I have both 24-70 and 24-105, and I agree regarding the extra reach when it comes to events that the 24-105 is better to have. Having said that, the 24-70 is way sharper than the 24-105 that usually comes as a kit lens. Maybe the more recent v3 24-105 might be as sharp though, but that costs double. I find the 24-70 is more suited than the 24-105 for studio work, fashion shoots that needs to be really sharp, shooting video work or of course macro.
2:17 The 24-70 f4 L is a lot sharper than than the 24-105 f4 L. On the 5DsR or 5DIV I would not use the 24-105 L for critical sharpness (landscapes). Also, the barrel distortion on the 24-105 is a whole lot worse. And the 24-105 does not have the useful close focus "macro" function.
I agree with you about the limitations of the 24 to 105 lens compared to the 24 to 70 when it comes to the Macro function. That's one reason why I opted for the 24 to 70. However, the difference in sharpness between them is minimal overall. I handle printing for numerous photographers who use the 24 to 105 for various purposes such as weddings, family portraits, and yes landscapes. It's difficult to detect any sharpness issues with that lens in those situations. While you might notice a disparity if you compared shots taken with a sharper lens alongside the 24 to 105, for many photographers, it serves as a versatile tool covering a wide range of focal lengths. I do regret not getting the 24 to 105. When I transition to mirrorless, it'll likely be the first lens I acquire. I often find myself switching back and forth between the 24 to 70 and the 70 to 200 just to cover that range from 70 to 105, which I frequently use. In fact, while working in my studio recently, I realized that the ideal focal length for my shooting set-up was 80mm, and unfortunately, I didn't have my 70 to 200 with me that day. Thankfully, I could adjust by taking a step forward to compensate for it - Oh those first world issues. It was like using a fixed lens all over again!!!
I'm sure you are referring to the EF 28 to 135 and not the EF-S 18 to 135 as the latter would cause damage to the mirror if used on a full frame body due to the rear lense element extending past the mount surface.
I have both 24-70 and 24-105, and I agree regarding the extra reach when it comes to events that the 24-105 is better to have. Having said that, the 24-70 is way sharper than the 24-105 that usually comes as a kit lens. Maybe the more recent v3 24-105 might be as sharp though, but that costs double. I find the 24-70 is more suited than the 24-105 for studio work, fashion shoots that needs to be really sharp, shooting video work or of course macro.
This lens also has extraordinary macro features. You won’t need a separate macro 100mm lens.
You are correct. I have the 100 2.8 macro, and while it has some advantages over the 24 to 70, I find myself leaving at a home more than carrying it.
2:17 The 24-70 f4 L is a lot sharper than than the 24-105 f4 L. On the 5DsR or 5DIV I would not use the 24-105 L for critical sharpness (landscapes). Also, the barrel distortion on the 24-105 is a whole lot worse. And the 24-105 does not have the useful close focus "macro" function.
I agree with you about the limitations of the 24 to 105 lens compared to the 24 to 70 when it comes to the Macro function. That's one reason why I opted for the 24 to 70.
However, the difference in sharpness between them is minimal overall. I handle printing for numerous photographers who use the 24 to 105 for various purposes such as weddings, family portraits, and yes landscapes. It's difficult to detect any sharpness issues with that lens in those situations. While you might notice a disparity if you compared shots taken with a sharper lens alongside the 24 to 105, for many photographers, it serves as a versatile tool covering a wide range of focal lengths.
I do regret not getting the 24 to 105. When I transition to mirrorless, it'll likely be the first lens I acquire. I often find myself switching back and forth between the 24 to 70 and the 70 to 200 just to cover that range from 70 to 105, which I frequently use. In fact, while working in my studio recently, I realized that the ideal focal length for my shooting set-up was 80mm, and unfortunately, I didn't have my 70 to 200 with me that day. Thankfully, I could adjust by taking a step forward to compensate for it - Oh those first world issues. It was like using a fixed lens all over again!!!
Would you recommend this lens or the tamron 24-70 f/2.8? Which one is sharper? Which one is better overal?
In my books the Canon.
Beautiful astro shots..
I'm sure you are referring to the EF 28 to 135 and not the EF-S 18 to 135 as the latter would cause damage to the mirror if used on a full frame body due to the rear lense element extending past the mount surface.
I also have cropped sensor cameras that I shoot on as well as full frame.