wondering about the 24-70mm and 24-105mm L

[Mike W]

Hi everyone,

I was reading a review of these lenses, and the review spoke of barrel distortion in both lenses @24mm.

Does anyone own one of these lenses? If you have used these lenses at 24mm, could you post a sample? A quick word on the annoyance of barrel distortion, or lack thereof, is very welcome.
I shoot landscape (urban and nature).

How does the sharpness of these lenses hold up? The reason I would buy this lens along with a full frame Canon, is the fact I use the 24-105mm range (but I can live with 24-70, since it has a wider apenture) and the zoom-lens is a L lens wich is cheaper than buying three non-L primes.

regards

Mike

[mahleu]

I'm planning on getting the 24-70 when i'm in the uk in january. I've used the 24-105 and the barrel distortion is quite bad, reviews i've read place the 24-70 slightly better.

However i've found that the 17-40L is very very impressive, especially from 20mm up showing hardly any distortion. You can also find them pretty cheap second hand and the f4 shouldn't be an issue for landscape.

[Mike W]

However i've found that the 17-40L is very very impressive, especially from 20mm up showing hardly any distortion. You can also find them pretty cheap second hand and the f4 shouldn't be an issue for landscape.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151899\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

f4 is indeed no problem, but I find lenses with a larger apenture are better at the apentures I use (being 5.6, 8, and 11) since the lens' overal "sweet-spot" is situated around 3 stops closed.

And a larger apenture makes it possible to use it for other applications beyond landscape.

regards

Mike

[Ronny Nilsen]

f4 is indeed no problem, but I find lenses with a larger apenture are better at the apentures I use (being 5.6, 8, and 11) since the lens' overal "sweet-spot" is situated around 3 stops closed.

And a larger apenture makes it possible to use it for other applications beyond landscape.

regards

Mike
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I did a comparison of the 24-70 and the 24-105 a year ago and you can se the result
[a href=\"http://www.ronnynilsen.com/Equipment/Test/24-70vs24-105.shtml]here[/url].

I did not test distortion, only sharpness at all f-stops.

[Mike W]

thanks for that comparison.

Is it me or is the image not sharp? Did you use a tripod?
How does the lens hold up to other canon L glass?

[Ronny Nilsen]

thanks for that comparison.

Is it me or is the image not sharp? Did you use a tripod?
How does the lens hold up to other canon L glass?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I did use a tripod, but no sharpening have been applied, it's straight from
the raw-files. Also both lenses was focused on the same spot, but the crops
might not be in complete focus as I was only interested to compare the
lenses, not to find out if they are sharp (they are, I knew that already).

The corner crops are not in the plane of focus, so anybody thinking that the
lenses are soft in the corners would make a wrong assumption. The lenses was
tested on a Canon 5D.

The 70-200 2.8 L IS is a bit better in 70-105 range that it have in common
with the 24-105, but not all that much. I really like the 24-105.

[Ken Bennett]

I have the 24-70/2.8, and there is some moderate barrel distortion at 24mm and thereabouts. For 90% of my work it's unnoticeable. For the other 10% (architectural work), using the Lens Correction tool in Photoshop with about a +2% "remove distortion" correction works wonders. (Under Filters>Distort>Lens Correction..." in PS CS3.)

[paullantz]

I use both the 24-70 and the 24-105.
The extra range is handy on one.
I find the 24-105 has more chromatic abberration, it is fairly easy to fix but sometimes quite noticeable on edges.
One place where the 24-70 shines due to the wider opening is focus in dark places, e.g. at social events where there is dancing. The 24-105 is very slow or impossible to auto focus in places where the 24-70 is very fast.

[budjames]

I own both lenses. I use both on my 40D (previous body was a 20D) and my 1Ds MkII. The 24-70 is nice for the f2.8 aperture, but it is noticeably heavier and has a long lens hood. At the wide end, the 24-105 has much more distortion and vignetting, but it's lighter and the IS works really well.

The 24-105 has become my "walking around" lens for vacations and outings where I only bring the camera and one lens. If you don't own either lens, then I would opt for the 24-105 as it is more versatile.

As an aside, I just purchased the Canon 10-22 EFS lens for my 40D. It is a nice lens and the 10mm provides the full frame equivalent of 16mm.

My 2 cents.

Bud James

[stever]

i like the 24-105 with my 5D because it's sharp and convenient, but it distorts one way or another at all focal lengths - mostly this is not noticeable, but if there are straight lines the image has some kind of more or less subtle "wrongness" and i run it through PT Lens and correct perspective at the same time if needed

the vignetting wide open is easily fixed in LR (i find it easier there than in PT Lens)

I'm sure the 24-70 is better, but i think just about every wide zoom has distortion issues (which are probably not noticeable for most subjects)

[Craig Lamson]

I use both the 24-70 and the 24-105.
The extra range is handy on one.
I find the 24-105 has more chromatic abberration, it is fairly easy to fix but sometimes quite noticeable on edges.
One place where the 24-70 shines due to the wider opening is focus in dark places, e.g. at social events where there is dancing. The 24-105 is very slow or impossible to auto focus in places where the 24-70 is very fast.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151928\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have both as well and agree with you.  My biggest complaint about the 24-105 is the ca, it seems worse than the 24-70.

Both distort and need somthing like PTlens to correct, which is really ok.

My first choice is the 24-105 for the size and IS.  There is a place for both lensees in my kit.

[Mike W]

Well, thanks guys.

It seems both lenses have certain advantages.

If anyone else feels tempted to upload images, please do.

regards

Mike

[marcmccalmont]

I owned the 24-70 first then the 24-105. After RAW conversion in DxO I found both lenses very close in performance. A lot of my use is hand held in an airplane so I kept the 24-105 IS because of the IS I wish there was a 24-105 IS 2.8! As a summary both lenses are equal after DxO conversion just a choice, is 2.8 more important or is IS more important? If the majority of your work is on a tripod go for the 24-70 if most is handheld buy the 24-105
Marc

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I wrote a review for this site a couple of years ago and my conclusions then remain valid. Yes, there is distortion but easily correctable in PS. But the extra "reach" and especially the IS make this my most used Canon lens. It is also surprisingly good at its closest focussing distances.

At a rough guess I've probably taken well in excess of 10,000 frames with it and it has been totally reliable. You'd have to tear it out of my cold, dead hands!

Bill

[sojournerphoto]

I use the 24-105 and it's a cracking everyday lens. I split raw conversion between DXo and Lightroom, and find that the 24-105, 5D DXo combo is excellent. Occasionally if using LR the distortion is noticeable, but easily fixed through DXo or alternatives. The IS works well and it has a sensible overlap with the 70-200f4IS

Mike

[luong]

I own both, but use almost exclusively the 24-105.

The 24-105 has a slight edge in sharpness, esp. wide open.

The 24-105 has more vignetting and distortion, but I run DxO, so this hasn't been an issue for me.

[Kagetsu]

I did manage to use a preproduction sample of the 24-105 the day after it was announced for a few hours, and made a little effort to compare it to my 24-70... They're both adequate lenses, however, I feel the f/2.8 really give the edge... That said, it'd have been nice with a little more of sharpness on the long end of the 24-70.

[Mike W]

I take it you mean; the 24-70 has more vignetting and distortion (...)?

I own both, but use almost exclusively the 24-105.

The 24-105 has a slight edge in sharpness, esp. wide open.

The 24-105 has more vignetting and distortion, but I run DxO, so this hasn't been an issue for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152028\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[goldband]

Ive been struggling with the same question... and have been looking at a not so obvious choice-- the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. The test results Ive been able to find generally place it optically superior to the canon 24-70 and comparable to the canon primes in its range, and even more so to the 24-105 (photodo, popular photo). It lacks IS (compared to the 24-105) but the xtra f stop makes up partly for that-- and I do alot of tripod urban landscapes, so IS isnt that crucial.  I have one on order from B&H and Ill compare it to a friends 24-70 directly. Its also smaller and lighter which is a factor in a walk-around lens. And yes, the build quality is not suerlative. (It also costs 1/3 the Canons but that was down my list of considerations).

[Paulo Bizarro]

I think SLR Gear have tested both lenses, and basically their findings are that the 24-105 has higher distortion and light fall-off in the corners, especially at full-frame.

FWIW, I have the 24-70, no regrets at all. The lens is very good.