24-105 F4 vs 24-70 2.8 Compared for Portraits and Travel - (Canon RF - Free RAW Files)

[@PunjabiGymBeats]

Simply buy 24-105 + 50mm 1.8 and 85 1.8 for portrait. for the price of 24-70 2.8.

[@chubscoi]

Never thought of that 😂😂😂

[@patrickpinheiro7641]

RF 35 1.8

[@gustavoumeno]

Not the same image quality... there is no free lunch...

[@aristosmichael9749]

For the price of 24-70 f/2.8, I got the RF 24-105 F/4 , RF 16mm F/2.8, RF 35mm F/1.8, RF 50mm F/1.8, RF 85mm F/2 . I bought them all used in like new condition.

[@PunjabiGymBeats]

@@aristosmichael9749 Exactly what I mean.

[@efreutel]

What a great survey of these 2 lenses. Surprisingly similar results. Since we are no longer in the film era - can bump iso to very high levels with little noise, the 24-105 gets my vote, considering it’s portability, lower weight, and longer reach, at a considerably lower price. Many thanks for this superb review! 👍👍👍

[@juanmaasecas]

Maybe the best comparison of this kind I’ve seen, congratulations for the video!

[@JamesReader]

Wow, thanks so much!

[@bobby9476]

5:55 cemented my decision. Thanks so much for this comparison, so useful!!

[@arb009]

What did you decide?

[@bobby9476]

@@arb009105mm in the end, much more versatile and still bright on full frame ❤

[@jacktorrence5282]

Great video. From my experience: if you can only afford ONE lens for everything, including low light situations, and you want to be able to have a shallower dof in some photos - 24-70. If you own some prime lenses - 24-105 will be better in every scenario. Studio - it's the most favourite lens of many renown photographers, like Lindsey Adler, Eli Infante, Sue Bruce, etc. Hikes and travel - weight, more reach. The old, EF version was pretty bad but RF is one of the best lenses Iv'e ever used on a Canon camera for sure. All the best!

[@JamesReader]

Very sound advice Jack, completely agree. Thank you for watching!

[@フォトグラファー-f3k]

In sunny outdoor or well-lit environments where both options are available, it should be difficult to tell the difference unless compared side by side. However, if the goal is to increase shooting variations, I believe the brighter aperture of the 24-70 lens would be more advantageous.

[@shaquillenoeltv]

James you’re my favorite KZbinr right now , Appreciate your videos and work! Been debating these two and I’d definitely be getting the 24-105 now that i’ve seen them compared so eloquently. I wish you 10k+ subs this year

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much Shaquille, that's really encouraging to hear!

[@Xavier.Phoenix]

This has been the best video for my needs. I really appreciate you making this video to compare these 2 lenses given that they are so different in price.

[@davidroberts5535]

I have both. Both excellent lens. The 24-105 is my go to travel and landscape lens. The 24-70 is my go to event lens, as well as part of my portrait kit. You can’t go wrong with either.

[@cosmindanes9435]

Nice ❤ Is a much difference in sharpness between those 2?

[@Sergei__v]

@@cosmindanes9435 F2.8 is crisper on higher resolution bodies. I see no difference on R6 between the two.

[@cosmindanes9435]

@@Sergei__vi got an R with 30 , you think the difference is noticeable?

[@ElDiablo223]

Great video man, I am not a professional photographer just an enthusiast, but I have been undecided between these two specific lenses for weeks, your video specially your side-by-side photo comparison and how the extra reach of the 24-105mm made a real difference in your portrait mode has finally allowed me to make a decision, 24-105mm it is. Thanks again, cheers. 🍻

[@browniepinoy]

Thanks for this video. I enjoyed. I think this video is the only one out there which compares the images from these 2 lenses, including comparing them up to their longest focal lengths. Nice.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for the kind words. Glad you liked the video!

[@DIGITALMIND63]

I bought the RF 24-105 because the RF 24-70 was more than I wanted to spend. In hindsight, after watching your video, Im glad I picked up the 24-105. It's just as sharp and more versatile. Thanks for the content!

[@kenkazuto6277]

Thank you so much. This is the video I am looking for. You include the distance between you and the subject for every focal length so I can get the idea for how far you shot from the subject for every focal length. A lot of KZbinrs I have seen don't show that.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Ken! I’m really glad the video helped.

[@tom_k_d]

Thanks James, this one was a pleasure to watch once more! I decided for the 24-105mm when I switched to the R system, as it is much more versatile and lighter, and thus a great travel companion. If maximum background blur is required, I use primes anyway (or my 70-200). And I like the way the 24-105 renders colours, too.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching Tom. Completely agree with you, 24-105 plus a few primes is a great setup. Really wish I could keep the 24-105 for travel too.

[@ThreeCeeProductions]

If you are not a pro the 24-105 is good enough. 2.8 is better in low light without flash. For critical work pros are going to use faster primes for the most part. I have both and use the 24-105 for travel. For events I switched to RF28-70 f2. WOW!

[@AmitChaudhary-p2i]

Finally this video helps me to select RF24-105 f4 but RF35 f1.8 will be the next.

[@markedmondson8767]

Thank you James for another great comparison video. I have opted for the RF 24-70 F4 as my standard lens due to wanting a bit of extra background separation compared with the F4 and then also bought the RF 70-200 F4 based on the excellent results from your portrait lens comparison video which I think does a fantastic job for the price and size. Keep up the great work!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching Mark, I really appreciate the kind feedback 🙏

[@ChargedPulsar]

There is no RF 24-70 F4 , but there is RF 24-70 F2.8

[@jeffjohnson4742]

Thanks! GREAT CONTENT, I just picked up a R5....

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much Jeff! I really appreciate the support. You’ll love the R5. It’s the best camera I’ve ever used.

[@robertmccutchan5450]

I photograph lots of kids doing lots of activities, and the 24-105 is hands down the better option for me.....70mm sometimes wouldn't be long enough. One thing people don't speak much about is the F4 gives you a bit more depth of field around the focus area. I find I have more usable images, because for subjects that are active like kids, I don't have the luxury of focusing on their eyes, so I need a bit more depth of field because I sometimes I only have time to focus on an ear or a shoulder. If I really need a blurry background, I just use the longer focal length. When I was taught to shoot weddings, we shot mostly at F8, and we had to learn composition techniques to eliminate distracting backgrounds. I feel that skill is being lost these days. Thanks for posting!

[@tanmayk0]

That was very helpful. Thanks. It would have been great if you had included low light performance of the f/4 . Although it obviously falls behind but knowing how far f/4 can go in low lights would have been great for them who can not afford larger aperture.

[@robyone7729]

Hi James, you really saved me! I've been stuck between the two for weeks and, thanks to your great video, I now have a really clear idea. For my use, the 24-105 f4 is perfect! Thank you so much!

[@zoltacsak3460]

6:18 the color grading on the b-rolls is marvelous!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much!

[@Tanya-kb2qk]

Thank you so much for this , I was struggling to choose but I think for the price difference I’ll go with 24-195

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching!

[@MrQwertypoiuyty]

Depends on the use case. The 24-105 could be more versatile but if I were to choose now based on my experience, I will choose the faster 24-70. Why? There were very special circumstances wherein I need a full stop of aperture in the evening when I was traveling. Once example is the F1 race in Singapore, and the main races are usually in the evening. The f4 aperture can't cut it and the noise levels were off the charts (iso6400) even at a minimum shutter speed of 1/20. So all of the pictures I had for the F1 racing were either a blurry mess or very grainy. And the processed raw files were not great as well. That was my only opportunity to travel for the F1 and I may not be able to do it again.

[@EliMandarin]

I love your the way how you compare lenses! It is really unique. Thank you and keep it up please! ❤

[@diminishedreturn]

I've recently picked up the 24-105mm 2.8 Z, which is a beast along with the R5C. But I think I'll pick up the 24-105 f4 as a smaller version for light travel-it seems nice.

[@JamesReader]

Still waiting for mine to arrive, how are you liking it?

[@gustavoumeno]

Great video, James! RF 24-105 at 105 f4 is really nice for portrait!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Gustavo! Totally agree

[@novainvicta]

Another well executed video James. I have both zooms the RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM sits on my R6 MKII because its a great video as well as stills lens given the extra reach. I do however prefer the RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM on the Canon R5 which is my go too camera for portraits. Both are improved lenses over the previous EF counter-parts.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Jeff! That's a great combo, really wish I could keep the 24-105, for video alone it's so versatile on full frame.

[@danielson_9211]

I have the 24-70 and at times drives me nuts not having that extra reach, but I do a lot of events and losing that 1 stop might make a difference doing church events, thought about the 105 2.8 but the price ouch.

[@MrBrockley3]

I have the RF24-70L2.8, and if I need to get a bit closer, I just switch to the 1.6 crop option on my R6Markii or switch to my RF70-200L I think if you already own the RF70-200L then it would make more sense to go for the RF24-70 2.8.L

[@VynZography]

5:54 WOW you caught me with that one! Great comparison!

[@johnnymauser7577]

Great comparison! It opend my eyes for composition diferences. I shoot with 24-70 and my taste of background blur can take them apart quite easily, bit i realized i want longer focal lenght too. Especialy the comparison of the face shape and background magnification was enlightening to me.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Johnny! Really glad the video helped.

[@MarkJHEllis]

Hi, another great informative video James. With the comparisons in the green house the window in the background was the giveaway. I had the RF24-105 for four years before "upgrading" to the RF24-70. I agree the 24-105 is more versatile for travel and recently like you state the 70mm was just quite not enough and the RF70-200 needed to come out. I do enjoy the extra separation the 24-70 gives

[@thelaststandhdr]

nice review I was hoping for. this channel really under rated.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much!

[@herrykadir6442]

I have rf24-105 f4L(rf16 f2.8,rf35 f1.8) for travel,walk around and general purpose.And i have rf28-70 f2L and rf85 f1.2L for my portrait work.

[@gerrywagner3693]

Thanks for this! I was considering taking my 24-70 F2.8 L on a trip over my 24-105 F4 L for better portraits of my fellow travelers, but this really helped me see how I can better use my 24-105 for portraits. I just subscribed.

[@CinnamonBasic]

one of the most helpful reviews ive ever seeeen thank youuu

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@daleh2058]

Pleased I found your review video. I'm seriously looking at the 24-105mm II for my 2000D, but then I was tempted in the 24-70mm because of the f/2.8, but now I've made my mind up and will be purchasing the 24-105mm. Knaresborough is beautiful by the way, great shots you've captured there

[@JamesReader]

Really glad the video helped! Thanks so much for the kind words. Happy holidays!

[@daleh2058]

@@JamesReader I bought the lens this morning, it was a very good price and I couldn't let it slip away. Merry Christmas to you and your family 😊

[@Axonteer]

I just saw the 24-70 2.8 going on a cashback "sale" so i started to look up reviews, i currently own the R5 with the 24-105 f4 and thanks to your video i will keep the 24-105. If i really need the background separation, i have the 50 1.2 and the 85 f2 or the 100mm 2.8 (tehe macro lense) so i feel like i have more than enough options. And if i (rarely) are asked for some portrait shots i can easily controll the situation and dont need flexibility, hence i can easily work with a prime. Since i do mostly landscapes, the 24-105 is a rally neat compantion on hikes. Going to iceland in summer, i will probably take my trinity with me (15-35 2.8, 24-105 f4, 70-200 f2.8) since we will mostly travel by car and those three lenses fit in my shimoda x30 just so. But i expect the 24-105 to be on the camera for most of the time. I noticed that i get much more stressed if i constantly have to change lenses on travels and thus mess up shots because i have too many options. The 24-70 2.8 is definitely a good option for someone doing lots of event shoots, but those people might even go for the 28-80 f2, although that beast is a whole other weight class - litteraly :D - I just feel i would waste the 2.8s potential as i mostly shoot around f8 anyway

[@captaincook6283]

Thank you so much for all the effort you’ve made to show the performance of each lens in that comparison. I like you’re calm way with beautiful images that we can enjoy, hope you keep on doing these videos and support the canon shooters over the over dominant Sony world on KZbin cheers

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate the kind words.

[@thelaststandhdr]

Thanks

[@JamesReader]

Wow! Thanks so much for the support 🙏

[@michaelatherton6055]

I traded in my 24-105 F4 for the 24-70 F2.8. I miss the extra 35mm but I shoot college sports so I'll always have a 70-200 2.8 with me on another body. And in most other situations I'll have two bodies with me, an R7 and R6 so if I need the reach, I can pop it on the R7. But as a travel general purpose lens the 24-105 is probably the better choice for most folks.

[@Andre-Patterson]

Thank you, James. I just got this lens and I'm really enjoying it so far.

[@JamesReader]

You’re welcome! Congrats on the new lens. It’s an amazing one

[@revan.3994]

What's the more ideal combination for someone who is doing nearly 50:50 in Travel/Landscape and Portrait photography? 1) RF 24-105 f/4 & RF 70-200 f/2.8 or 2) RF 24-70 f/2.8 & RF 70-200 f/2.8 ...looking forward to the upcoming R5 MkII to switch from my 5D MkIII with the EF 24-105 f/4 Kitlens and my old Sigma EX 100-300 f/4... as I am not sure if I should spend the extra 1000€+ for the 24-70 f/2.8 🤔. I also have to say that in the last years I switched from 80% Travel/Landscape and 20% Portrait to the before-mentioned 50:50. Thanks in advance for your tipps! 👋

[@JamesReader]

I think I would go for the 24-105. The 70-200 covers you for portraits of you happen to want more background blur or compression than the 24-105 can give you. I just think I’d you are mostly travel/landscape then the 24-105 is ideal and such a great focal range.

[@revan.3994]

@@JamesReader Thanks a lot for your help and reply James. Yes, I admit I also lean a bit more towards the 25-105 and you backed me up in that opinion, great! And thanks to your video, which explains the differences so we'll between those two lenses, the 24-105 takes the lead for what I personally want to do with that lens combination. The 24-105 for general use, travel, landscape, and street photography, and the 70-200 for serious portrait work and tele shots for everything else. Yes, that sounds to be the best combo for me. Thanks again James for good work and support!

[@johnmantis5959]

Thank you James for your very best voice comparison of this two lenses, I was able to follow every word you said.😊😊😊

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much!

[@chrisd.5625]

Excellent video. Now I need to know if I should get the 24-105 or the 24-240...

[@ChargedPulsar]

It's the same story, 24-240 is better as a travel lens.

[@theycallmeglen]

Great comparison here. I use the EF versions of both lenses, love em!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@viniciusmorae8]

It was one of the best video that i have seen already about comparation of those lenses. Thank you so much God Bless you and your way.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much!

[@abhayrajput2203]

Great comparison most awaited....

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

[@novy-db6sn]

This was a great review and comparison. Thank you!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!!

[@magsasakangpropesor3107]

My purchased lens 24-105mm will be delivered to the Philippines from Japan. This video provides me a clear insight.

[@meliorstudios]

Awesome comparison and breakdown between the two lenses James, and a really good video layout. Definitely earned a Sub here!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much!

[@sidbrun_]

I had the 24-70mm, compared to the 24-105mm for a bit, and then immediately put it back in the box and sold it. The only difference I could tell was the 24-105mm had a bit more distortion and vignetting, but otherwise it was about as sharp as the 24-70mm. I realised I'd rather the extra zoom, more compact size, and lower weight (And price) than the 1 stop of light difference and slight extra bokeh. There are definitely times where 1 stop would help me, like when I'm shooting at 3200 ISO, but those times are a lot more rare than the versatility I get from the 24-105mm. I bought the 15-35mm f/2.8, so I can still get the bokeh/extra stop at shorter focal lengths, but also get a wider lens too. I think the 15-35mm coupled with the 24-105mm is so much more versatile. Next is which 70-200mm to get, I'm leaning on the f/4 for the same reasons (It's so much smaller, lighter, cheaper) but I would really like f/2.8, just not sure about the bulk.

[@눈누난나-h5m]

This is exactly the review what I wanted.👍👍👍Good job😄

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!!

[@pmjuliff]

Really interesting review, thanks. I have the 24-105 F4 and was researching whether the 24-70 F2.8 was worth the upgrade. I think you have convinced me it's not, especially at my level!! Especially as I'm more likely to use it in a landscape environment.

[@TG-iy9wx]

Great review, well done! I decided for the RF 24-70f2.8 because of the better corner image quality. Not important for portraits, but with the R6 and 20Mpx is not really room for cropping and soft corners are just another issue, especially printed

[@vinvanid]

how about corner darkness (vignetting) of 24-70 F2.8, some reviews says it was darker than 24-105

[@RQL-ol7sn]

Your comparison work is always outstanding! I'd suggest branching out and comparing 2 new things each day: M: 2 raindrops; T: 2 salad forks; W: 2 toothbrushes; etc., etc. I would tune in daily!

[@JamesReader]

Haha 😂 thank you so much!

[@paullanoue5228]

I have both and could easily live with just one. That said I don’t use them interchangeably. I prefer the 24-105 for street and travel photography. Also as a second or third lens for wildlife. The 24-70 seventy I prefer for events, any basically interior photography involving people. It’s just my a personal taste. You could easily do it all with either lens and get great results as the video clearly shows.

[@justanickname8960]

I would have liked to see some low-light photography as well where the 2.8 shines - leaving it out feels like an incomplete comparison.

[@JamesReader]

Would of liked to but unfortunately didn’t have the opportunity! Thank you for watching.

[@colinfwalters]

It’s chalk and cheese in low light. In the evening, in the morning, in the forest, the f4 becomes compromised very quickly due to low shutter speeds and camera shake when hand held.

[@portraitblake]

What’s the point, the 2.8 will be full stop better than the F4. We know this already.

[@Yankee2718]

You have a Canon R camera…. Raise the ISO 😱 and shoot away……..

[@axel3398]

F4 or F2.8 both are too high for low light situations. Then you better get 1.2-1.8 or get a trypod

[@shibuichi]

Super helpful James!

[@JamesReader]

Thank you!

Hi. nice video. My favorite is the RF 24-105MMM F4. As for travel, portrait. I personally use the 15-35mm f2.8 at night. But for landscape, 24-105mm.

[@portraitblake]

I tried the Tamron G2 2.8 from Canon EF mount but it couldn’t not compete with the 24-105mm. The 24-105 is my used lens in the studio and the quality is amazing. The rendering of the 24-70 is slightly better but no when you try to justify the price.

[@GiTwIXx4501]

I can't decide between these two Tamron 24-70 or RF 24-105. I love talking portraits and want the longer focal length.

[@jdpst20]

I’ve owned the EF version 24-105 I and II and when I upgraded to the R5c I didn’t even look at the 24-70. I went straight to the 24-105. In video it looses a bit in light but with the R5c duel ISO 3200 low light isn’t a huge deal breaker. I’d much rather have the extra reach. I use this lens everywhere and with even F4 shot properly with subject to background distance you really can’t tell for the most part. Now I want the 135mm 1.8 and I’d be happy

[@K9CareObedienceTraining]

Thank you for your excellent video. Well planned out and presented. Switching over to mirrorless & full frame, from Canon 90D APSC.. Awaiting arrival of R6 Mark 2 + 24-105. Your video assured me I made the right choice of lens. Really good examples from both f4 & 2.8. Have a small channel & looking fwd to upping the visual quality of my videos. Thanks again and all the Best from Fremantle West Aus 🙂

[@druids84]

An absolutely awesome comparison, thank you James! I was contemplating upgrading my old EF 24-105 F4 to the newly announced RF 28-70 F2.8 IS for my R8 body, and was wondering exactly that - would I get similar background blur for portraits just by using the longest 105mm end of the EF instead of 70mm@f2.8! Considering the new non-L RF 28-70 F2.8 costs basically exactly as much as RF 24-105 F4, and both of these lenses are 2- 3x more expensive than used EF 24-105 F4 or EF 24-70 F2.8, the main upside for the new RF 28-70 F2.8 is its light weight for travel. But then you pay ~1k USD/Eur/GBP for slashing only 300g from the old EF 24-105 F4 + EF-RF adapter combo by going to RF 28-70 F2.8.

[@Eikenhorst]

You should get the exact same background separation of a 70mm F.28 shot at 100mm in F4. (70*4/2.8=100) So in that sense, the lighter lens still offers the possibility for more background separation. Of course you don't get the exact same composition as you do at 70mm and you need to be physically able to step back as well. But it is worth to keep in mind.

[@gustavosantiagofotografia]

Where can I find that information? Is that a general equation?

[@8787200]

​@@gustavosantiagofotografiathat's not an equation at all. But the logic is applicable. Use a DOF calculator for checking up.

[@Eikenhorst]

@@gustavosantiagofotografia To get the same angle of view on a cropped frame you divide the focal length of the full frame lens by the magnification factor, in case of a APS-C body this is roughly 1.5. So your 105mm FF lens gives the same FOV as a 70mm APS-C lens. To get the same depth of view (on that 70mm APS-C lens), you multiply the F stop of the 105mm full frame lens by the magnification factor, so 2.8*1.5=4.2. Since the difference between F2.8 and F4 is slightly less than the multiplication factor, a FF lens that gives the same depth of field as 70mm F2.8 lens in F4 would be 100mm (but it will give a slightly wider field of view since 100mm < 105mm)

[@gustavosantiagofotografia]

@@Eikenhorst thank u so much for the detailed explanation!

[@gustavosantiagofotografia]

@@8787200 thank you!

[@boftx1]

The RF 24-105mm F4L lives on my R6ii most of the time. I do have a couple of primes, plus the rest of the F4L trinity to cover other situations when needed, but the 24-105 is my goto lens when I have no idea what I will need. On a related note, I have the RF 100-400mm that lives almost exclusively on my R7.

[@pbkilla09]

Really want to see the 24-105 F4 vs the new 28-70 F2.8. What's more important, the L glass and extra range or the faster aperture but non L lens.

[@TeddyCavachon]

Here’s my 2 cents based on being trained by a master portrait photographer and shooting portraits for over fifty years: 1) It is shooting distance not focal length that controls near-far, nose size vs ear size, perspective. Shooting from the range of 8-10 feet produces the most flattering normal looking size relationship in oblique poses which are the most flattering angle for average people who don’t have the type of slender perfectly symmetrical faces models are selected to be models for. Try different distances until proportions look ‘right’ (subjectively) keeping lens above eye level (top down view of nostrils is better than lower and looking up the nose holes) THEN select the FL which produces the desired in camera crop. 2) If you plan on doing a lot of tight cropped at neck headshot for actors, etc. 105mm on the long end will be the better choice, or do what I did starting in 2004 when switching to Cannon DSLR, by the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm as 2/3 of a “Holy Trinity” the other third of mine was the EF-S 10-22mm an amazingly good lens for the price. I was using APS-C bodies then so all the effective FL were 1.6x the numbers on the lens but, per pt. 1 that only affects the in camera crop not the perspective. I now use the RF 10-20mm f/4 as my wide lens on my pair of R6Mkii bodies, still using the circa 2004 EF 24-70mm f/2.8 and EF 70-200mm. When you buy good glass it lasts 😊 3) f/2.8 vs f/4 - If you want the entire head in focus on in a portrait you’ll want to be shooting at f/8. That’s why for studio portraits backgrounds if not plain are painted to look fuzzy and out of focus. Wide open Bokeh is awesome outdoors but it is ALWAYS a distraction from the star of the show, the face of the subject if people looking at the portrait comment “WOW! what great Bokeh!” The less more the front of the face contrasts with everything else in the frame - tone, color, texture, pattern - the faster the viewer will be drawn there and long their eyes will dwell before even wondering what is in the background how how great the Bokeh is. That said it’s nice to have the 2.8 vs 4 aperture when wanting very narrow DOF. Back in the day when film was slow and digital sensors had shorter DR resulting in more shadow noise when ETTR paying for super fast lens a necessity. I paid dearly for my Nikor f/1.8 85mm and f/2 35mm I used for available light PJ work with ASA 400 Tri-X Nowadays I shoot mostly wildlife and rarely go below f/5.6 unless it’s a static subject on a similar tone / color background and I need contrasting sharpness to differentiate it.

[@julianstrau6663]

Excellent work! 🙂In my opinion, close headshots look most natural at 105mm. However, I've made the experience that young women in particular often prefer the distance-distorted look of lower focal lengths.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Julian! I've noticed the same! I think people are so used to seeing them selves on wide angle phone cameras these days we have become accustomed to it.

[@tom_k_d]

@@JamesReader Haha, yes 24mm is the new 85mm it seems...

[@markedmondson8767]

Interesting, I hadn't thought of this before but I assume that's because of the wide use of iPhone cameras!

[@chik0240]

as someone still clinging on the 5D3 and EF versions. I do think the 2.8 is favourable, for porait focla length, when the 70-105 section is preferred, one always have a 70-200 F4 IS for the job done even better, but in lower light, the F2.8 is always that extra stop of light available, which can't be replaced, and someone with L glass I think would always pack that light 70-200 for real mid telephoto shot anway

[@timn4554]

Thank you for the great info. I actually have both lens, the series ii in the 24-70. Love both lens. I usually travel with one of them and the 70-200 series ii or the 100-400. I a lot of times still think about which one to take with me. Heading for a cruise in Alaska. Any input from you or anyone else here?

[@VG-ey4gi]

I am staying on my 24-70/2.8 for travel purposes - i shoot lot of indoor photography especially in churches and palaces. My worst nightmare is the high iso noise, so i need that 1 stop plus of the f2.8.

[@reconnect3777]

Awesome Video ! i can´t dicide if i wanna buy a 24-105 or a 24-70 (panasonic) so this video comes very handy with the comparison, even its canon i will awesome at some point all the brands kinda work in the same way. The 24-70mm at 24mm 2.8 is the clear winner no doubt in my opinion BUT i am shocked how awesome the 24-105 performce the further you zoom out until the point at 70mm when it beats the 24-70mm and then has even 35mm more to spare.

[@SerkanKayaMD]

I am using 105 lens and you have told all I can say. Thank you for that great comparison.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Serkan!

[@andrewphillips2520]

I actually searched your channel for this comparison earlier in the week, you must have read my mind. Loving your comparison work, keep up the great work on your channel! p.s I figured there'd be a bigger difference in background blur, guess I'm keeping my 24-105 :)

[@JamesReader]

That's great to hear Andrew! Thank you for watching

[@chainevide]

Maybe the comparison with the 24-105 f4-f7.1 would be usefull, to see what we loose with a cheap and light glass compare to heavy and expensive 24-105 f4.

[@KatieF307]

Great video. One thing though; when you did the studio portrait, it would have been great to see the difference (if there are any) with the 24-70 at f2.8, and the 24-105 at f4 at 70 mm. Then again with the 24-70 at f4, and the 24-105 both at 70 mm and F4. I suspect that there is little difference. There is no question that when it comes to traveling, the 24-105 is so much lighter. Again, great video!

[@rijos2012]

Great video. Special thanks for the comparison and raw files.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you for watching!

[@basilbcf]

For my style of shooting and what I shoot most of the time, I prefer the versatility of the 24-105 over the 24-70 2.8. I actually do have a 28-70 f2/8 but it's an older FD mount lens that I use an adaptor with. Also, I have to use manual focus as it doesn't have AF. It still yields great images believe it or not.

[@jameslucky3094]

The best comparison and very informative 👍👍👍

[@JamesReader]

Thank you !

[@RandomThinker10]

Outside, the 24-105 is a clear winner. Sadly most events I’ve worked professionally are indoors with the worst lighting imaginable. The 2.8 can save you in situations like that, and the extra stops of light is what makes that lens a good option for people. Yes I use a flash as well, and have used a flash indoors with the 24-105, but always found indoor lighting to be that lens’s biggest opponent. 24-105 is my favorite lens in any other shooting condition.

[@RichieColemanSr]

Great video. How does it do in low light indoors?

[@baileyharris9861]

This video was incredibly helpful. Thank you

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Bailey!

[@manrecovered6144]

Great review, so we’ll executed, helpful, no nonsense. Thanks James.

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much!

[@vibrasieve]

This is a very good vs. I am considering which lens to buy. The F2.8 is twice as expensive, but the difference in effect is not that big.

[@chtty123]

Just came back from 2weeks oversea roadtrip. Brought 24-105f4 with me. Initially, I though that I might not enough background blur for portrait & might not bring subject close enough when I need tele. But after all, this len can do everything I needed, while giving me lightweight & versatility.

[@JamesReader]

Really glad to hear the lens worked well for you. It really is so useful when travelling

[@sputnickers]

Really want to know what lens (and camera) you used for the low light narrator shots at around 0:09. I'm surprised we don't get to know that by watching this video.

[@JamesReader]

It’s the Canon C70 + Sigma 24mm with a speed booster. Hope that helps!

[@blanejnasveschuk6351]

I carry a pack with an R5 and two lenses for travel. Walk around, indoor and outdoor, the RF 24- 70 f2.8, a little heavy, but my absolute go to. For landscape reach, RF 70- 200 f4. This is a marvelous light and compact lens to pack, given its versatility and image quality.

[@vinvanid]

From your experience, what's better, 70mm of 24-70 or 70-200 at the same F4 aperture ?

[@blanejnasveschuk6351]

In low light, it makes sense embrace 24mm- 70mm @ f2.8, pushing to the 70mm as needed. At f4 this lens is superb. Outdoor, shooting landscape at distance, the 70- 200 is amazing @ f4… such a beautiful lens the full range. Quality of image, excellent!

[@MrBrockley3]

​​​@@vinvanidI have these 2 lenses, rf24-70 2.8L, rf70-200L f4, and at 70mm @ f4 they are both identical. My rf70-200L is incredibly sharp even when using the 1.6 crop option to get a little closer, in fact some photos of birds I've taken look like cardboard cutouts that's been stuck on a background. I owned the ef version of this lens and it was rubbish.

[@vinvanid]

@@MrBrockley3 wow great, thank you for your insight 👍

[@jukkasirvio4426]

Thanks for a great comparison!

[@ntsan]

I wonder how they fare in dim or low light situation, the 2.8 should give 1 stop cleaner image vs f4? And will autofocus suffer at F4 vs 2.8? For trave l would take 24-105mm over 24-70mm any time because of longer focal length and lighter weight.

[@JamesReader]

The 2.8 is definitely a bit advantage for low light shooting. These new cameras have such good ISO performance though.

[@tom_k_d]

My experience with the 24-105 F4 is that, due to lens IS and IBIS (on the R6), there is no limitation for travel photography, even interiors of dim-lit churches are no problem. With moving objects however, the 2.0 has a clear advantage - but for evening event work a fast prime is the best option anyway.

[@InternetGuy8745]

A very helpful video thank you. Went for the 24-70 in the end its great.

[@Chris-NZ]

Hi James, great comparison. I have the 24- 105 4L and for travel it’s outstanding . It’s all I took on a six week trip all over China and all I really needed. If I repeated the trip I’d toss in the RF 16mm and RF 24mm as they weigh nothing and would have given me a bit more scope for my indoor shots. Cheers , BTW here in NZ the RF 24-105 4L is NZ $2000 and the 24 -70 2.8 L is NZ$ 4200 so not being a portrait shooter for me the choice was obvious 😀

[@JamesReader]

Thank you Chris! It really is a stunning lens. Super versatile and glad to hear it served you well on your travels. I keep meaning to try the 16mm prime. Let me know how you like it if you get chance

[@Chris-NZ]

@@JamesReader Hi James, to be honest I haven’t really given the 16mm a lot of work, my original thoughts were “street” when attached to the R5 as it doesn’t have that intimidating look to it . I have the RF 14-35 which I have found incredibly useful and it’s surprising how much extra the difference between 14 and 16 makes even though some reviewers, I think, have given it a bit of flak at the 14 end. Of Canons “cheaper” primes I found their newer RF24 1.8 to be really the most useful especially indoors . This entire video kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJjdnX1pnrJ9eJI at the Len Lye Gallery in New Plymouth was filmed exclusively with the 24. Being retired Canon’s L series primes for me are just impossible to justify in terms $$ for my usage especially not being a portrait photog. Sorry I couldn’t be more helpful.😀

[@DGDG0000000]

how far the background flowers are and what about light exposition and direction at full open? come on!

[@vivaldi06]

Very interesting and well done video James ! Thanks !!! I have only one problem with my RF 24-105 : the play of the extending tube which I find unacceptable for an L series and not very reassuring as for the reliability. Apparently every 24-105 has this play and Canon says it's normal...

[@JamesReader]

Thank you! I noticed the same with mine. The 24-70 even has it a little too.

[@HoomanBhr]

Best comparison, thank you, I will go for 24-105 because my camera handle low light pretty well and having more extra reach works better to me

[@JamesReader]

Thank you so much! Great choice, you’ll love the lens!

[@JPG-Sweden]

Maybe time to redo with both F4 and F2.8 as 24-105mm?

[@StephenShankland]

I bought my first full-frame Canon DSLR with the 24-105mm F4L and almost never used it. I'd almost always go for ultrawide or telephoto on either side. 24-105mm just didn't agree with me. When I got the 24-70mm f2.8L it was this aha moment, and now it's my default lens, great for my style of people shots (candids more than portraits), even without IS. Sounds like with the RF versions of these, perhaps the 24-105mm is more competitive. How's the distortion at 24mm?

[@JamesReader]

I found the distortion pretty well controlled on both, very little corrections necessary on the 24-70 in particular. Canon did an incredible job with that lens from a technical stand point.

[@tobiesther4063]

The red color on f2.8 is more saturated. Thats what I notice but both images are sharp at the same level.

[@ilkercevik9996]

Hello! The video turned out really great; thank you for everything. Could you give some final advice on usage? I’m shooting food and product photos-bokeh isn’t important for food shots, but it is for product photos. I’m also shooting videos with my Canon R8. If you were to choose again, which lens would you go for: the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24-105mm f/4 L?

[@kenneth6102]

I just sold my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 with the Canon EF-RF control ring mount after a 10-day trip. It was heavy (1.2kg, I know RF24-70 f2.8L is lighter at 900g, but I can't afford it); I didn't go faster than f4 at all, since I was only out during the day; there was at least a handful of time everyday when I wished to have further reach. I have a set of cheap primes (16, 24, 28, 35, 50 and 85. I started learning with primes and I'm letting my kids play with them), I can take one or two of them in my bag if I ever need faster lenses. As you've said, I would rather go with the lighter, with longer reach and save a few bucks. Also, most people start shooting with f1.8 (the cheaper primes), the 28-70 f2 seems to be the better upgrade when speed is the concern. F4 for daylight and f2 for lowlight if money isn't a problem.😂