24-105 vs 24-70

[mustard131]

Hi,
I am shooting on a 7d, and currently using my tamron 18-270 which I bought with the camera, and am looking at upgrading to a few good quality lenses.
The first one I want is either the 24-105L f4, or the 24-70L f4, however I am undecided on which to get. Why is there such a price difference between them? What are the pros and cons of each?
I want it for a bit of a variety of shooting, and plan on using it for my main lens whilst I travel south america at the end of the year- Chile, Argentina, Peru (Machu Picchu!). Whilst I will still have my tamron for the extra reach as I will not have the funds to buy 2 new lenses before leaving.
I like to do a variety of photography- landscape, portraits, do a lot of whitewater kayaking photography, plus just every day random photos. I do know neither are that wide so are not fantastic for landscape.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
Cheers.

[Kym]

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is great value as is the Sigman 24-70/2.8, both being faster than the 24-70L

[ameerat42]

Thought 1: is there something terribly wrong with your current lens?
Thought 2: have you thought about the "practicality" of using a lens of more restricted focal range on such a trip?
Thought 3: will you be taking the 18-270 along with you as well as any newer lens you get?
Thought 4: if you thought "yes" to thought 3, then why?
Am(an afterthought).

[mustard131]

I have not looked into those options Kym, I will though, thanks.

I am not the biggest fan of my current lens. Obviously, yes the range is fantastic, however the quality is not. The Af is quite slow, and sometimes often inaccurate, lots of distortion and vignetting, doesn't seem too sharp, and I'd like a constant aperture.
The practicality will be different to what I am used to yes for sure. However I am finding myself switching my lens between my tamron and my 50mm f1.8, and do not find this annoying at all, so the practicality of having to switch a lens to get more zoom does not phase me. THe new lens is not only for the trip to South America, that's just where it will get it's first proper use. I plan on using it as part of an ever improving kit for years to come.
I do plan on taking my other lens, simply for the extra zoom though. Although, ideally I will have another new lens to go along with this one (undecided on that too, 70-200, 7-300, 100-400) however I do not think that will happen in time for this trip unfortunately.

[ameerat42]

I see. Can't talk about the other two you mentioned. I was using the Σ70-300 until I got a 50-500.
It was a fairly good lens for the price (~$200). But, go and check the reviews
for it and go onto Flickr to check some of its images. Do this for any lens you're thinking about.

[Warbler]

The 7D is an APS-C sensor, so why don't you look at some of Canon's EF-S lenses. They're generally cheaper than the "L" lenses, and there are some very good lenses amongst them. They'll be lighter too. Consider these three:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Zoom Lens
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM

These cover the wider end of what you currently have, with the 10-22 going much wider. All are very well regarded lenses and would be long-term acquisitions if you're planning on staying with the APS-C format. Of course if you're planning the move to FF, then buy EF lenses.

[Burrster]

I have not used the 24- 70 F4L, but have used the 24 - 105 f4L. I think both lenses will give you a quality improvement over the Tamron. My biggest concern for the 24 - 70 F4L is the focus shift displayed by it ( pronounced in macro mode - see the review at photozone.de) and of course the price. The 24 - 105 has more chromatic aberrations, which is a pet hate of mine. That said I think the differences to consider are price, focal length range, and macro mode vs none. In my opinion, I'd most likely go for the 24 - 105 for the focal range/ price. as for the long lens purchase, I can highly recommend the canon 70 - 200 F4L IS USM. It been a solid lens in my kit, so my future upgrade to the 2.8 version has alot to live up to!

Update - I can vouch for the canon 10 -22 lens too! was my favourite before going full frame.

[Kym]

I have not used the 24- 70 F4L, but have used the 24 - 105 f4L. I think both lenses will give you a quality improvement over the Tamron.

On a crop sensor (7d) the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is quite stunning and sharp, I can't see the f/4 L being any better. On a 35mm sensor there might be a difference at the edges.

[Burrster]

On a crop sensor (7d) the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is quite stunning and sharp, I can't see the f/4 L being any better. On a 35mm sensor there might be a difference at the edges.

I meant over the Tamron 18 - 270, currently owned by the OP - my mistake for not clarifying.

[mustard131]

Thanks heaps for all your replies everyone!
I do plan on upgrading to FF at some stage, and plan on doing that before another lens upgrade. So I would rather spend the little bit extra now and get EF lenses.
I will however look into the other lenses that have been recommended above.
Thanks everone!

[Analog6]

I haven't used the 24-70 but I did have a 24-105 and it is a great lens, full frame or crop camera. I found it became my most used lens. You'll find it ideal for a first lens on your trip. Emjoy!

[Unbound]

The 24-105 was my first lens upgrade and I have been quite happy with it, or at least I was until I read about the ribbon problem with it.

[rackham]

The 24-105 was my first lens upgrade and I have been quite happy with it, or at least I was until I read about the ribbon problem with it.

... have you had a ribbon problem with it though?

[Bennymiata]

I haven't used the 24-70F4, but I have used the 24-105 for some years, and it has served me well.
One of the biggest differences you will see when comparing it to your current lens is the colour and contrast of the 24-105 is much better.

I know the 24-105 does have some minor problems with barrel distortion and colour fringing, but in real world use, the pictures it produces are very, very good indeed.

There is some talk it may be discontinued shortly, so I'd get in while I can.
The lens is relatively very cheap (especially if you buy a "white box" version) and will very quickly become your everyday lens.
Around 75% of all my shots are taken with it and I have around a dozen other lenses to use, but find this lens does almost everything I need.

[Unbound]

... have you had a ribbon problem with it though?

No, I haven't but that isn't to say it might not develop eventually. If I had known about this problem before I bought the lens I might well have opted for something else.

[Fruengalli]

My suggestion for travel on a crop would be a Canon 15-85 efs (effectively a 24-105 on the 7d)....check the reviews & most are excellent.

[I @ M]

Maybe sit back a while and see how the rumoured Sigma 24-105 F/4 works both optically and price wise.

If their recent lens releases are anything to go by this one will be both excellent and inexpensive -----

[mustard131]

The lens is relatively very cheap (especially if you buy a "white box" version) and will very quickly become your everyday lens.

What do you mean a 'white box' versn? What's the difference?

I will have a look into the sigma 24-105.

Thanks

[Tannin]

The 24-105 was my first lens upgrade and I have been quite happy with it, or at least I was until I read about the ribbon problem with it.

The ribbon problem does not apply to new lenses, only old ones manufactured before about ... oh ... maybe three years ago? A long time, anyway. New 24-105s all have the redesigned ribbon which does not have the problem. The same applies if you have an old 24-105 which has been repaired - the repairers use the new part, so the problem won't come back.

The one real problem with the 24-105 is the bad barrel distortion between 24 and about 27mm. Yes, you can fix it in software but it's still a pain. The 24-70/4 is better in that regard. Nevertheless, the combination of lower price, similar IQ (varies with FL but on average about the same as the 24-70/4), and significantly greater range makes the 24-105 a winner in my book. I'm actually a bit confused as to Canon's motivation for releasing the 24-70/4. Although it is apparently a very good lens, I can't figure out what purpose it serves or who they intend to sell it to. It costs more and does less than the older 24-105, so why produce it at all? Still, it's always good to have a choice, and maybe the convenience of a quasi-macro mode could be important to some buyers.

[Unbound]

The ribbon problem does not apply to new lenses, only old ones manufactured before about ... oh ... maybe three years ago? A long time, anyway. New 24-105s all have the redesigned ribbon which does not have the problem. The same applies if you have an old 24-105 which has been repaired - the repairers use the new part, so the problem won't come back.

.

Ah, thanks for the advice, Tony, you have put my mind at rest.