Canon 24-70 f4 is vs 24-70 2.8 L

Hi everyone, I need a clarification on my next purchase.
I am very undecided between 24-70 f4 is 2.8 and the first version.
F4 the version I like the fact that the stabilizer is very light and handy, and then buy it again with 4 years of canon warranty. Other's definitely appeals to me the fact that both 2.8 and then increased brightness and 1 stop also on bokeh. At this point, given the price, approximately 800 Euros for the new f4 and the same for the 2.8, however, used without warranty, my choice would fall on that are brighter when trick that is really much better than all 'in terms f4 sharpness and blur.
If someone you've used them both can clear my head, thank you.

ShotofGod wrote in post #18003377
Hi everyone, I need a clarification on my next purchase.
I am very undecided between 24-70 f4 is 2.8 and the first version.
F4 the version I like the fact that the stabilizer is very light and handy, and then buy it again with 4 years of canon warranty. Other's definitely appeals to me the fact that both 2.8 and then increased brightness and 1 stop also on bokeh. At this point, given the price, approximately 800 Euros for the new f4 and the same for the 2.8, however, used without warranty, my choice would fall on that are brighter when trick that is really much better than all 'in terms f4 sharpness and blur.
If someone you've used them both can clear my head, thank you.

SOG.
Maybe this can help you as my real life experience in your country helped me decide between the 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 2.8
Bear with me, please.....
When I finally bought a 5D Mark III almost three years ago, I was looking to upgrade and purchase a few lenses for the jump to full frame.
In my Arsenal were the 24-105 f/4 L IS, the 70-200 f/4 L IS, the big and heavy 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II and the 100-400 Version 1 and the 100 Macro L IS.
A few weeks after Christmas of 2013, I need to add an Ultra Wide Zoom. At that time the choices were the 17-40 f/4 L and the 16-35 f/2.8 L. Basically it was double the price for 1 additional stop of light. Since most of my uses for this focal length was stopped down any way, I grabbed the f/4.
A few months later the 16-35 f/4 L IS was introduced......Image Stabilization.........​....
So with an upcoming trip to Rome in the summer of 2015, I knew it was time to invest in the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Since the Basilica's do not allow tripods and me walking all day without much water in me to be hydrated properly and the shakes or "Yips" I knew the advances of Image Stabilzation, no matter the range. Slower shutter speeds while shooting handheld.
So I grabbed the wonderful, improved corner to corner sharpness that the new 16-35 f/4 L IS improved compared to my 17-40 f/4 L.
Basically the 16-35 f/4 L IS on one 5D Mark III and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II on the other covered my needs. Being able to shoot handheld at 1/15 of a second with razor sharp images from inside the old Cathedrals and churches really paid off. GREAT LENS!
One of the things that bothered me most and others about the 24-105 on Full Frame is the Distortion at 24mm.
So what about the 24-105 upgrade.....you know the 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II or in your case Version 1. Since I got great results shooting handheld at f/4 with IS on the 16-35 Ultra Wide Zoom, the f/4 L IS was looking more and more like a nice fit for me.
Again 1 additional stop of light for double the cost MINUS Image Stabilization......Rat​s!
With instant rebates offered on both before Christmas and a nice Gift Certificate to a certain local camera shop, it was time to go for it, the Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS. Since I knew the benefits of IS in the old Churches provided me in Rome, how can I lose.
Well under the tree a few months ago was another trip to Italy. This time Venice and Florence.
This time, I really put the 24-70 range through its paces. Again walking all day being able to capture hand held at slower shutter speeds and capturing stunningly razor sharp images with improved color, less CA, and less distortion was confirmed in my choice.
For me having the 16-200 range covered with Image Stabilzation is evident as I shoot a lot of Architecture anyway. I even brought my 24 Tilt/Shift with me although it requires my tripod and more patience. Not an ideal walk around lens.
So after several months looking and post processing the images for my two trips to Italy I can say whole heartedly in recommending the smaller, lighter, Image Stabilized f/4 L IS. And the Macro Feature it provides really is pretty darn good as well!

I'm having a similar dilemma but over the 70-200. I definitely want IS, especially at these focal lengths.

And the 2.8 IS V1 can still be had for a $1000-$1200. The f4 a lot less.

Is the one-stop that big a difference?

Unless bokeh is the Holy Grail for you, IS will probably be more useful than aperture with a wide angle lens. The exceptions:

Astrophotography, where the wider aperture is key to getting enough light for a reasonable exposure length;

Focus accuracy, which is going to be about twice as good if your camera supports high precision AF for the f/2.8 aperture. But this is less of an issue with a wide angle lens in the first place, due to the greater apparent DoF.

I rented the 2.8 IS v2 for my nephews b'day and that put the bug in me to "need" one.

It is a beast, weight-wise, as opposed to the f4 IS.

For me, the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is not enough to justify the added weight/size and expense, plus giving up image stabilization in a couple of cases. My kit consists of f/4 zooms with IS (16-35, 24-105, 70-200) supplemented with a couple of fast primes (50L, 135L) for those times when I need something fast. Generally I only take one lens type or the other, depending on where I'm going and what I plan on shooting -- primes or zooms. For those times I take my zoom lenses, I do have a 40mm f/2.8 pancake that I may bring along for a little more speed, as it takes up almost zero space in the camera bag.