Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 18 Apr 2015 (Saturday) 17:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-70 IS f4 vs 24-70 II 2.8

 
kdvincent
Senior Member
Avatar
929 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
     
Apr 18, 2015 17:02 |  #1

I looked for this and couldn't find a thread. (that usually means there have been 5 of them).
I had my 24-70 2.8 "borrowed" by a thief. I get to replace it. Any thoughts between these two. Cost is not the issue, I get replacement costs.
Keith
I shoot a lot of portrait and art work, not so much landscape.


Keith, Canon 7D, 5D, 5DMII, 30D,
bunch of glass, lights and modifiers

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
se7enxn9ne
Member
Avatar
223 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 290
Joined Sep 2012
     
Apr 18, 2015 18:20 |  #2

I own both lenses, the 24-70 II is my favorite lens out of my whole collection followed by the 70-200 ii. Those 2 together are the best combined. The 24-70 II has the prime lens quality/look to it on the images. The f4 is is also great, but the image sharpness isn't quite as good as the 2.8 II. If iq isn't a priority nor speed, then the f4 is a good choice. Otherwise 2.8 II should be your choice if it matters. Macro feature on the f4 is pretty good too, although I have the 100mm 2.8 that I use for that. If you get the 2.8 II, you'll be set for a really long time in terms of a standard zoom lens. Bokeh is excellent btw.


IG: 8ightyse7en
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
se7enxn9ne
Member
Avatar
223 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 290
Joined Sep 2012
Post edited over 6 years ago by se7enxn9ne.
     
Apr 18, 2015 18:24 |  #3

Also, go to YouTube and check out the videos. I watched the digital rev videos on the 2 lenses over and over for about 5-6 times. How'd I end up with both lenses? I bought the f4 thinking I would be good, but the 2.8 II was such a bargain a few weeks after the f4. I maybe selling my f4 soon to raise money for a vacation I'm planning, so if you're interested I'll give you a really good price on it. Its quite fairly new and in excellent condition.


IG: 8ightyse7en
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cjman106
Member
Avatar
32 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: So Cal
     
Apr 18, 2015 19:40 |  #4

If money isn't a factor then I would go with the 2.8.


Gear: 6D, Nifty Fifty, 24-105L, 35L, 85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
3,223 posts
Likes: 406
Joined Oct 2014
     
Apr 18, 2015 19:55 |  #5

2.8 II. Used the F4 IS and it just wasn't the same. Something about how little light let in. It's lightweight, but didn't see the point of lugging around a 5D3 without having that f/2.8 aperture.


I like big cinema cameras and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GregDunn
Goldmember
Avatar
1,289 posts
Likes: 130
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
     
Apr 18, 2015 21:42 |  #6

You can get a 24-105 f/4 for much less than the 24-70 f/4, which to me makes the 24-70 overpriced. I actually bought a 24-70 f/2.8 mk I (still cheaper than the f/4) and have been delighted with it. Couldn't justify the price of the mk II yet.


Canon 1Dx | 5D3 | 7D2 | 6D | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 70-200L f/4 | 24-70L f/2.8 | 24-105L f/4IS | 100-400L f/4.5-5.6IS | 17-55 f/2.8IS | 50 f/1.8 | 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 | 4x Godox AD360

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tapeman
Sliced Bread
Avatar
3,723 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 124
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Twin Cities
     
Apr 19, 2015 09:44 |  #7

Tough choice.
One has better image quality and one stop faster, the other has more range and IS. There is also about $1K. difference in price.

I own both and there are times when one is more useful to me than the other.


Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII, 2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2.
Gitzo 1228, 1275, 1558, Lensbaby 3G. Epson 3880, Bags that match my shoes.:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturography
Goldmember
Avatar
1,264 posts
Gallery: 124 photos
Likes: 4298
Joined Nov 2011
Location: PA
     
Apr 20, 2015 21:26 |  #8

F4 IS can do macro better that other zoom cant touch except a true macro prime. 2.8 ii cant even do macro so take your pick for a stop faster and "slightly" sharper (this can be increased in pp) but the cost is around 800-850 at the moment. You can get a 35A or 50A with that extra... and macro ability.


IG@ phuong_fotos

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,959 posts
Gallery: 2066 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 12549
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Apr 20, 2015 21:53 |  #9

kdvincent wrote in post #17522889 (external link)
I looked for this and couldn't find a thread. (that usually means there have been 5 of them).
I had my 24-70 2.8 "borrowed" by a thief. I get to replace it. Any thoughts between these two. Cost is not the issue, I get replacement costs.
Keith
I shoot a lot of portrait and art work, not so much landscape.

Heya,

Did you use your F2.8 at F4 all the time?

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kdvincent
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
929 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Post edited over 6 years ago by kdvincent.
     
Apr 23, 2015 18:05 |  #10

Thanks to everyone for their help. I still haven't decided. The 24-70 ver I wasn't sharp enough for portrait work. Sounds like Ver II should be sharper.


Keith, Canon 7D, 5D, 5DMII, 30D,
bunch of glass, lights and modifiers

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Apr 23, 2015 18:55 as a reply to  @ kdvincent's post |  #11

The MKI wasn't sharp enough for portraits? You must have had a horrid copy!


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
3,223 posts
Likes: 406
Joined Oct 2014
     
Apr 23, 2015 19:12 as a reply to  @ jimewall's post |  #12

Why is this such a surprise after 20 years? See Roger Cicala's article on the 24-70 mk i.


I like big cinema cameras and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Apr 23, 2015 20:27 as a reply to  @ idkdc's post |  #13

Why? (Because) The MKI should be still be more than sharp enough for portraits (unless it is not working correctly). That is also what I got out of one R.C.'s articles.

I also don't understand your "after 20 years" comment?


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,317 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 532
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
Post edited over 6 years ago by ed rader.
     
Apr 23, 2015 22:29 |  #14

the best vs the second best. and when I say best I mean the best on the planet. second best means second best made by canon. I chose the best.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snerd
Senior Member
Avatar
662 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 188
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Post edited over 6 years ago by snerd.
     
Apr 23, 2015 22:51 |  #15

I haven't used the f/4, but I can tell you the 2.8 II is an incredible lens! Fast, super sharp and the colors are fantastic! Like was said above, between it and the 70-200 II, there is not much I can't have fun with.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,593 views & 2 likes for this thread
24-70 IS f4 vs 24-70 II 2.8
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is LoDesertWolf
835 guests, 229 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.