge no just a little. The girl who talk in video have right .... and i also confirmed with test in the field :) Different optics and 24-105 is an old design lens.
I dont think this video is precise. I actually have both of those lenses and did the same sharpness test but surprisingly, cheaper 24-105 gives me more crisper images compared to 24-70 ii
Very nice video. Although I thought you guys were being very generous and cautious to your viewers. I have a 24-70 f4 kit and wanting to upgrade to the 2.8 and MAN. What a difference. I would have been a lot more harsh 😂 but thanks for the tip on watching this in 1080p as well. Dude the 2.8 is sharper by far. Thanks for this.
You are welcome. I am always happy to answer followup questions.
Great Review Toby! I think I am going to go with the 24-70 f4! Thank you for the help in my decision making process.
I only rented the 24-70 f/4 so no longer have it for testing, I didn't notice any ovals but I do have sample images you could take a look at on my blog, linked under video.
This test was really great. I just watched Parts 1 & 2. Thank you!!! SO helpful.
11:15 It appears that the 24-70 f4 @f4 is actually equal to or possibly even sharper in focus than the 2.8 lens @f4 but that the depth of field is less indicating a more open aperature setting on the f4 lens @f4. Notice the details on the red book face and the quicker transition into bokeh on the f4 lens.
The field curvature is massively different in all three lenses that's what does that. I've been comparing my 24-70 2.8 ii to my 24-105 F/4. In some test the 24-70 2.8 ii blows the 24-105 away. In other test, at the same exact distance with the same settings, the 24-105 will look better because there is more in focus at F/4 on the sides. It appears that the 24-70 2.8 ii is curving toward the camera and the 24-105 is curving away from the camera. The curve is fairly massive on the 24-70 2.8 ii. You won't notice it with portraits or anything but I noticed it during Landscape. There was more in focus with the 24-105 F/4 at F8 in a certain shot. But then I moved, did a shot on another subject, more in focus on the 24-70.
What about the 24-70 f/2.8 USM Mk1? Is still sharpest than the F/4 IS USM?
Hi Stevie, not at all. I agree with your summation, I'd also add that 24-105 is excellent for the videographer as f/4 is fine for most shooting.
Thank you. Three weeks later and I really miss that 24-70 f/4, it is a lovely lens!
I found the copy I tested to be sharper across the range than the 24-105, around the 50mm mark they were very close but otherwise the 24-70 was the clear winner especially when looking at the edges and corners.
Ugh if only the 2.8 had damn IS!
Agreed, though it would be a little heavier. I guess they thought the lower f stop would make it not necessary to need IS.
Hi Toby. Nicely done video.
Have you thought about calibrating your lenses to your camera before doing the tests? I use lens align pro (you can also use a ruler) but have found that all my lenses suffered from small degrees of misalignment and were improved by micro-adjusting them. You can also adjust both sides of the zoom.
Just a thought.
Tom - it is a great suggestion and something I have started to do with my more recent tests.
RAW, imported to Lightroom at camera default settings.
Interesting. Sounds like maybe you have a bad copy of the 24-70. Or try micro AF adjustment and see if you get better results.
So if you are somebody that shoots mostly non-moving subjects in low light, would it be a good idea to switch from a 24-70 f2.8 I to a 24-70 f4 IS? The Weight savings (12oz!) is also worth looking at. I just can't decide whether losing a stop of light and 12oz of weight is worth the IS and smaller package.
I agree that the 24-105 is one of the real values in Canon's line up. Along with the 70-200 f/4 lens. I wish I had done a distortion comparison at the wide end when I had all three :/
Glad I could help. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you for this comparison! Very helpful. I have a question, would you say the 50 mm F/1.4 is sharper than the 24-70 F/4 at 50 mm?
I just purchased the 24 70 f4 white box for 799. The 2.8 was 1,749. No brainer for me. I went with the f4 for my 80d. So I actually get more of a 35 to 115 which makes it a versatile lens for me. Great video
I really needed something to replace my kit lens and at the same time I wanted to buy a macro lens. The Canon 24 - 70 f/4 IS + Macro was the obvious choice and I love it. f/4 is great, IS for me is essential and that macro feature makes the lens amazing. Many people are saying that is overpriced, but I if you get it second hand in good condition makes it a great choice!
Buying used lenses is a great way to save. Glad you are happy with it!
Hello, 24-70 2.8 II how does compare to the first version? Price is similar also to the 24-70 F4 IS which is suggested for the hires 5DS/R. 24-70 IS L the way to go? What's the camera used for the test btw?
Hello from Greece.
Ever since I subscribed to your channel I 've been wathing and learning. Thank you for that.
Now, here is the question. I already own an EOS 70D, purchased with the 18 - 135 and I also have the 70 - 200 f2,8 L IS II USM. I think that it's time to upgrade from the 18 - 135 to something better, but before I go out and spend some money, I have the following question.
Suppose that you shoot with the 24 - 70 f2,8 II at 70mm and the same picture, with the same settings on camera with the 70 - 200 f2,8, again at 70mm.
Will those two pictures be the same? I suppose not. Have you ever tried a test like this before?
Thank you in advance,
Michael.
CameraRec Toby awesome review! Would love to see a comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC. Thx.
Even if its the mk1? Ive seen some reviews that say and also show pics where the 24-70 f4 loses in sharpnessto the 24-105... Im a bit confused actually :/
Hi Toby nice video. For me pull is Macro as I want to do occasional macro photos. One question for which non of the reviews in you tube mentioned is in macro mode does AF & IS work or in macro it is manual?
Toby...I'm torn between the 24-70 f4 or the 35mm f2 both have IS which is a must for me because I mainly shoot video and stability is important to me. Right now I have the 10-18 stm. What do you think I should pair it with out of the two? I only have enough funds for one lens?
I'd be interested to know whether the 24-70 f/4 is sharper cropped in to a 105mm equivalent at 70mm vs. the 24-105 at 105mm. Maybe that could make up for the better zoom range of the 24-105? Although I guess the background compression would still be better on the 24-105 @ 105mm, right?
Hi toby, just watched these videos, i'm going on a trip to bruges for christmas and need an all round lens, i looked at the sigma 24-105 f4 and I'm wondering how the canon 24-70 f4 compares to this purely on image quality, would you take it over the sigma? Thanks.
Looking at these results, I think 24-105 is real bang for buck. Thanks for a great video, I would have loved to see distortion comparisons at wide end as well.
after a month of reading, talking and listening, things are now clear and i've chosen my
lens. i am curious though, that canon did not make a 27-70 f4 with IF, as in the
16-35. is it because of the extra b it of zoom range??? or, maybe the addition of a close-up capability?? i've never purchased a zoom lens before, having always insisted on primes. so the telescoping action i'll need to get used to. thanks for the video!!
kenneth
Hi, great review! I was going to buy the 24-70 f2.8 mk1 but know i think ive switched to the 24-70 f4, i want it mainly for lall day lens and portraits. I also have a 16-35 f2.8 mk2 in a crop body. What you think?
Pls can you compare the sigma 24-104mm f4 art lens to this groups ?
All are VERY similar in terms of AF Focus in live view, no really differences that I could tell.
omg thank you so much! you saved me a boat load of headaches dealing with amazon with this review
Hi toby, very insightful videos. while deciding between 24-70 f2.8 (original version) vs. 24-105 f4.0 on canon 6D, I wanted to check with you how much high ISO performance of 6d can make up for loss of aperture with 24-105?
Thanks a lot for this wonderful video! One of the best comparison I found on those lenses.
thanks for the vid toby,been thinking about getting the 2.8 ii.having watched your vids i will go and get one now.
That was a sweet trade. Glad to hear you are enjoying the 24-70, it really is a nice lens.
I heard they said 24-70 f4 bokeh is not so round and appeared oval shape. Can you run some test on this? Maybe a bokeh comparison of 24-70 f2.8 vs 24-70mm f4 would be nice?
Thanks so much for these videos. I’m currently sending back my first 24-105 from eBay because they didn’t tell me it had a dent on the mount 🙄. After feeling it on my M6ii, it was a bit too heavy for my liking anyway. I’d rather keep using the fantastic 18-150. But what I’m looking for is a pro lens for my semi-pro work and these are the 3 I was considering. The macro mode is very intriguing, but I think sharpness is just so good on the 2.8 that I have no choice. They’re forcing my hand to splurge. Idk who “they” are since these are ancient lenses… but yea…
This is what I like to see. A very good comparison thank you!
Hi CameraRec Toby, I am having trouble deciding which to get Canon 24-70 f/2.8 or Canon 24-70 f/4 IS. I use to have canon efs 17-55 f.2.8 IS and due to my drunken friends dropped and my photography became boring back to the efs18-55 sigh 20min of focusing and noise. Anyways I want to replace a better build and lens than the efs 17-55 IS which had dust problem. I like to take in low lighting and indoors most but all which need a fast lens like the efs 17-55 IS.
CameraRec Toby can you do a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 vs Canon 24-70 f2.8 in action night time and indoors and daytime and light. and compare in video and image Please :). The 24-70 f2.8 is missing IS :( so that why I don't know which to get.
would you recon the 24-70 would be a better lens ?? i did give away my 24-105 but am still confused if i should purchase the 24-70 f4 ?? how would you say its better ?? please help me out here thanks
how about the new sigma 24-105 F4 that has just come out? how does it compare? is it sharper than the canon 24-105 - could it be the ultimate walkaround and video lens?
What camera settings did you use for this test? RAW or JPEG,,any sharpness settings?
wow, super interesting! I really enjoyed this comparison. Were all the test shots hand held? or on tripod? I really don't know if the 1.2 stops difference is worth giving up the IS. If the tests were handheld then not having IS doesn't seem to matter, but I've just always had a Canon lens with it. I'm so torn. Very true what you said IS doesn't help with a moving subject but I have no idea what is better.
I think something people dismiss or forget about the extra 35mm of the 24-105 is not just that "little extra" reach, but the compression it provides. 70mm is not very good for something like a headshot (distorts facial features and you see more of background). 105mm is truly in that magical portrait range and compresses the background significantly, better isolating your subject. As far as versatility is concerned, the 105 is the better of all three, as it covers wide angle to close-up portraits.
Daniel Fazzari I agree! 105mm is 50% longer than 70mm, which makes a big difference for portraits (more important than f/2.8 vs f/4).
Coming back to Canon, I made the mistake of selling my Canon 24-70 2.8 when I went with Sony. I REALLY need to make enough money to get it back. I have the 24-105 now and I like it for a lot of things. However I quickly noticed the sharpness difference. The other thing I noticed, doing landscapes, and especially in HDR is the 24-105 has more CA than any lens I've used. It can get pretty extreme at that. Even though I made the mistake of selling the 24-70, at least this time I'll get to get the newer version II of it. I'd pick the 24-105 over the 24-70 F/4. Even though the 24-70 F/4 is sharper, I just feel like if I'm going to have to go to F/4 I'd rather sacrifice some on the corners and go ahead and be able to go from 70-105. Especially since that is portrait range. I shoot my portraits with a 100mm prime now, it's extremely sharp but I did used to shoot most all of them with the 24-70 at 70. But I really like about 100mm or 135mm.
Probably i watched too many Columbo episodes..Can you tell me how is possible that the clock tower marks the same time.
At the same time!!!... in the two different lenses!!!
Have you used two different tripod?...
Look at the minute hand, not the second hand. They're a minute or two apart.
:-D
CSI MIAMI :D
Traded my 24-105 for a 24-70 in a straight trade and I'm very happy with the 24-70. It's a very sharp and compact lens!
nice, your video made me wanna stick with my 24-105.
yes it held up well against the 24-70 MK II 2.8. I was surprised
Between the 24-70 f4 and 24-105, which one is better in terms of bokeh?
How did you get it so that you can view images side by side like that and scroll to view them.
All the best, Dvir
Dennis - Glad I could help.
Thanks a lot for your test and requested macro video test of 24-70mm f4 L. They were really helpful.
If you don't have to have f/2.8 across that 24-70 range the f/4 version is really nice. Depending on the percentage of portraits you will be taking, you may want that f/2.8.
What Camera were you using with these lenses? Thanks
Given that the title says "24 - 70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS" I was expcting those 2 face to face at some point.. did I miss it? aside from 5 seconds while switching pictures I think you always compared one of those two against the 2.8
Thanks for this comparison. Really helped me out ;)
very useful comparison, thanks for your awesome video.
Thank you!
Hi. How would you rate 24-105 STM vs 24-105 L lens
The newest version of the 24-105L is better - fixed f4 aperture.
I hope that I did not come of as abrasive in my last comment to Part. 1. This video proves that the MK2 is the king of standard zooms. Looking at this video show that the Mk2 has more clarity, and it is very bright and make the other lenses don't look as sharp. Each lens here is a winner. The 24-105mm f/4 IS is for the pro tog who don't like to change his lenses as much. 24-70 f/4 will appeal for videos and those who don't need f/2.8. I like your comment at around 1:10. Good lens test, thanks.
Nice review! thanks! Just got a 24-70 f4 from ebay.
is this good for filming for outdoor sports? 24-70mm f4
Yes.
Personally, I would rather the 24-105 f/4
thank you for the video and analysis
Great job, it's really helpfull. thank you.
Very nice video review! :)
Thank you for this useful video I mot sure I might own one of the sharpest 24-105 My primary shooting is fashion happens many times the images sharpness was in edit overwhelming.Personally love shooting above 5.6 the 24-105 is my choice lens besides that the extra 35mm range cant be beat. For me is hard to justify a 2.8 aperture for $ 2300.00 . One lens that usually shoot max 2.0 is my 50mm 1.2
Feels like an eye exam.
Just my opinion. A ruler marked in 32nds and 64ths of an inch would make a better macro challenge.
nice review - well detailed
Is the 24-70 f4 made of plastic somewhere inside?
great job!
Canon 5D Mark III
awesome video!
The difference in sharpness between 24-105 F4/5.6 and 24-70 II are huge no just a little.
The girl who talk in video have right .... and i also confirmed with test in the field :)
Different optics and 24-105 is an old design lens.
I dont think this video is precise. I actually have both of those lenses and did the same sharpness test but surprisingly, cheaper 24-105 gives me more crisper images compared to 24-70 ii
Toby, I'm looking forward to a comparison between the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 A and Sigma 24-105 f/4 A
Well informations
thank you,,
I dont think this video is precise..i actually have both of those lenses but surprisingly 24-105
Very nice video. Although I thought you guys were being very generous and cautious to your viewers. I have a 24-70 f4 kit and wanting to upgrade to the 2.8 and MAN. What a difference. I would have been a lot more harsh 😂 but thanks for the tip on watching this in 1080p as well. Dude the 2.8 is sharper by far. Thanks for this.
I have been wanting to upgrade from 24-70mm f4 to 24=70mm f2.8 but it is very hard to decide. Have you upgraded and are you happy about the upgrade?
Thank you!