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

On a 7D you won't notice a great deal of difference between 24-105, 24-70 f4, 24-70 f2.8 & 24-70 f2.8 II. The corners on the mk II on a full frame camera are exceptional, and the 24-105 is quite weak here. But they are all reasonably close in the centre, and the prices aren't justified if not using the full frame.

If you plan to buy a 5D3 later on, then the 24-70 II will offer you the best image quality. The new 24-70 f4 is quite good stopped down, but I think the mk II is still the best lens at narrow apertures. I had a play with the f4 in a shop yesterday, it has a really nice feel, the small lightweight lens definitely has some advantages over its bigger brothers - if you don't need f2.8 it is a worthy lens.

kobeson wrote in post #15540623
On a 7D you won't notice a great deal of difference between 24-105, 24-70 f4, 24-70 f2.8 & 24-70 f2.8 II. The corners on the mk II on a full frame camera are exceptional, and the 24-105 is quite weak here. But they are all reasonably close in the centre, and the prices aren't justified if not using the full frame.

If you plan to buy a 5D3 later on, then the 24-70 II will offer you the best image quality. The new 24-70 f4 is quite good stopped down, but I think the mk II is still the best lens at narrow apertures. I had a play with the f4 in a shop yesterday, it has a really nice feel, the small lightweight lens definitely has some advantages over its bigger brothers - if you don't need f2.8 it is a worthy lens.

I'd say the 24-105 is still less crisp with the microcontrast even the center, but yeah it is FF where it falls apart, on APS-C the 24-105 is sharp just mrerely not crazy sharp like some of the others but on FF at the edges it is mush while 24-70 II is pretty sharp

Thanks Kobeson and Wombathorror.
Do you think the 24-70F2.8L USM needs the IS? I ask because at 70mm on my F4 70-300 turning off the IS makes a nasty difference but then its not 2.8!

I guess what I am asking is:-
I feel I could live with an F4 @ 70mm as long as it had a 4 stop IS system [as I have that now]. But would the 2.8 at 70mm without IS be as good or worse or better?
Really hoping it will be.

That really depends on your subject and situation. I have never missed the IS on the normal zoom. Went from 17-55 on crop to 24-70 on full frame, and haven't looked back. Then again, much of that has to do with the fact that I could bump my ISO with no worries, to get the proper shutter speed.

Submariner wrote in post #15542913
Thanks Kobeson and Wombathorror.
Do you think the 24-70F2.8L USM needs the IS? I ask because at 70mm on my F4 70-300 turning off the IS makes a nasty difference but then its not 2.8!

I guess what I am asking is:-
I feel I could live with an F4 @ 70mm as long as it had a 4 stop IS system [as I have that now]. But would the 2.8 at 70mm without IS be as good or worse or better?
Really hoping it will be.

the 2.8 II would be better if the subject is moving at all, worse if not (assuming you don't care about differences in DOF)

i suppose you could look at the tamron 24-70 2.8 VC too

Submariner wrote in post #15542913
Thanks Kobeson and Wombathorror.
Do you think the 24-70F2.8L USM needs the IS? I ask because at 70mm on my F4 70-300 turning off the IS makes a nasty difference but then its not 2.8!

I guess what I am asking is:-
I feel I could live with an F4 @ 70mm as long as it had a 4 stop IS system [as I have that now]. But would the 2.8 at 70mm without IS be as good or worse or better?
Really hoping it will be.

I have rented the 24-70 mk II for paid work, and I definitely wish it had IS on it at times. Even on my 5D3 I didn't want to bump the ISO too high, and in dimly lit settings I found at 70mm that I did have a bit of shake. I was shooting it mostly between f5.6-f11, and didn't use the f2.8 much at all.

I am thinking about the new f4 zoom, it is very nice to use, nice and compact and light. I have primes, I personally don't want a wide-standard zoom for the f2.8 either, so I see why you are stuck in 2 minds with the lenses.

I would suggest trying them both out in a camera store, which are sometimes quite dimly lit themselves - the last one I was in was anyway.

kobeson wrote in post #15544679
I have rented the 24-70 mk II for paid work, and I definitely wish it had IS on it at times. Even on my 5D3 I didn't want to bump the ISO too high, and in dimly lit settings I found at 70mm that I did have a bit of shake. I was shooting it mostly between f5.6-f11, and didn't use the f2.8 much at all.

Old thread, but ya lost me. You have a very capable high ISO camera that you won't use to it's potential (At high ISO) and you have a 2.8 lens that you use @ 5.6-11? Sounds like a Rebel XT and 17-85 would be a match made in heaven for you...

Bang away at ISO 10,000 all day on the 5D3 and it'll be like and XT @ 1600...

rejay14 wrote in post #16328733
Old thread, but ya lost me. You have a very capable high ISO camera that you won't use to it's potential (At high ISO) and you have a 2.8 lens that you use @ 5.6-11? Sounds like a Rebel XT and 17-85 would be a match made in heaven for you...

Bang away at ISO 10,000 all day on the 5D3 and it'll be like and XT @ 1600...

Perhaps you missed the part where I said I rented the lens for paid work, or didn't read my gear list in my signature - but I don't know how you could be so patronising when you have no idea of what I was shooting, nor the lighting conditions, nor the ISO I was shooting at.

Thanks for the advice, but I am fine without it

PS - 5D3 @ 6400 is actually closer to 1600 on the 500/600D

Yowtch.. Consider me scolded! Nope, no idea what you were shooting. My ESP is offline.

for a walk around lens I will simply not buy anything without IS, sometimes there's just no time to fiddle with ISO or what ever. First time I stepped away from Canon, got the Tamron, very happy. I don' tusually pixel peep, but I did for this lens to be sure I made the right decision. I did. And the extra money went to the 100l macro. Not sure why canon prices their lens so high, or decided not to put IS in it. I have the 17-55 on my crop, IS has helped me many many times with the kids. I'm sure it will do so with the Tammy as well.

I have yet to see a test or comparison where the canon has an upside that's worth that much more money to me, AND loosing IS. YMMV of course, but that's my take.

Now i dont really trust the lens sharpness thing, yesterday i compared my new 24-105 against my sigma 35 at f4 f5.6 f8 and f11. I expect The sigma to be alot sharper than the canon 24-105, but i cant really tell the difference between those two, cant even see a slight difference that i can prefer one to another. Right now the only reason to use my sigma is only if i need bigger aperture. I really doubt that 24-70 mk ii alot better tha 24-105 that you can see clearly even at 100% zoom

ICarumba wrote in post #16331108
Now i dont really trust the lens sharpness thing, yesterday i compared my new 24-105 against my sigma 35 at f4 f5.6 f8 and f11. I expect The sigma to be alot sharper than the canon 24-105, but i cant really tell the difference between those two, cant even see a slight difference that i can prefer one to another. Right now the only reason to use my sigma is only if i need bigger aperture. I really doubt that 24-70 mk ii alot better tha 24-105 that you can see clearly even at 100% zoom

Do this with any lens and you'll see little difference.... You are stopping down to the lenses' optimal apertures, where there is very little advantage one over the other.

Where "better" lenses come into their own is usually at their extremes, when you have to use it wide open or try to track movement in low light or otherwise are putting heavy demand on the lens.

I am certain at those apertures you compared there would be virtually no diff between the 24-70 II and 24-105... but the 24-105 is particularly bad at f2.8 to f3.5.

To make yourself really ill, compare the 24-105 to a 28-135 that costs 1/4 or 1/5 the price.

the problem with 24-70IS, is value, for some, compared to tamron 24-702.8 vc, canon 24-105, and canon original 24-70 2.8. when compared to 24-70 2.8 II, its much more justified. at a price point of under 1K, the 24-70 IS will sell well as a small and sharp with macro canon lens.
I also think 24-105 gets unfairly dogged, and at its price point of 700 new (as a part of kit separated) is a steal. it has a very good performance, and I find it perfectly fine for 30x20 landscape prints.
here is one at 40mm, f11