Full Frame R5II Kit Lens: 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 f/4

[ScotPix2025]

Due to current rebate quirks, I can get a brand new R5II kit from authorised retailers with the RF 24-70 f/2.8 rather than the usual 24-105 f/4 for nearly the same price or even cheaper.

Given this unusual price situation and the habitual high price difference between the two, is there any reason to skip over such an offer? I am aware of the focal length versatility of the 24-105, particularly for walk about as I will be partially using it, but the 24-70 entices me for low light capabilities and the general impression that it is optically superior.
I will be using either in particular stopped down for archival photographic work (fragile document scanning on a static setup), so performance, particularly sharpness, at 5.6 or superior is important too. The halved minimum focusing distance of the 24-70 is also beneficial here. However general photography, particularly of small children both indoors and outdoors is also on the cards. In this case am a bit concerned about the 24-70’s weight and balancing on an R5/R5II body when used handheld for mostly stills and a smattering of video, so would be very grateful for comments in a walkabout scenario.

Many thanks for any advice!

 

[TwoWheeler]

I see more pros than cons here and none of the cons can’t be solved with an additional lens, should you feel the need. Lest I sound like a Canon lens salesman, for “General Porpoise” you might be happy with a non-L lens.

I don’t think there are too many folks who regret buying a better lens, but some who regret buying the less expensive ones.

 

[Ferenc MÓGOR]

Even though I have the EOS R6 MK1 paired with an RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS UM lens I'd highly recommend to look into this lens. The zoom range gives me all the enjoyment I'd ever need with such an extended range. Image quality is superb. Please take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g8I9wRZrb8&ab_channel=ScottKelby

 

[Photofarmer]

buy nice not twice

 

[ShipleyNW]

I've always been an f/4L shooter. They're smaller, cheaper and very sharp. I currently own an RF 24-105/4 and I love it. I came to it from EF versions I & II.

That being said, nothing is sharper than the 2.8L zooms.

My only concern would be that the 2.8 lens weighs almost a half pound more with a shorter focal length range. But if the price is the same, I might overlook that in a top-of-the-line lens. If it ends up being too heavy, you can always sell it, buy a used f/4 and pocket the difference.

 

[pcfam]

Once I got my 24-70 f/2.8, I never again used my 24-105 f/4. Every once in a while I miss the reach of the 105, but I love the sharpness and low-light performance of the 2.8 -- and now sensors have so many pixels, I can just crop.