@marco79.... 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
Hi Marco,
No, unfortunately the image quality of the newer 24-105mm f/4L II is not equal to that of the older 24-70mm f/2.8L.
If you compare them both at f/4 and the same focal lengths, you will consistently see more chromatic aberration and less sharpness in the 24-105L II. This isn't to say the 24-105L II is "bad".... it's a convenient range of focal lengths on a full frame camera and has image stabization, as well as pretty darned good image quality. There really isn't a lot of difference in IQ between the original 24-105 and the 24-105 II. Most of the "upgrade" to the newer lens was much improved IS and possibly more durable build (we'll have to see, over time, if it holds up better than the original).
But neither 24-105 has as good image quality as the older 24-70/2.8L, which is excellent. (Or, for that matter, the newer... the 24-70/2.8L "II" which is even sharper.... some refer to it as "a bag full of primes" zoom.) This assumes that your particular 24-70mm is in good shape. The guys at Lensrentals noted that they can get out of adjustment over time, with use and wear (of course, their rental lenses spend a lot of time bouncing around in the back of a UPS truck and probably aren't used by renters nearly as carefully as you've used yours).
If your goal is to reduce size and weight, you might want to check out the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM... It's smaller, lighter AND less expensive than any of the other 24-70s or 24-105s. Plus it's got IS. Plus it's incredibly close focusing (can do near macro 0.70X magnification.... rouughly 3X the magnification possible with any of the others), might even allow you to leave your macro lens at home (if you carry one).
The 24-70/4L IS appears to have IQ that's somewhere in between that of the 24-70/2.8s and the 24-105s. At most focal lengths they share, it's nearly as good as the f/2.8 versions. The 24-70/4L IS' weakest performance is wide open at 50mm. So, if you're 24-70/2.8 is in "good tune" and producing shots up to its full potential, with 24-70/4L IS you might see a slight compromise in IQ, but reduce size, weight and cost considerably.... as well as gain IS and exceptional close focusing abilities.
I'd recommend checking the lenses out side by side at The-Digital-Picture website. The Image Quality comparison tool there lets you see for yourself how highly magnified test shots done with each lens look next to each other, at various focal lengths and apertures. (Caution.... Bryan has done a lot of recent tests using a 5DS-R, which is extremely demanding of lenses... Unless that's the camera you're using, it might be better to switch to vewiing his test shots done with a less extreme camera, such as the 1DsIII that he's used with most lenses).
P.S. You mention also carrying a 70-200mm f/2.8L.... though not which one. Here again, you could save some size and weight, if you could live with a smaller aperture version. The 70-200mm f/4L... both the non-IS and IS version... are about 2/3 the size and weight of the f/2.8s.... and have excellent (new f/4 IS "II" version coming soon... looks very good, but remains to be seen).
I use a 70-200mm a lot.... enough so that I bought an f/4 IS version as backup for my f/2.8 IS version. Now I actually find myself grabbing and using the f/4 version more often! In fact, if size/weight are your biggest concern now, there's greater difference, more potential for some reduction with the 70-200s, than with tthe 24-70s or 24-105s.
