Canon 24-105/24-70 lenses

[michaelnotar]

i think i want to upgrade my canon 28-70/2.8L to the 24-70/2.8L or 24-105/4L IS? do you have either, which do you like and why.

[Dennis_Vied]

I love the 24-105 as my general use lens. It's a walking around lens, albeit a little bulky. When I was a Nikon user, I had the 28-70, and although it was an excellent lens, it didn't have enough range for me. The 24-105 fulfills 90 percent of my needs.

Wish I could afford to buy your 28-70, though, as I know it's an excellent lens.

[Ashley_Karyl]

Originally Posted by michaelnotar

i think i want to upgrade my canon 28-70/2.8L to the 24-70/2.8L or 24-105/4L IS? do you have either, which do you like and why.

Having spoken to a couple photographers a while back, I know they wouldn't describe the switch from the 28-70 to the 24-70 as an upgrade in that they both felt the overall quality of the newer lens with a wider range was slightly inferior. I haven't used either but I imagine the are both fine lenses, given their L series badge.

I do own the 24-105m, which I purchased a few months ago after throwing in the towel with the Tamron 28-75 and I wrote a sort of mini review on my blog at Canon 24-105L | Nude Photo Pro which may be of interest to you.

[photoexpress]

I have been using the 24-105 for a number of years and it's a good all rounder but have to say it is a bit susceptible to flair. Just something to watch out for. I'm not sure how the less extreme zooms are for this but I would imagine it not to be so much of a problem. There is also a fair bit of barrel distortion. Having said this it is a good workhorse lens that has never missed a beat.
-
Photographic studio in Edinburgh. Edinburgh photographer.

[Ashley_Karyl]

Honestly you find flare with this lens? perhaps I have been incredibly lucky with mine but one of the prime qualities that has really bowled me over has been the complete absence of flare. A while back I shot a super quick studio setup with a bright white background to test something and I wasn't being particularly careful by shielding off the lights as usual. To my astonishment the images done with the 100mm macro had some flare but the 24-105L had none. Given that large element at the front I've always thought it would suffer but it seems to be exceptional.

It's true there is some distortion at 24mm and this doesn't bother me too much since I don't do a huge amount of wide angle work, but out of curiosity I shot a a couple images the other day at the beach and there was a little distortion but it is was absolutely minimal and easily corrected in Photoshop. After the bad luck I had with the Tamron 28-75 I guess it may just of been my turn to get a good one.

[Ashley_Karyl]

The one area I feel the 24-105L is a little disappointing is with the colour fringing, but fortunately that has always been easy enough to eliminate with Photoshop.

[Ron Metz]

I have both lenses and realy like them - great clarity. Sports Shooter has some feedback on these lenses. Here is the link SportsShooter.com: Canon - EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM Autofocus Lens

Ron