New Canon 24-70 Comparison - f/4LIS vs f/2.8L II

I currently have both of these lenses in my possession. I was really intrigued with the idea of the new f/4 IS as it appears to be a perfect travel lens if Canon truly improved upon the 24-105 f/4L (a lens which I have also owned but never really 'loved').

It is common knowledge at this point that the new 2.8 II lens is stellar. I have read some mixed initial reviews of the new f/4 IS lens (softness at 50mm), so I decided to put them through a simple controlled test to confirm or deny some of this.

I used a Canon 6D for the purposes of this test. The body was tripod mounted and the center point was used for focus. I took a total of nine shots from each lens one each at f/4, f/8, and f/16, at 24mm, 50mm, and 70mm. Exposure was identical for each lens at each focal length.

I imported into LR as raw images with no processing and did side by sides at each focal length and aperture combination.

My findings:

24mm - center sharpness too close to call. Slight edge to the f/2.8 II in the corners.

50mm - the f/4 is very sharp in the center, but slight edge to the f/2.8 II. And I do mean slight. I think what you are really seeing here is the strength of the f/2.8 II at 50mm, not necessarily the weakness of the f/4. Corners again, very slight edge to the 2.8.

70mm - here I find a very slight edge to the f/4 in the center. Corners, slight edge to the f/2.8 II.

Contrast - too close to call. Both excellent.
Color - too close to call. Both excellent.

This is a result of extreme pixel peeping, but in actual use I would find the images virtually indistinguishable from either.

I did not test for vignetting or distortion as I correct for these anyway.

I really like the size and weight of the f/4, and the macro feature is a cool bonus.

The 2.8 II remains a world class lens but the f/4 truly is a viable little brother.

Price aside, I think Canon has a winner here with the f/4.

A couple of crops from near the center of the frame at 70mm @ f/4. The image taken with the f/4 L IS looks slightly darker I think because clouds were passing by.

You can click on the images for a larger view.

24-70 f/2.8II

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Maybe you could post some examples? and some comparison shots?

Kronie wrote in post #15501620
Maybe you could post some examples? and some comparison shots?

I tried, but the images really did not demonstrate anything. If I have time, I will try to post some crops.

any comparisons against the 24-105 in your sig?

Charlie wrote in post #15501760
any comparisons against the 24-105 in your sig?

I need to update my signature. I sold my 24-105 when I got the 24-70 f/2.8II.

I can tell you that I did a similar test with the 24-105 and the 24-70 f/2.8II, and the 24-70 was sharper throughout the frame and had much better color and contrast.

blschaefer1 wrote in post #15501566
I currently have both of these lenses in my possession. I was really intrigued with the idea of the new f/4 IS as it appears to be a perfect travel lens if Canon truly improved upon the 24-105 f/4L (a lens which I have also owned but never really 'loved').

It is common knowledge at this point that the new 2.8 II lens is stellar. I have read some mixed initial reviews of the new f/4 IS lens (softness at 50mm), so I decided to put them through a simple controlled test to confirm or deny some of this.

I used a Canon 6D for the purposes of this test. The body was tripod mounted and the center point was used for focus. I took a total of nine shots from each lens one each at f/4, f/8, and f/16, at 24mm, 50mm, and 70mm. Exposure was identical for each lens at each focal length.

I imported into LR as raw images with no processing and did side by sides at each focal length and aperture combination.

My findings:

24mm - center sharpness too close to call. Slight edge to the f/2.8 II in the corners.

50mm - the f/4 is very sharp in the center, but slight edge to the f/2.8 II. And I do mean slight. I think what you are really seeing here is the strength of the f/2.8 II at 50mm, not necessarily the weakness of the f/4. Corners again, very slight edge to the 2.8.

70mm - here I find a very slight edge to the f/4 in the center. Corners, slight edge to the f/2.8 II.

Contrast - too close to call. Both excellent.
Color - too close to call. Both excellent.

This is a result of extreme pixel peeping, but in actual use I would find the images virtually indistinguishable from either.

I really like the size and weight of the f/4, and the macro feature is a cool bonus.

The 2.8 II remains a world class lens but the f/4 truly is a viable little brother.

Price aside, I think Canon has a winner here with the f/4.

thank you for taking the time to test the lenses. the results are as i expected .

Nice read, glad you find it a decent lens compared to the mk II, which indeed is stellar. Would like to see any samples from the f4 if you can!

How did you find the distortion at 24mm between the 2 lenses?

As above, I was expecting these kind of results with the f4, once it comes down I will have to think had which lens out of the Tamron, the f4 and the f2,8 II I will buy.

kobeson wrote in post #15501886
Nice read, glad you find it a decent lens compared to the mk II, which indeed is stellar. Would like to see any samples from the f4 if you can!

How did you find the distortion at 24mm between the 2 lenses?

As above, I was expecting these kind of results with the f4, once it comes down I will have to think had which lens out of the Tamron, the f4 and the f2,8 II I will buy.

Did not test for distortion. I posted a couple of crops taken at 70mm.

I'm really interested in the 24-70 f4 due to it's smaller size and lighter weight over the 24-105 f4 and 24-70 f2.8.

Unfortunately, many people have been hating on this lens the day it was announced and I feel like many reviews are (and are going to be) somewhat biased against it to begin with.

I appreciate your time to give an unbiased look at both. Sample shots would be awesome.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15502006
Unfortunately, many people have been hating on this lens the day it was announced and I feel like many reviews are (and are going to be) somewhat biased against it to begin with..

I think people mainly hates the price and nothing else. It's hard to accept less range and double the price on paper.

kin2son wrote in post #15502037
I think people mainly hates the price and nothing else. It's hard to accept less range and double the price on paper.

Well, the main complaints I've heard and read is the 24-70 f4 not having the reach of the 24-105 f4 or the speed of the 24-70 f2.8, the pricing is just the icing on the cake to a lens that appears to be "lacking" in two big areas.

blschaefer1 wrote in post #15501726
I tried, but the images really did not demonstrate anything. If I have time, I will try to post some crops.

I would actually more interested in a shoot out with the 24-105. I did one with my old 24-105 & the new 24-70 but ditched the files after. The 24-70 was the clear winner except in the reach department...

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15502150
Well, the main complaints I've heard and read is the 24-70 f4 not having the reach of the 24-105 f4 or the speed of the 24-70 f2.8, the pricing is just the icing on the cake to a lens that appears to be "lacking" in two big areas.

I disagree. Everyone will love this lens if it's priced the same as 24-105 so they can choose either longer range or better IQ.

kin2son wrote in post #15502213
I disagree. Everyone will love this lens if it's priced the same as 24-105 so they can choose either longer range or better IQ.

You're entitled to your opinion, you're just the first person I've heard that only has an issue with it's pricing alone.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15502265
You're entitled to your opinion, you're just the first person I've heard that only has an issue with it's pricing alone.

Well, he is simply not the only one. I would jump on to f/4 IS if the price drops 400$