Canon 24 70 Vs 24 105: Exploring the Power Performers

Introduction

Hey everyone, I’ve been shooting with Canon lenses for years, and one question I get a lot is about the Canon 24-70 vs 24-105. Both are fantastic L-series lenses, but they shine in different situations. As a seasoned photographer, I’ve used them in various scenarios, from weddings to travel adventures. Let me share my insights to help you pick the right one.

These two lenses are staples in many professional photographers’ kits because they offer a versatile focal range that covers wide-angle to telephoto, making them suitable for a wide range of photography genres. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L is renowned for its constant wide aperture, which is a dream for low-light shooting and creating beautiful bokeh in portraits. On the other hand, the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS provides an extended focal range up to 105mm, along with image stabilization, making it a great choice for travel and situations where you need more reach without switching lenses.

In this article, we’ll explore their focal lengths, apertures, stabilization, and performance for portraits, landscapes, and more. By the end, you’ll have a clear idea of which lens suits your style. Let’s dive into the details and see what makes each lens special.

Canon 24 70 Vs 24 105 Comparison

Focal Length: Range and Flexibility

The 24-70mm lens covers a focal range from wide-angle to short telephoto. It’s perfect for landscapes, street photography, and portraits. I love its ability to capture expansive scenes and tight shots without switching lenses. The 24mm end is great for wide-angle shots, while 70mm is ideal for portraits with a pleasing compression effect.

The 24-105mm extends further, reaching up to 105mm. This extra reach makes it ideal for situations where you need more telephoto capability, like events or travel. It’s a versatile choice when you want one lens to do it all. The 105mm focal length is particularly useful for compressing perspectives in landscapes or capturing distant subjects.

Both lenses start at 24mm, great for wide shots. The 24-105mm’s longer range gives it an edge for varied compositions. However, the 24-70mm feels more focused for specific genres like portraits and street photography, where the shorter telephoto end is sufficient. For example, when shooting street photography, the 24-70mm allows me to capture both the environment and the subject in one frame, while the 24-105mm might be overkill for such scenarios. On the other hand, when covering events, the extra reach of the 24-105mm lets me stay discreet and still get close-up shots without physically moving closer.

The choice of focal length also affects how you compose your shots. With the 24-70mm, I find myself focusing on tighter compositions, especially at 70mm, where the perspective is flattering for subjects like people or architecture. The 24-105mm, with its extended range, allows for more flexibility in framing, especially when I’m shooting in dynamic environments where I can’t easily reposition myself.

Aperture: Light and Depth of Field

In the Canon 24-70 vs 24-105 comparison, aperture is a major differentiator. The 24-70mm boasts a constant f/2.8 across its zoom range. This wide aperture lets in more light, making it excellent for low-light shooting and creating creamy bokeh in portraits. It also allows for faster shutter speeds, which is crucial for freezing motion or shooting without a tripod.

The 24-105mm has a variable aperture, starting at f/3.5 and narrowing to f/5.6 at 105mm. While still decent, it’s less effective in dim conditions. You might need to boost ISO or use a tripod when zoomed in. The variable aperture means that as you zoom in, the lens gets slower, which can be limiting in low-light situations.

For instance, at a wedding reception, the 24-70mm’s f/2.8 allows me to shoot handheld in low light without increasing ISO too much, preserving image quality. With the 24-105mm, I might have to push the ISO higher, which can introduce noise, especially in the shadows.

The depth of field control is another aspect where the 24-70mm shines. The wider aperture allows for a shallower depth of field, which is perfect for isolating subjects in portraits. The 24-105mm can still produce a nice bokeh, but it’s not as pronounced as with the f/2.8 lens. For example, when shooting a portrait at 70mm with the 24-70mm, I can achieve a beautifully blurred background that makes the subject pop, whereas the 24-105mm at 105mm still provides decent separation but with less dramatic effect.

Image Stabilization: Steady Shots

The 24-105mm comes with image stabilization (IS), which I find invaluable for handheld shooting. It reduces camera shake, especially at slower shutter speeds or longer focal lengths. This feature is a lifesaver for travel or video work, where tripods might not be practical.

For example, when shooting video, the IS helps keep the footage steady, even when walking or moving around. It’s also great for still photography in situations where I can’t use a tripod, like during a hike or at a crowded event. The stabilization allows me to use slower shutter speeds, which is particularly helpful when shooting at 105mm in less-than-ideal lighting.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 lacks IS, which can be a drawback in low-light handheld scenarios. You’ll need steady hands or a tripod to avoid blur. However, since it has a wider aperture, you can often use faster shutter speeds, which helps mitigate camera shake.

I’ve found that for static subjects, like landscapes or architecture, the lack of IS on the 24-70mm isn’t a big issue, especially if I’m using a tripod. But for handheld shooting in low light, I definitely prefer the stabilization of the 24-105mm. For instance, when shooting a sunset landscape handheld, the 24-105mm’s IS allowed me to get sharp images at slower shutter speeds, whereas with the 24-70mm, I had to be more careful to avoid blur.

Low-Light Performance: Clarity in the Dark

Thanks to its f/2.8 aperture, the 24-70mm excels in low-light conditions. I’ve used it at weddings and concerts, capturing sharp images without excessive noise. Its wide aperture allows faster shutter speeds, reducing motion blur and the need for high ISO settings.

For instance, at a dimly lit concert, I was able to shoot at f/2.8 with a shutter speed of 1/125s at ISO 1600, getting clean images with minimal noise. With the 24-105mm, I might have had to use f/4 or slower, which would require a higher ISO or slower shutter speed, potentially leading to more noise or blur.

The 24-105mm performs well in low light, thanks to its IS, but its narrower aperture limits its effectiveness. You might need to increase ISO, which can introduce noise. It’s still capable for handheld shots in decent lighting, but for truly challenging conditions, the 24-70mm is superior.

I remember shooting a night street scene with the 24-105mm; at f/4, I had to use ISO 3200 to get a decent shutter speed, and the images showed noticeable noise, especially in the shadows. With the 24-70mm at f/2.8, I could use ISO 1600 and get cleaner images. The 24-70mm’s ability to maintain image quality in low light makes it a go-to for indoor events or evening shoots.

Sharpness: Image Quality Matters

Both lenses deliver impressive sharpness, but the 24-70mm has a slight edge. Its images are razor-sharp across the frame, even at f/2.8. I’ve found it perfect for detailed landscapes and portraits where every detail matters.

When I zoom in on images taken with the 24-70mm, even at 100%, the details are crisp, from the highlights to the shadows. This is particularly important for fine art photography or when printing large formats. For example, when shooting a detailed landscape, the 24-70mm captures every leaf and texture with stunning clarity.

The 24-105mm is also very sharp, though it may soften slightly at 105mm, especially at wider apertures. For most practical purposes, the difference is minimal. It still produces stunning images for various genres, and I’ve been happy with the results in my travel and event photography.

However, if I’m shooting something where ultimate sharpness is critical, like product photography or high-end commercial work, I’d reach for the 24-70mm. Its consistent sharpness across the frame makes it a favorite for professionals who need every pixel to be perfect.

Versatility: Covering All Bases

The 24-105mm’s broader focal range makes it incredibly versatile. I’ve used it for travel, capturing everything from wide landscapes to distant subjects. It’s a great all-in-one lens for those who prefer not to switch lenses frequently.

For example, on a trip to Europe, I used the 24-105mm for everything—wide shots of cityscapes, medium shots of architecture, and telephoto shots of street performers. I didn’t need to carry multiple lenses, which was convenient. The ability to go from 24mm to 105mm without changing lenses is a huge advantage when you’re on the move.

The 24-70mm is versatile too, but its shorter range limits its telephoto reach. It’s ideal for genres like street photography and portraits, where 70mm is often sufficient. For longer shots, I might need to use a different lens or move closer to the subject.

I recall a situation where I was shooting a group portrait at a wedding; with the 24-70mm, I had to position myself closer to the group, which wasn’t ideal. If I had the 24-105mm, I could have stayed back and still captured everyone in frame with a flattering perspective. The 24-105mm’s versatility makes it a great choice for photographers who need one lens to handle multiple scenarios.

Portrait Photography: Bokeh and Composition

For portraits, the 24-70mm’s f/2.8 aperture creates beautiful bokeh, isolating subjects perfectly. I love using it at 70mm for headshots with a dreamy background. It’s a staple for wedding and studio work.

The wider aperture also allows for more creative control over depth of field. I can shoot at f/2.8 to blur the background completely or stop down to f/4 or f/5.6 for more depth, depending on the look I want. For example, when shooting a bride’s portrait, the 24-70mm’s f/2.8 aperture creates a soft, creamy background that makes her stand out.

The 24-105mm’s longer focal length allows for creative compositions, like environmental portraits where the subject is part of a larger scene. Its bokeh is less pronounced due to the narrower aperture, but it’s still capable of separating the subject from the background, especially when used at closer distances.

I’ve used the 24-105mm for full-body portraits where I want to include more of the surroundings. The 105mm end provides a nice compression, making the subject stand out while keeping the background in context. For candid portraits or street photography involving people, the 24-105mm’s reach allows me to work from a distance, which can be less intrusive.

Landscape and Travel: Wide to Telephoto

Both lenses are excellent for landscapes, but the 24-70mm’s sharpness makes it ideal for wide-angle scenes. I’ve captured stunning vistas with crisp details using this lens. It’s perfect for expansive shots where every detail needs to be tack sharp.

When shooting landscapes, I often use the 24mm end to capture grand scenes, and the 70mm end for more intimate landscapes or to compress the perspective of distant elements. For example, when photographing a mountain range, the 24-70mm’s sharpness at 24mm captures every ridge and peak with incredible detail.

The 24-105mm’s extended range is a boon for travel photography. You can shoot wide landscapes and zoom in on distant details without changing lenses. Its lighter weight is also a plus for long trips, where every gram counts in your camera bag.

For instance, while hiking in the mountains, I appreciated not having to switch lenses when I wanted to capture both the vast scenery and specific details like a flower or a bird in the distance. The image stabilization on the 24-105mm is helpful for handheld landscape shots, especially in situations where a tripod isn’t practical, like when shooting from awkward angles or in windy conditions.

Build Quality and Resale Value

Both lenses are part of Canon’s L-series, known for robust build quality. They feature weather sealing, making them durable in tough conditions. I’ve used them in light rain without issues, and they’ve held up well over the years.

The 24-70mm often holds better resale value due to its professional appeal. Many photographers prioritize the f/2.8 aperture for their work, making it a sought-after lens. The 24-105mm is still valuable but less so, as it’s often seen as a secondary lens or for more general use.

From a build perspective, both lenses feel solid and well-constructed. The focusing rings are smooth, and the zoom mechanisms are precise. The 24-70mm might feel slightly heavier due to its larger glass elements, but both are manageable for extended use.

If you’re investing in one of these lenses, knowing that the 24-70mm might retain its value better could be a factor, especially if you plan to upgrade or sell it in the future. The weather sealing on both lenses ensures they can withstand challenging environments, making them reliable choices for outdoor shoots.

Real Estate Photography: Interior and Exterior Shots

For real estate photography, both lenses have their merits. The 24-70mm’s wide-angle capability at 24mm is ideal for capturing interiors without ultra-wide distortion. Its f/2.8 aperture is great for dimly lit rooms, ensuring sharp, well-exposed images.

The 24-105mm’s longer focal range is useful for exterior shots or larger spaces where you need to zoom in on details. Its image stabilization helps with handheld shots in low light, which is common in real estate settings. I’ve used it to capture both wide shots of living rooms and tighter shots of architectural details.

For real estate, the 24-70mm is my preference for its sharpness and low-light performance. The 24-105mm is better for versatility, especially when shooting varied properties.

Autofocus and Handling: Speed and Precision

Both lenses feature Canon’s Ultrasonic Motor (USM) for fast and quiet autofocus. The 24-70mm has a slight edge in autofocus speed, likely due to its professional-grade design. I’ve found it locks focus quickly, even in fast-paced scenarios like events.

The 24-105mm’s autofocus is also fast and reliable, though slightly slower at longer focal lengths. Its lighter weight makes it easier to handle during long shoots. Both lenses feel intuitive, with smooth zoom and focus rings.

For action photography, the 24-70mm’s speed is a plus. The 24-105mm’s lighter build is great for extended handheld use.

Distortion and Aberrations: Optical Performance

Both lenses are well-corrected for distortion and aberrations. The 24-70mm shows minimal distortion, especially at 24mm, making it ideal for architecture or landscapes. Its chromatic aberration control is excellent, even at wide apertures.

The 24-105mm has slightly more distortion at the extremes, particularly at 105mm, but it’s negligible for most uses. Its optical quality is still top-notch, with minimal color fringing. I’ve used both for detailed shots without noticing significant issues.

For critical work like product photography, the 24-70mm’s superior correction gives it an edge. The 24-105mm is still excellent for general use.

Comparison Table

Here’s a detailed comparison of the two lenses:

Aspect	Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L	Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS
Focal Length	24-70mm	24-105mm
Aperture	Constant f/2.8	Variable f/3.5-f/5.6
Image Stabilization	No	Yes
Low-Light Performance	Excellent due to f/2.8	Good with IS
Sharpness	Razor-sharp across frame	Very sharp, slightly less at 105mm
Versatility	Wide to short telephoto	Wide to medium telephoto
Portrait Photography	Superior bokeh with f/2.8	Longer reach for composition
Landscape/Travel	Ideal for wide, sharp shots	Convenient for varied scenes
Build Quality	Robust, weather-sealed	Robust, weather-sealed
Weight	795g	670g
Size	87.5 x 156.5mm	82.5 x 123mm
Autofocus Speed	Very fast	Fast
Distortion/Aberrations	Minimal	Minimal, slightly more at extremes
Resale Value	Higher due to pro appeal	Lower but still valuable

Decision-Making: Which Lens to Choose?

When deciding between the Canon 24-70 vs 24-105, consider your primary photography needs. If you shoot in low light or prioritize portraits with stunning bokeh, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is the way to go. Its constant aperture and sharpness make it a professional favorite. I’ve relied on it for countless weddings and events where lighting can be challenging.

If versatility is your priority, the 24-105mm f/4L IS is hard to beat. Its longer focal range and stabilization make it perfect for travel or situations where you need one lens for everything. I’ve taken it on trips where switching lenses wasn’t practical, and it performed admirably.

Think about your most common shooting scenarios. Do you often find yourself in low-light environments? Do you need the extra reach for distant subjects? Are you shooting video where stabilization is crucial? Answering these questions will help you make the right choice.

Also, consider whether you plan to use the lens with full-frame or crop sensor cameras. Both lenses work well on APS-C bodies, but the effective focal lengths will be longer (38.4-112mm for the 24-70mm and 38.4-168mm for the 24-105mm), which might influence your decision. For example, on a crop sensor, the 24-105mm’s extended range is great for wildlife or sports photography.

Ultimately, both lenses are exceptional, but your choice depends on your shooting style. If you’re a wedding or portrait photographer, the 24-70mm’s aperture is invaluable. For travel or general use, the 24-105mm’s range and IS are more practical.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L and 24-105mm f/4L IS are outstanding lenses with distinct strengths. The 24-70mm is my go-to for low-light and portrait work, delivering unmatched sharpness and bokeh that elevates my images. The 24-105mm is my travel favorite, offering versatility and stabilization that make it indispensable for on-the-go shooting.

Your choice ultimately depends on whether you prioritize aperture or range. If you need the best performance in challenging lighting or for creating stunning portraits, the 24-70mm is the clear winner. If you value having a single lens that can handle a wide variety of situations, especially with the added benefit of image stabilization, the 24-105mm is the way to go.

It’s worth noting that for those using Canon’s mirrorless RF system, there are equivalent lenses available: the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM and the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. These lenses offer similar features and performance but are designed specifically for the RF mount, taking advantage of mirrorless technology.

Remember, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer; it’s about what fits your photography style and needs best. Whichever you choose, you’re investing in a high-quality lens that will serve you well for years to come.

FAQ

Which lens is better for video shooting?
The 24-105mm’s image stabilization is a big advantage for handheld video work. It reduces shake, ensuring smoother footage. The 24-70mm f/2.8 lacks IS, so you’d need a tripod or gimbal for steady shots. However, its wider aperture allows for a shallower depth of field, which can be desirable for cinematic looks.

Can I use these lenses on crop sensor cameras?
Yes, both work on Canon APS-C cameras. The 24-70mm becomes roughly 38.4-112mm, and the 24-105mm becomes 38.4-168mm due to the 1.6x crop factor. This gives you more telephoto reach, which can be beneficial for wildlife or sports photography on a crop sensor body.

Is there a significant weight difference?
Yes, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is heavier at 795g compared to the 24-105mm’s 670g. The 24-105mm is also more compact, measuring 82.5 x 123mm versus 87.5 x 156.5mm for the 24-70mm. This makes the 24-105mm easier to carry for long periods, which is important for travel or street photography.

How do they compare in terms of autofocus performance?
Both lenses feature Canon’s Ultrasonic Motor (USM) for fast and quiet autofocus. The 24-70mm might have a slight edge in autofocus speed due to its professional-grade design, but in practice, both are very responsive and suitable for action and wildlife photography.

Are there any notable differences in optical quality?
Both lenses are optically excellent, with minimal distortion and aberrations. The 24-70mm is known for its exceptional sharpness across the frame, even at f/2.8, while the 24-105mm is very sharp but may show a slight drop in sharpness at 105mm when wide open. For most photographers, these differences are negligible, and both lenses deliver outstanding image quality.

Can these lenses be used for macro photography?
While neither lens is specifically designed for macro, the 24-105mm has a closer minimum focus distance of 0.45m compared to 0.38m for the 24-70mm. However, for true macro work, you’d be better off with a dedicated macro lens.

Are there newer versions to consider?
For mirrorless cameras, Canon offers RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS and RF 24-105mm f/4L IS, both with stabilization. These are optimized for EOS R systems and worth considering if you’re using mirrorless. Check Canon’s official site for details (Canon UK).