There is probably no more frequently asked question on photography forums than what is the better lens when comparing Canon's two professional mid-range zooms. These discussions are invariably circular and pretty much get nowhere, like an old married couple arguing: "he said..." "she said..." "he said..." etc, ad infinitum. Typically they end up confirming what we already know at the start: the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L is one stop faster and somewhat bigger; the Canon 24-105 f4 L has image stabilization (IS) built into the lens and has more reach on the long end. They are both built like tanks. They both cost a similar amount (maybe not an arm and a leg when you consider their quality, but the equivalent of a hand and a few toes anyway). One's tempted to say, "You pays ya money and you makes ya choice."
But what choice should you make? And I guess that is the better question – rather than which is the better of the two lenses – and it's the reason that I have even bothered to step into the fray and add my own six eggs.
I had not had the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L long, when Canon announced the 24-105 f4 L IS. Immediately I was struck with something that felt like regret. Had I just wasted my money? The 24-105 sounded perfect for me. When I am photographing animals, I prefer to work without a tripod. I do a lot of hiking and spend a lot of time in the field, and the difference in weight (280 g) would certainly be noticed and welcome. And, when photographing animals, you can never have too much reach at your disposal – and although I have other lenses to cater for the close-ups, having an extra 35 mm reach without the need to change lenses could be a real advantage. Consequently, I got the 24-105 with the intention of replacing the 24-70.
Try as I might to love my 24-105, there has been little chemistry between us, and I find myself usually bypassing the younger and sleeker 24-105 in favor of the big and fat and older 24-70. As I explained above, I am practically a poster boy for the type of user that should lust after the 24-105. So what's the issue? Okay, I'll come right out and say it: I prefer the output from the 24-70. But, even if that is enough justification for me to turn my back on such a seemingly attractive offering from Canon, surely you need to know more when making your choice of the perfect lens to partner with.
Quantifying the differences in output is certainly difficult. On the boards, the consensus seems to be that both lenses are equally sharp and have equally good color and contrast – with what differences that exist perhaps being a consequence of the variations that can occur between individual copies of the lenses. I wouldn't really argue against that, although I'd probably give the edge to the 24-70 when comparing my copies – but that is not where the main differences between the output of the two lenses lie.
I shoot a lot in the Antarctic. Considering my two most recent trips to Antarctica: on the first I opted to take the 24-70, on the second the 24-105. While both lenses performed well, when it came to sorting through the images produced by them, I had more "keepers" from the 24-70. By "keepers" in this regard, I don't just mean that the image was sharply focused and correctly exposed, I mean that the image overall had a certain quality that viscerally – from somewhere deep inside – made it noteworthy. We all have internal barometers that tell us when we really like something; it's that initial reaction. The hardest part is to identify what it is that causes that reaction. The moment you start to analyze it, you lose the spontaneity that is a part of it.
Don't get me wrong: the 24-105 is capable of producing excellent images. I really like this one, for example.
Certainly, the 24-105 has much more distortion apparent at the wide end. This can be a problem, but it only occasionally raised its ugly head in the shots I'd taken. Certainly, the 24-105 is more prone to vignetting than the 24-70. This, again, was not so major as to account for the differences in my reaction to their respective images. On balance, I believe that the thing that really gives the images produced by the 24-70 their "wow factor" is the bokeh. Somewhat contrarily, it is the out-of-focus areas of an image produced by the 24-70 that really make the in-focus areas shine.
For what it is worth when you are making your choice, here are my recommendations:
- If image quality (IQ) is of paramount importance to you: get the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L.
- If portability and weight are an issue: get the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS.
Think of the IS and the bit of extra reach on the 24-105 as welcome bonuses. In of themselves, I don't find much of an argument for compromising IQ. If I need more reach than the 24-70, I can use another lens (if range of focal lengths were the primary determinant of our buying choices, then we should all be shooting with the 28-300 and nobody should be using primes). A faster shutter speed is better for freezing movements of animals than is IS, and light levels have to be pretty low before I cannot handhold the 24-70 and get an acceptably fast shutter speed to counteract handshake (I do value IS: it's just that its relative value tends to increase with focal length). But for convenience's sake, I am prepared to make some compromises.
Consequently, I keep both the 24-70 and the 24-105. The 24-70 is definitely my love, my lens of choice. However, I retain and use the 24-105 for travel mainly, when weight and space are at a premium. There are times when not-so-good can be better.
Shot with the 24-70 wide open
