For the more practical comparison test of the 5D III with applied hand out the window when the stabilizer (if available) to me were two 24-105, 17-40 and two say, the new 4 / 24-70 is available. The generated RAW images for the focal lengths 24, 35, 50 and 70 mm were then compared in Lightroom at 100% view. In general, however, one must note that in my experience every lens performs slightly differently on each camera, as not only the objectives but also the cameras themselves certain production tolerances are subject to eg easily influence the position of the sensor and the bayonet connection. An absolute statement about the quality of an objective perspective, therefore, making such comparisons for me always rather have only a trend towards significance.
Sharpness and contrast:
Open offers 24-70 throughout a slight extra profit over the 105ern. Toward the edge sharpness expected falls in all models from something, said 70 only slightly better than the 105s, during 17-40 of sharpness drop is extreme. Thus, I can not share reviews of other testers who could supposedly detect any sharpness drop to the edge of 24-70 unfortunately.
Stopping down to aperture 8 or higher extends the edge sharpness pleasant, said 70 earlier and further into the edge goes as the 105s. The 17-40 reached a halfway consistent sharpness until aperture 16, which is a shame, because the focus of this lens is much earlier and very sharp mind. At the level of 24-70.
Overall, I noticed positively that the 24-70 was probably fairly well centered and the picture performance is very symmetrical and evenly precipitated, whereas all other lenses each partial weaknesses showed more pronounced on one side or in a corner.
Vignette:
Open vignettiert the 24-70 especially at 24mm it very clear this is different to the 105s is barely visible. Fade brings improvement, but dark corners even when shutter 16 still recognizable that the 105s and the 17-40 not have (basic test photos were a white wall). Longer focal lengths reduce vignetting noticeably. Overall, I see hardly decisive advantages over the 105s, so you mE here can not speak of an effective improvement.
Distortion:
At this point the scores 24-70. Distortion is significantly less than the barrel-shaped here really weak 105s especially in the short focal lengths. Even the 17-40 can not compete against the 24-70. Here Canon has done a good job, though still remains visible barrel distortion. The progress, however, is obvious.
Fringing:
Significant improvement here too. The 24-70 shows no significant fringing which has in particular the older 24-105.
Mechanics and feel:
Chill the difference for 105s is less than I had assumed. The 24-70 is indeed easier and shorter, however, the weight difference is only partially noticeable and the overall construction is basically the same. Nevertheless, the 24-70 summarizes despite overwhelming plastic shares in something-quality than the 105s. The zoom and focus ring can be felt softer and adjust precisely what is necessary, but also due to the age and the resulting wear of the other test candidates. Very important: The tube does not change even under extreme inclination, the selected focal length is thus obtained, which is primarily essential for tripod use. The 24-105er have their great mechanical weakness, because due to wear, the tube slides in these lenses in similar situations at some point by. It remains questionable only whether the 24-70 holds permanent or whether stresses this time zooming independently?
Stabilizer:
Clear advantage for the 24-70. The built-stabilizer of the new generation is significantly more effective and works more calmly than the 105s. Thus can be still kept clean times out of his hand, which usually result in the 105s already Committee. In extreme macro range, the stabilizer is known to be less effective, which is why something more serious macro photos are still reliably and reproducibly implement only with the tripod.
Macro function:
The 24-70 has a macro function bit fiddly ambidextrous adjusted, extending far beyond the max. Enlargement of the 105s goes beyond the display even looks pretty neat in the macro range. Bought this, however, by the necessary proximity to the object, so that at the end of a few centimeters remain air. Wildlife photography is wg. the not complied flight distance thus virtually ruled out, also takes oneself the light at maximum magnification. A replacement for a true macro lens is the 24-70 thus not. It is more of a welcome expedient if one just has no macro in your pocket. The added value holds for me, therefore, limited, but is nonetheless a significant improvement compared with the 24-105.
CONCLUSION:
I find it not easy for a clear evaluation 4 / 24-70 dispense. Canon has a number of weaknesses of 24-105 effectively optimized (distortion, chromatic aberrations, stabilizer, macro area and probably the mechanics here although long-term experience is lacking). Disappointing I felt very clearly that remain rather high vignetting in particular open and at the short end. Although quite a few photos with a slight Randabdunklung can even affect advantageous since the viewer's gaze is directed at the most well known, meaningful center, but I want this effect actually prefer to make aware and do not get delivered from the lens carriage paid. As for sharpness and contrast, a rather moderate but at least consistent increase over the 24-105 can be seen. Whether this growth, however, for example in the printing of images plays a role outside of a 100% consideration, I doubt it. Important rather at least for me very good centering and uniformity of 24-70 who had not any other comparison lenses seems to me here. We should not forget, of course, that the above advantages offset by a reduction of Endbrennweite to 35mm. This may be than the expected in other areas more profits for quite a few users in practice crucial. The one who seeks the maximum image quality of the focal length range 24-70 and can do without the stabilizer, in exchange for an additional aperture, must already pick up the EF 2.8 / 24-70 II, which I was able to test earlier short. The new 2.8 / 24-70 is the contrast, sharpness and edge sharpness at the latest from Aperture 4 recognizable above the 4 / 24-70, but requires expensive filters of size 82. The price-performance ratio seems both lenses due still very high market prices borderline. From this perspective, the elderly and thus still affordable 24-105 remains clear the winner. Ultimately, each photographer must decide what is important to him at Canon. A death must always die, unfortunately!
My rating of 4 / 24-70:
Performance-driven and independent price = 4 stars,
taking into account the currently still too high price = 3 stars
