Best normal zoom for 6D: 24-70 F2.8 (old) or F4?

Hi Nick,

I like how you have rationalised every lens in your response and you seem to talk from experience so I'll go ahead and ask.

Someone is selling a barely used 24-70 2.8 Mark 1 in my neck of the woods (for slightly less than USD 1000).

I've not picked up the Mark 2 because I've not picked up the 6D yet. Like I've said, I'm definitely picking the 16-35 F4 because that isn't too pricey. But the price of the Mark 2 is making me think - should I just pick up the Mark 1 instead which is about half the price? I know optically Mark 2 is an improvement but, wouldn't Mark 1 be the second best option if I pitted it against all the other 24-XX range?

faizanrashid wrote in post #17677810
Hi Nick,

I like how you have rationalised every lens in your response and you seem to talk from experience so I'll go ahead and ask.

Someone is selling a barely used 24-70 2.8 Mark 1 in my neck of the woods (for slightly less than USD 1000).

I've not picked up the Mark 2 because I've not picked up the 6D yet. Like I've said, I'm definitely picking the 16-35 F4 because that isn't too pricey. But the price of the Mark 2 is making me think - should I just pick up the Mark 1 instead which is about half the price? I know optically Mark 2 is an improvement but, wouldn't Mark 1 be the second best option if I pitted it against all the other 24-XX range?

Unless you really, really need the 2.8 version, I'd go with one of the kits that has either the 24-105 or the 24-70 f/4 IS with the 6D.

B&H has the 6D w 24-105 for $1,799 USD

If it were me, I'd get that kit, see if I like the lens, and if not, sell the 24-105 and make a profit.

I have owed or rented the 24-70 f/4, the 24-105 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8 (both Canon versions).

I saw little difference in the first two and major differences in the last two. And sure the new 2.8 blows away both f/4's, but do you really need it?

Eastport wrote in post #17677898
I have owed or rented the 24-70 f/4, the 24-105 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8 (both Canon versions).

I saw little difference in the first two and major differences in the last two.

Thanks for your reply. Do you care to elaborate more on this? If you were to rank all 4 on image quality alone...what would it be?

About whether I really need 2.8, no not for landscapes but I find it gives me great portraits of my kids when I run around them with one lens that I can zoom in and out of depending on where they are. Also, I'm spoiled by my existing 17-55 2.8 which to me has set the expectation that with one lens i can shoot both great landscapes and portraits (indoors with flash, outdoors without).

I have the 24-70 'mk1' and the 'mk2'. The v2 is sharper and contrastier throughout the frame, at f2.8. It's also a very expensive lens. I bought it when I upgraded from the 11mp 1Ds to the 22mp 5D3.

I really like shooting at f2.8 for landscapes (and astro) and I can afford the cash, so the v2 is the right lens for me. But if you are shooting f7 to f13 (f13 is fantastic on my v1), and you don't pixel-peep like a nutcase, the v1 is a bargain.

FYI, I still have the v1. I'm finding it hard to let my old beloved equipement go...

faizanrashid wrote in post #17677908
Thanks for your reply. Do you care to elaborate more on this? If you were to rank all 4 on image quality alone...what would it be?

Never really did any controlled testing of these four lenses but here are my thoughts:

24-105 I have owned for many years and it has served me well. Good range, great color/contrast, decent IS, lousy distortion on the wide end. Big/heavy package with the 5D1, 2 or 3. Used it on all three.

24-70 f/4 IS Just rented it for a long weekend. Loved the size and weight. Cool macro. Same IQ as the 24-105. Maybe I'd buy it if I did not have the 24-105. Would not consider it an upgrade - just a lateral move for a somewhat different lens. Nice color and contrast. No complaints.

24-70 (original) f/2.8 - the brick. I owned it for less than a year. Really big and heavy. Loved it indoors for static shots. With a flash, no different (at 4.0 and stopped down further) than the 24-105. Outdoors, no better than the 28-135 IS at 5.6 on down. I wanted to like it but I kept finding myself cranking up the shutter speed to account for the weight. Still, does it have better IQ than the above two? For many types of shots, yes. Others, no.

24-70 f/2.8 II - rented it for a week - took maybe 2,000-3,000 shots. Loved that lens. It is a major step up from the above three. Still heavy but it did not seem to bother me as much as the brick. Would love to be able to afford it. Excellent across the board.

But, my point to you is, it costs you nothing to try the 24-105 with the kit. Much better business deal than renting. Then, go rent the 24-70 f/2.8 II. Maybe you will think it too large/heavy or that you need IS. Maybe not. I firmly believe there is no one size fits all for a walk around lens on a full frame.

So for those who have pitched in here and others reading this, I pulled the trigger and got the 6D with the 24-70 2.8 II a couple of days ago. First impressions are very pleasng. The body is great and while I lose some of the things I've been used to (like the joystick) to me it's just a matter of getting used to the new controls. As an example, the way you zoom into a photo when playing back isn't as nifty as in the 7D but once I learned what the alternative was (use the zoom button to go a preferred zoom magnification such as X4, or X8 etc., and then use the main control wheel to zoom further) this didn't seem to bother me at all.

About the lens, which is how this entire discussion kicked off in the first place - all I'll say is to me it almost seems to give prime level results. The test shots I've taken are very sharp and clear. Compared to the 17-55 2.8 which was my most used lens before this, it's also a bit warmer (but I shoot RAW 99% of the time, so not something I'm concerned about). Together lens (heavy) and body (light) are about the same total weight as 7D + 17-55 so I'm very used to carry this around.

For me, the 2.8 makes all the difference. Not only does it take beautiful looking images wide open, but the bokeh looks fantastic. I'm glad I didn't compromise. I'm not sure how the lens will perform when used for landscape (though my primary lens for that will be the as yet unbought 16-35 F4) but if online review are any indication, it should not disappoint. Finally, here is a picture of my son (one of the first shots I took with the new body/glass) SOOC (the image has been rotated).

faizanrashid wrote in post #17676842
So I'm reviving this thread (OP here) because I'm about to pull the trigger on picking up a 6D (a year later that planned!!!). I'm still not entirely sure what lens do go for apart from 16-35 F4. I know there were dozens of recommendations made but I'd restrict myself to either of the following and nothing else: Canon 24-70 F4, Canon 24-70 F2.8 Mark II or Canon 24-105 F4. So after reading tons of reviews and looking at image samples I think the best general purpose walk around that would be suitable for the kind of stuff I shoot is Canon 24-70 Mark II. With the others I feel I would be compromising in some way.

I also just got back from a nice trip to England and the lens I used most was the 17-55 2.8 on my 7D. The best thing about this lens (with F2.8) is I can every easily get great landscapes/architectur​e as well as photos of my kids without changing the lens. To make it easier to illustrate here are some pics, all taken with the mighty 17-55 2.8. Again, without compromising on what I'm after I feel that only the Canon 24-70 2.8 Mark II would fill the gap of my existing 17-55 when I move to FF.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xjyB​5Z Sarah_outside by Faizan Rashid, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xjyz​ue Adam_outside by Faizan Rashid, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/wiJQ​aq Towers Bridge Sunset by Faizan Rashid, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xdrX​8S Big Ben Sunset by Faizan Rashid, on Flickr

Great Shots! All taken with the 17-55?

Yup, all of these were with the trust 17-55. Marvellous lens and the reason I wanted something as good when going FF.

Early indications are that the 24-70 will 2.8 II be more than capable of rising to the challenge.