Buying 5DMk2.... What Lens?

[David Eichler]

Re. The Canon 24-70 and 24-105, these have very strong field curvature, which can show up as a noticeable drop off in sharpness at the extreme corners, even when well stopped down. Personally, I would not use these lenses for architecture or landscapes unless I was sure that I'd always be cropping out the extreme corners. For portraits, weddings, events, photojournalism, that would be another matter. However, this will depend upon how much the photos will be enlarged.

[inthesouthofireland]

Re. The Canon 24-70 and 24-105, these have very strong field curvature, which can show up as a noticeable drop off in sharpness at the extreme corners, even when well stopped down.

Yes, that is an important point. Strangely, most lens reviews ignore this issue. Here is a website which illustrates the problem on the 24-70 with sample photos:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1

[bobtowery]

Hi,
I use a 24-105 with a 7D at work and never fell in love with the lens. I find f4 to be too dark for my taste. Also I do not like the IQ much. This summer I bought a 5d MkII and a 24-70 f2.8 L. I took the combo with me during a trip in the Colorado Plateau and I have been completely blown away by the quality of the pictures I took, wonderful contrast, resolution and superb color rendition. For me the 24-70 is really a great lens, sorry if this goes against the suggestions by other users

Saluti,
Luca

Another vote for the 24-70 over the 24-105. Based on my experience, the 24-70 is in a different league. Best of luck with your decision.

[Jeremy Roussak]

The 24-105 corrects just fine in LR so I don't see it being an issue. If photographers or hobbyists want uber lens quality then primes are certainly a better choice and Zeiss primes are generally better than Canon's. As is, the 24-105 is what I consider a power lifter, it can do so much and with that level of convenience and good image quality, it's a good daily lens.

I've been shooting professionally for 13 years with 5 years before that as a hobby. One thing I've learned is that less gear is more pleasurable, more freeing, lends itself to more creativity. Too many lenses, too much gear bogs down the process and clouds creativity.

I agree entirely. I have other lenses, including the wonderful 100mm IS macro and the 85mm/1.8, but I find I use the 24-105 90% of the time.

Jeremy

[David Eichler]

The 24-105 corrects just fine in LR so I don't see it being an issue. If photographers or hobbyists want uber lens quality then primes are certainly a better choice and Zeiss primes are generally better than Canon's. As is, the 24-105 is what I consider a power lifter, it can do so much and with that level of convenience and good image quality, it's a good daily lens.

I've been shooting professionally for 13 years with 5 years before that as a hobby. One thing I've learned is that less gear is more pleasurable, more freeing, lends itself to more creativity. Too many lenses, too much gear bogs down the process and clouds creativity.

If you are you are referring to my comment, then you appear to be confusing field curvature with rectilinear distortion, which are not the same thing. Field curvature cannot be corrected with software. Once sharpness is lost, it cannot be recovered.

By the way, I should have mentioned that the field curvature to which I referred is only evident toward the wide end of the range. With the 24-70, this was from 24mm to about 30mm