24-105 Mark II vs 24-70 F2.8L Mark I?

[marco79]

Hello Canon Forum People

here my post to ask an opinion about something that hasn't been mentioned in any review, forum or discussion. 

I am a happy owner of a 24-70 F2.8 (mark I) since many years. has been a gr8 companion in combination with the 70-200 F2.8

Although with years i am getting tired to bring both lenses for "not assignment trips" and i though i could use a new 24-105 instead. 

question: how better, or worse, is the 24-105 mark II compared with the '10 year's old' 24-70 f2.8 mark I in terms of 1)overall sharpness 2)color rend 3)edge distortion?

I didn't have time to test the 24-105 II properly but i believe that a 2016 lens could/should be equal or even better than a 10 year's old lens, even though the 24-70 was/is top range lens

any thoughts about this will be very much appreciated

regards

Marco

[RobertTheFat]

---

@marco79 wrote:

Hello Canon Forum People

here my post to ask an opinion about something that hasn't been mentioned in any review, forum or discussion. 

I am a happy owner of a 24-70 F2.8 (mark I) since many years. has been a gr8 companion in combination with the 70-200 F2.8

Although with years i am getting tired to bring both lenses for "not assignment trips" and i though i could use a new 24-105 instead. 

question: how better, or worse, is the 24-105 mark II compared with the '10 year's old' 24-70 f2.8 mark I in terms of 1)overall sharpness 2)color rend 3)edge distortion?

I didn't have time to test the 24-105 II properly but i believe that a 2016 lens could/should be equal or even better than a 10 year's old lens, even though the 24-70 was/is top range lens

any thoughts about this will be very much appreciated

regards

Marco

---

Aside from their different zoom ranges, the most conspicuous differences are that the 24-105 has IS and the 24-70 is one stop faster. So as with most such choices, it depends on what your requirements are.

[marco79]

Thanks Robert, 

i been studying Photography for many years but in good lens review i see very accurate graphs and charts about sharpness, distortion, etc. 

Basically i own already both lenses and i am willing to give one away.

my question is:

is the 24-105 Mark II comparable or even better to he 24-70 Mark I in terms of overall IQ, and sharpness?

thanks

Marco

[RobertTheFat]

---

@marco79 wrote:

Thanks Robert, 

i been studying Photography for many years but in good lens review i see very accurate graphs and charts about sharpness, distortion, etc. 

Basically i own already both lenses and i am willing to give one away.

my question is:

is the 24-105 Mark II comparable or even better to he 24-70 Mark I in terms of overall IQ, and sharpness?

thanks

Marco

---

Sure it is, but the 24-70 is still one stop faster. How much that matters to you is something you have to decide. I have the 24-70 Mk II and the 24-105 Mk I. I like them both, but use them somewhat differently. Neither is a substitute for the 70-200 in my world. I can't tell you whether it is in any subset of yours.

[AllenP]

I've seen in several posts folks refer to "...one stop faster." as RobertTheFat did in this discussion.  Could someone explain that to me?  

[Waddizzle]

---

@AllenP wrote:

I've seen in several posts folks refer to "...one stop faster." as RobertTheFat did in this discussion.  Could someone explain that to me?  

---

Do a web search for articles about “ the exposure triangle “.

[ebiggs1]

""...one stop faster." ...  Could someone explain that to me?"

Certainly.  A stop is either twice as bright or twice as dim.  In other words one stop larger (smaller number) lets twice as much light in the lens/camera.  One stop smaller (bigger number) cuts out half of that light.  The numbers are ratios. The scale is as follows: f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22.

But wait, there is more.  Shutter speeds also have stops.  However, the same basic logic applies. 1/100 lets in twice as much light as 1/200, etc. 

Get the 'picture'?   

[ebiggs1]

The question was "24-105 Mark II vs 24-70 F2.8L Mark I?"

There are several variables to consider.  One lens has a longer FL and is one stop slower (let's in half as much light wide open).

Does the longer FL overcome that? The other is one stop faster (lets in twice as much light wide ope). Does that overcome the shorter FL?

There was also a concern with IQ or sharpness.  In real world photography I doubt that is a serious issue.  It might be with the pixel peeper crowd but certainly not in general use.  The newer lens should be sharper, why wouldn't it? It uses current technology.

[ebiggs1]

"Although with years i am getting tired to bring both lenses ..."

The question is not what the better IQ of either lens is but adding an additional 35mm to one lens is going to eliminate the need for the 70-200mm?  In your dreams it will.  If your jobs required the use of a 200mm lens, 105mm won't cut it.

Either that or I don't understand your logic.  However, to answer your query, the new 24-105mm f4L IS II is a good replacement for you older 24-70mm f2.8L.  It will perform better all around.

[marco79]

Hi ebiggs1

thanks for your answer. some clarification:

1) I already own both lenses (24-70 Mark I and 24-105 Mark II) so looking to sell one lens

2) for "no assignmet" trips i believe 105mm are just enough to catch most situations

3) for me in a proper kit the 70-200 is a must, either if is for documentary, theatre or dance shoot

my question: 

I would like to know about the overall IQ and sharpness if the 24-105 Mark II is good as 24-70 Mark I or is even better?

thanks

Marco