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

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.

I didn't say price alone.

What I meant was the main reason why people hate it is because they feel it's overpriced for what it is, as it isn't particularly fast nor long.

kin2son wrote in post #15502448
What I meant was the main reason why people hate it is because they feel it's overpriced for what it is, as it isn't particularly fast nor long.

Yes, that is very true, I agree.

I guess this is what I'm getting at... EVEN if this lens was priced ridiculously low, I promise you, people would STILL complain that Canon wasted time designing the lens i.e. the IS should've gone to the 24-70 f2.8 II or the new design should've gone to the outdated 24-105L.

Anyways, I never wanted to get off on this random tangent in the first place. I don't even have an issue with the lens. I just appreciate the unbiased review the OP provided.

Both of your lenses have a major defect, some big black blob in the magazine label.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15502480
I guess this is what I'm getting at... EVEN if this lens was priced ridiculously low, I promise you, people would STILL complain that Canon wasted time designing the lens i.e. the IS should've gone to the 24-70 f2.8 II or the new design should've gone to the outdated 24-105L.

I received my 24-70 f2.8 II yesterday. Price was a determining factor. I figured, at 1500 for the f/4, if I can afford that, may as well spend the extra bucks and get the faster lens. Played around with it a little last night and deciding how much of an issue not having IS will be. I can definitely see where I will want to shoot hand held in low light at times. Don't think this is too bad at 1/80, f/8, ISO 6400. Maybe not having IS will help me improve technique.

read somewhere that canon may be going the 70-200 route(f4 versions, f2.8 non is, f2.8 with is etc), having multiple versions. next being 24-70 2.8 ii is possibly?

john_galt wrote in post #15507214
read somewhere that canon may be going the 70-200 route(f4 versions, f2.8 non is, f2.8 with is etc), having multiple versions. next being 24-70 2.8 ii is possibly?

what's that gonna cost -- $3k ? seriously doubt they'd do that. i think the message from canon is pretty clear: "if you want IS buy the f4 lens".

manderson wrote in post #15502819
I received my 24-70 f2.8 II yesterday. Price was a determining factor. I figured, at 1500 for the f/4, if I can afford that, may as well spend the extra bucks and get the faster lens. Played around with it a little last night and deciding how much of an issue not having IS will be. I can definitely see where I will want to shoot hand held in low light at times. Don't think this is too bad at 1/80, f/8, ISO 6400. Maybe not having IS will help me improve technique.

Hosted photo: posted by manderson in
./showthread.php?p=155​02819&i=i192738665
forum: Canon Lenses

Um, it's a zoom. Why are you shooting at F8? Back up a little and open the lens up and you'll get a better shutter speed.

TaDa wrote in post #15507813
Um, it's a zoom. Why are you shooting at F8? Back up a little and open the lens up and you'll get a better shutter speed.

Just playin' around man, it's only one day old. I just set it to 2.8 and 1/250. Pics look pretty good.

Another 24-70 f/4 IS Review

Another review of the 24-70 f/4 IS, which closely mirrors my experience thus far with this lens:

http://www.photography​blog.com …_70mm_f4_l_is_u​sm_review/

Looking good!

How are you finding it at 24mm stopped down, did you compare them in the corners at f8?

I'd love to see some more samples if you get the time!

kobeson wrote in post #15517014
Looking good!

How are you finding it at 24mm stopped down, did you compare them in the corners at f8?

I'd love to see some more samples if you get the time!

From my original post:

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

I found this to be the case at f/4, f/8, and f/16.

Sorry, I did see that the other day. So a slight edge still to the mk II? Well I am planning on testing the lens myself soon. Am now considering selling my 100L for it, I don't shoot 1:1 often at all, and I need a zoom.

I want a wide lens that is sharp in the corners for landscape, I want a light zoom lens with IS for event work, and I want something that gives me option for macro/close focus work also. On paper it ticks all those boxes, am desperate to know if it ticks them all in the real world.

kobeson wrote in post #15517289
Sorry, I did see that the other day. So a slight edge still to the mk II? Well I am planning on testing the lens myself soon. Am now considering selling my 100L for it, I don't shoot 1:1 often at all, and I need a zoom.

I want a wide lens that is sharp in the corners for landscape, I want a light zoom lens with IS for event work, and I want something that gives me option for macro/close focus work also. On paper it ticks all those boxes, am desperate to know if it ticks them all in the real world.

There seems to be some copy variation (as is often the case), but I guess got lucky. I think you will be impressed with the lens given your criteria.

I just did a test comparing the 24-70L II vs the 50L at f2.8 and I hate to say it but that zoom is very very good. It edges the prime by a little bit. Not quite what I expected.

If you need the 2.8 then it's a no brainer (it's that good) but if you stop down regularly then save some money and get the 24-70L f4 IS.

I would love some experienced help and advice on which way to go?
Would I be better off with the F4 version or the F 2.8 mk II.

Mainly shooting Portrait work ( lots with 3 Bowens strobes) and used for building renovation catalogue work (for this IQ isn't so important as being able to get a shot in difficult light eg under stairs carved cornice work etc or defects in say white marble tiles - flaws can be really difficult to capture quickly)

Circumstances are as below:-
I bought my 70-300F4-5.6 L is USM (4 stop is )
Extremely happy with it in all respects eg Compact / IQ / Price / Build Quality.
Mentally I selected its partner to be a 24-70 L series. No budget so didn't investigate too much.

I was very naive in thinking the 24-70 would be roughly in the same price bracket/league.
I waited for the F2.8 II to come out and was stunned by the £2300 ish price. But most shocking was I assumed it would have IS (yeah even at a reasonable price like £1600 to £1800 ), so to find it didn't have IS at this price was a big blow.

As I was saving for this I thought I'd wait for a great deal or something like a clearance sale. Now I see we have the F4 version with IS. So I'm torn both ways.

Hopefully I am correct that the image I see through my 70-300 F4 will be the same at 70 mm as the new F4 offering. For selection purposes I sort of looked forward to the lighter F 2.8 of the Mk II But am I correct if the new F4 gives me a four stop advantage in low light due to the latest IS system that's going to be like using it at F2? Or am I wrong.
If so this is a really tough call especially when a lot of my work is done using the Bowens strobes at F8 to F11 - ie no benefit there as I would shoot at a 1/250 flash synch speed with the 7D and later 1/200 with the 5Dmk3.
Plus as my camera for the next 6 months or even 9 month will be a crop 7D looks like many of the optical advantages of the F2.8 are as expected around the edge and corners of the image, so am I right in that the peachy part in the middle won't really take advantage of the F 2.8 's optical superiority?
NB after that plan to upgrade to 5D Mk3.
Only other one in the frame was the. 24-105 F4 pros of that are:- a bit more reach and
Maybe the 70 mm sweet spot would be more in its middle range when using the 7D and of course when I go to FF 100 mm is a favourite for my portrait work. Cons or negatives are IQ according to some reports are not as good and it's an older IS system so only gives a 3 stop advantage.
My leaning so far is
A) if the 24-70 F 2.8 had IS pay the money and shut up.
B) as the F2.8 doesn't have the IS - no point in paying top dollar for something that isn't perfect.
Problem is even though in theory the F4 and F2.8 are sort of equalised by the IS system in practice will the F 2.8 offer more. Hence views of anyone who has been through this in practice would be very welcome.