A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Canon EOS > EOS Lenses > Canon 24-70 f2.8 L vs. 24-105...

Canon 24-70 f2.8 L vs. 24-105 f4 L IS

John Arnold , Mar 02, 2006; 10:44 p.m.


I am going to purchase either the 24-70 2.8 or the 24-105 f4 L. I have read reviews and have become somewhat concerned about the folks referring to the fact that the 24-105 seems to have a lot more of a vignetting problem than the 24-70?

I am using the lens on a 5D and don't mind some vignetting. I was just wondering if anyone has had any hands on experience with these lenses and can either confirm or deny the 24-105 tendency to vignette significantly more than the 2.8?

Thanks for your help.



    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Philip To , Mar 02, 2006; 11:39 p.m.

Most people who own the 24-70 don't have the 24-105. Others who bought the 24-105 or who sold their 24-70 to buy the 24-105 will tell you the new lens is fantastic. I think the answer is obvious without reading any report. If you need 2.8, buy the 24-70. If one stop doesn't mean much to you, buy the new 24-105 with all the plus such as lighter, extra 71-105, and IS. You won't find your answer until you try them yourself.

Jon Austin , Mar 03, 2006; 12:05 a.m.

I passed on the 24-70, and snapped up a 24-105 a couple of months after they became available. (I waited for the initial round of user reviews, and then until Canon had the weird flare problem in the early production runs sorted out.) I love it, but then, I'm using a 20D, so not much help with your question about first-hand vignetting experience on full frame.

*However* it's very easy to adjust for vignetting in Photoshop and other image editing tools. How much of this kind of adjusting you're willing to do, and how many images you take actually require it is a different issue entirely.

Wee-Ming Boon , Mar 03, 2006; 01:09 a.m.

Hi John, I haven;t had the pleasure of using the 24-70L because I waited until the 5d came out and got the 24-105 as a package, but I have found that the vignetting is significant if you are shooting at f4, and is most obvious with very light backgrounds, but after a bit of levels only in very severe shots (see picture), it is useable. Here is an example of the worst I have seen so far, unmodified from my camera, only resized. If you are doing architectural type work, I'd stay away from the 24-105, but if you are shooting people mainly, it is a very nice combo on a full-frame body. All the best.


Grant Gaborno , Mar 03, 2006; 01:13 a.m.

I wouldn't say the 24-105 vignettes a lot more than the 24-70 on the 5D. Both will on a 5D when underexposed with the 24-105 being a bit worse, but I don't have a problem with either when properly exposed.

I don't think this should be your deciding factor between these two lenses.

Lester Wareham , Mar 03, 2006; 03:54 a.m.

I have not seen any full frame measurements of the 24-105 yet but here is one for the 24-70 http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/143/sort/2/cat/11/page/1

James Symington , Mar 03, 2006; 04:29 a.m.


It's fairly simple really - unless you will use the 24-105 wide open against the sky the whole time you will not really see a difference in the results between the two. The 24-70 vignettes too - just not a much. With IS on and the ISO at 200 or so you can very happily handhold outdoor shots even in quite poor light with the 24-105 at f8 where the vignetting is all but gone.

I sold the 24-70 for the 24-105 and still consider it an upgrade although I am a landscaper and tripods and f22 are my world. Some people swear by the 24-70 and who's to say they are wrong. It's just that f2.8 isn't a great deal better than f4 and if you need fast then 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8 is a real advance.

Good luck,


Philip To , Mar 03, 2006; 08:58 a.m.

If f/2.8 isn't a great deal better than f/4, who will spend $3900 on a 300mm f/2.8L IS instead of getting a 300mm f/4L IS at much lower price?

Chris Crevasse , Mar 03, 2006; 09:02 a.m.

I recently compared a 24-70 and two 24-105s on my 1Ds2 to decide which one to keep. Based on my tests of the lenses I had, overall image quality between the two is very similar, although the 24-105 is perhaps sharper. The 24-105 vignettes more than the 24-70, and also has more distortion. The vignetting and distortion are noticeable when you test for them. In real life, however, I have not found either to be a problem. Also, vignetting is easy to correct in Photoshop, etc. In my opinion, the vignetting differences between the 24-70 and 24-105 should not drive your decision. Rather, do you want f/2.8, or would the more compact size, extended range, and IS of the 24-105 be more useful to you? After considering these trade-offs, I chose the 24-105.

James Symington , Mar 03, 2006; 09:26 a.m.


We're not talking super telephotos here- it doesn't make much difference at the short end because - as you know - camera shake issues are less significant the wider you go. Right?

Kind regards,


    1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses