Canon 24-70 debate.

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II vs Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS
I have been using my trusty old Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS on my 7D for many years. When using on a 5D Mark III, distortion is prevalent on the Wide End as noted.
This leads me into thinking of adding one of the above to my collection.
Both are Sharper and have less distortion compared to the 24-105.
F/4 IS vs f/2.8.
Sure we would have loved Canon to incorporate IS into the f/2.8 Mark II, but unfortunately they did not.
Looking for forum members here that may have had some real life workings and comparisons of both the f/2.8 L Mark II and f/4 L IS.
Thank you.

The question is, if you need IS more or 2.8 more.
To be honest I tought really about this same decision, and my finaly decision was, that I will get a 24-70 f/2.8 L USM (Mk1).

For me, altough the Mk II is a little bit sharper, you will never notice it in any print, exept when you are cropping to 100%, but if you need to crop to 100%, then better use a 70-200 lens

The Mk II for me does not rectify the prize tag, with IS in it, I would be ok with that prize, but not without the IS, not to mention, that the Mk 1 is more robust, and I think the design is also better.

The 24-70 f/4 IS, is a lens I never considered to be honest, altough I tought a lot about the 24-105, but I think the 24-70 Mk 1 will be the right choice for me, as I have a 70-200mm 2.8 also.

Nick5 wrote in post #16713189
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II vs Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS
I have been using my trusty old Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS on my 7D for many years. When using on a 5D Mark III, distortion is prevalent on the Wide End as noted.
This leads me into thinking of adding one of the above to my collection.
Both are Sharper and have less distortion compared to the 24-105.
F/4 IS vs f/2.8.
Sure we would have loved Canon to incorporate IS into the f/2.8 Mark II, but unfortunately they did not.
Looking for forum members here that may have had some real life workings and comparisons of both the f/2.8 L Mark II and f/4 L IS.
Thank you.

I only have the 2.8. I have dumped all of my f/4 lenses, and only the 500mm had good reason to be f/4. 2.8 equals speed over 4. If you are shooting non-moving subjects in bright light you only need f/4. If you want beautiful bokeh, shutter speeds of 1/2000th sec to stop fast action, you need the extra power of light gathering offered by the 2.8. That is all.

I just bought the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 II about a week ago.

It was a tough decision, but from the reviews I checked out
the F2.8 seemed sharper.

Here is a video I shot last week with the Canon 24-70mm
F2.8 II:

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=Ck2AVSr2hoQ

The images have lots of colour and contrast and they
seem to appear almost 3 dimensional.

It all comes down to your budget.

Craig

The IS doesn't get you the DOF of f/2.8. No real need for IS on that lens. If you want IS then you have the f/4 or 24-105 f/4.

Nick5 wrote in post #16713189
Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II vs Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS
I have been using my trusty old Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS on my 7D for many years. When using on a 5D Mark III, distortion is prevalent on the Wide End as noted.
This leads me into thinking of adding one of the above to my collection.
Both are Sharper and have less distortion compared to the 24-105.
F/4 IS vs f/2.8.
Sure we would have loved Canon to incorporate IS into the f/2.8 Mark II, but unfortunately they did not.
Looking for forum members here that may have had some real life workings and comparisons of both the f/2.8 L Mark II and f/4 L IS.
Thank you.

Heya,

It's pretty simple. You either need F2.8 and have $2.5k to throw at it. Or you are commonly shooting at F4 anyways, and the choice becomes clear.

I tend to try to get the widest I can afford in shorter focal lengths. But that 24-70 MKII is just way too expensive in my opinion. I would love the F2.8.

So that said, my option would be: Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC.

Very best,

yea, I would think the bokeh of 2.8 vs the low light capabilities of 2.8 would be my major deciding factoer, seeing as how the FF sensors have such a low light advantage. well, that and cost.

I weighed up both lenses a while back, and decided for $1000 cheaper, the 24-70 f4 IS that I bought 'white boxed' was worth the punt. I didn't want the lens for wide aperture, I have 35/50/85 primes for that. I needed something sharp corner to corner, wanted little distortion, and to be honest I wanted the IS. I use mine for event work such as weddings, and shooting handheld in low light with the f2.8 II which I rented several times before buying the f4, there were times when I had a bit of camera shake in my photos.

It also makes a great landscape lens, but stopped down I'm sure they all do - actually, I find the 24-70 f4 sharper than the 24-105 stopped down. It is very sharp.

As far as IQ goes, in regards to colours, sharpness, distortion, flare, CA - the 24-70 f4 is very close to the 24-70 f2.8 II. I have shot both. They are both noticeably better than the mk I and also the 24-105.

It really does come down to budget, and which you need more f2.8 or IS. If you can have a couple of primes in your bag for low light, the f4 IS is a good purchase IMO - I love the lens. So compact too, much smaller and lighter than the alternatives. I see you have a 50 and an 85, I would even suggest the 24-70 f4 + Sigma 35 f1.4 would be better purchase for similar cost of the 24-70 II.

If you NEED f2.8 and IS, the Tamron is quite good also - I have tested it out a few times, in stores only though.

I

I have the 24-70 II. 24-70 f/4, and the 24-105. Haven't had time to do a head to head comparison. I bought the 24-105 for my daughter's camera.

I bought the 24-70II before I bought the 24-70 f4. For what I do most (landscape and some indoor stuff), the IS is more valuable than the F2.8. I want to be able to shoot at low ISO and slow speed to get better DOF.

Both work well and both are boring to use. Stick with your 24-105 and add some primes for lower light use, sharper images, and less distortion.

Ken Nielsen wrote in post #16713952
I only have the 2.8. I have dumped all of my f/4 lenses, and only the 500mm had good reason to be f/4. 2.8 equals speed over 4. If you are shooting non-moving subjects in bright light you only need f/4. If you want beautiful bokeh, shutter speeds of 1/2000th sec to stop fast action, you need the extra power of light gathering offered by the 2.8. That is all.

One thing I would add...if you shoot non moving objects is lower light, the IS is a huge benefit.

Numenorean wrote in post #16714386
The IS doesn't get you the DOF of f/2.8. No real need for IS on that lens. If you want IS then you have the f/4 or 24-105 f/4.

Well if IS is good on the F4 lens, why in the world would it not be good on the 2.8 lens. Makes zero sense.

Staszek wrote in post #16715593
Both work well and both are boring to use. Stick with your 24-105 and add some primes for lower light use, sharper images, and less distortion.

Exactly. For the price of the 24-70 II, you can add the Sigma 35, 50 and 85 primes.

kdrk888 wrote in post #16715163
I have the 24-70 II. 24-70 f/4, and the 24-105. Haven't had time to do a head to head comparison.

Would be interesting to hear your thoughts about the 24-70/2.8L II and the 24-70/4L in terms of "real life" image quality, color, contrast etc. I'm not thinking about semi-scientific comparisons but your subjective general impression ("gut feeling") with those lenses after working with/processing files taken with both of them.

I can tell you that with the 24-70 II, the images SOOC need less much less work in PP. The sharpness, the color rendition, etc. are that much better on it. Whether it is worth the price is something only you can determine, but it is definitely in the elite league as far as IQ is concerned.