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 21 May 2015 (Thursday) 10:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Goodbye Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II, I choose the superior f/4L version!

 
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,142 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 456
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
May 22, 2015 04:37 as a reply to  @ post 17565982 |  #31

a rebel and 18-55 is fine for most people.


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, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
sploo
premature adulation
2,414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 464
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
May 22, 2015 05:25 |  #32

Ignoring the obvious elephant in the room (the cost of the 24-70II) it's totally horses for courses. From my point of view, I looked at the data in my Lightroom catalog and realised that:

  • Most of my shots (then taken with an IS lens) were faster than the 1/focal length rule (i.e. IS not crucial)
  • Many shots in the 35-70mm range were portraits (often of kids) so you need a much faster shutter speed than the 1/focal length rule in order to freeze the subject (i.e. IS not really useful)
  • Being able to AF at f/2.8 would be useful, as some portrait work was in pretty low light (IS not relevant)
  • Shots where I'd used a slow shutter speed were generally landscape/macro/archit​ecture where I was on a tripod (IS not appropriate)

That's not to say I never get a scenario where I don't need IS, but the above, and the fact the 24-70II is basically like a bag of primes (f/2.8 primes granted, but still razor sharp) lead me to the wallet killer.

The 24-70 f/4L IS looks to be a great choice if IS is important for your shooting, or you like to do an occasional bit of macro work (and don't have a dedicated lens). I understand the Sigma 24-105mm f4 OS is also a pretty good choice. As already mentioned on this thread - the Tamron 24-70 VC makes a very good case for itself too.

I guess we should just be grateful that we're spoiled for choice with good lens options in this focal length range!

Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
delta0014
Senior Member
Avatar
316 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 101
Joined Oct 2013
Location: GA
     
May 22, 2015 05:39 |  #33

SixDeeFan wrote in post #17565982 (external link)
My point is the f/4L IS is MORE useful, for MORE people, MOST of the time...for HALF the price making it a superior lens to the f/2.8L for virtually everyone!

That's not even remotely true. You can argue which is better for the price but that's about it. The vast majority of people do not need IS on a 24-70 so that makes it irrelevant.


5D Mark IV
24-70L f2.8 ii / 85L ii / 135L / Rokinon 14mm f2.8
Yongnuo 600RT x 3
Just a hobby - CC always welcome.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rantercsr
Goldmember
Avatar
3,220 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 6679
Joined Mar 2014
     
May 22, 2015 06:57 |  #34

At most events that I've been to i find i end up at 2.8 atleast half the time..unless I'm using flash but I like to avoid it at most times
I do want an IS lens .. and was debating between this 24-70 or the 24-105.. but I already have most of the focal range covered with my 24-70ii..maybe end up getting 16-35 f4is..
Really I only find i need it for video..like it would make a drastic difference ..the times when I'm doing still and think IS would have been nice are rare


I got a couple of Cameras and lenses ...Canon, Sony, Fuji, Pansonic, pentax
My portraits IG (external link)My everything else IG (external link)
MY flickr (external link)
My latest YT video -->https://youtu.be/YzJ1o​eiHm7Y (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SixDeeFan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
296 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 158
Joined Aug 2014
Location: Irvine, CA
     
May 22, 2015 07:06 |  #35

delta0014 wrote in post #17566489 (external link)
That's not even remotely true. You can argue which is better for the price but that's about it. The vast majority of people do not need IS on a 24-70 so that makes it irrelevant.

Really? Why is that? It seems that statement tends to be made by people with a favorite lens sans IS! I guess the argument could be made that most people don't need AF either...hhmmmm.

BTW, the build quality of the two lenses is identical.


Canon 90D | Tamron SP 35 f/1.4L DI | Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC G2 | Tamron SP 2X Pro TC | Tamron TAP-in Console

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
delta0014
Senior Member
Avatar
316 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 101
Joined Oct 2013
Location: GA
     
May 22, 2015 07:19 |  #36

SixDeeFan wrote in post #17566536 (external link)
It seems that statement tends to be made by people with a favorite lens sans IS!

You could say the same thing about people claiming the cheaper lens that they own is superior.

If both of them were the same exact price, how many 24-70 f4 lens would be sold?

And really, what do you need IS for?


5D Mark IV
24-70L f2.8 ii / 85L ii / 135L / Rokinon 14mm f2.8
Yongnuo 600RT x 3
Just a hobby - CC always welcome.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jchap
Member
Avatar
30 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 2
Joined May 2015
Location: US
Post edited over 4 years ago by Jchap. (4 edits in all)
     
May 22, 2015 07:41 |  #37

No way the 4L is superior (IQ) to the 2.8L II. More practical (for me) in most situations, yes. Will it get used more, yes.

Given the weight, cost/value of the 4L could Canon be positioning this as a kit lens for FF DSLRs?


/ 6D / 40 stm / 24-70 2.8L (sold) / 24-70 4L IS / 100 2.8L IS Macro / 70-200 4L IS /

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,267 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3685
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
May 22, 2015 08:27 |  #38

Jchap wrote in post #17566575 (external link)
Given the weight, cost/value of the 4L could Canon be positioning this as a kit lens for FF DSLRs?

No, they already bundle with the 24-105.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Poindexter
Senior Member
Avatar
717 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 257
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Vermont
     
May 22, 2015 08:53 |  #39

asty80 wrote in post #17565786 (external link)
How does the 24-105 f/4 L IS compare against the 24-70 f/4 L?

I have both of those. The IQ and IS of the newer 24-70mm is better between my copies of these lenses. The 24-105mm was my go to lens for the last decade, but I am reaching for the 24-70mm more often now. Will I get rid of the 24-105mm? Hell no! The zoom range makes the 24-105mm a no-brainer for situations where you're only going to be walking around with a single lens. And it is still a fantastic lens. Newer technology has simply made the 24-70mm a little better for those focal lengths.

As for the f2.8 vs f4 debate please allow me to offer some advice I received when I was making my decision between those versions of the 24-70mm range. Pull up Lightroom and look at the last 12 months of images you've shot. Sort by images taken at f2.8 and ask yourself if f2.8 was necessary for the conditions or if you were more interested in getting a little more background blur. I didn't have to ask myself about the background blur because f2.8 or wider was something I shot less than 3% of the time. That realization has made me really rethink my lens lineup.


flickr (external link) | SmugMug (external link) | Gear (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,112 posts
Likes: 199
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
May 22, 2015 08:58 |  #40

Sploo has officially coined the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II as...............

"The Wallet Killer"

:-):-P:-D


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,087 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
Post edited over 4 years ago by Talley.
     
May 22, 2015 09:19 |  #41

Poindexter wrote in post #17566653 (external link)
As for the f2.8 vs f4 debate please allow me to offer some advice I received when I was making my decision between those versions of the 24-70mm range. Pull up Lightroom and look at the last 12 months of images you've shot. Sort by images taken at f2.8 and ask yourself if f2.8 was necessary for the conditions or if you were more interested in getting a little more background blur. I didn't have to ask myself about the background blur because f2.8 or wider was something I shot less than 3% of the time. That realization has made me really rethink my lens lineup.

Interesting. I did just that. I've had my 5D3 for 14 months and have 25k in my catalog. You can see the total breakdown per aperture. I wonder... do I ever stop down??? Of the total of the F4 and F4.5 80% of those are the 24-105 or the 70-200 F4 IS so looks like I'm a wide open stuck type person.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,112 posts
Likes: 199
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
May 22, 2015 09:37 |  #42

The real "Solution" may be that Canon finally produces the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS Mark III. Yes, with Image Stabilization.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SixDeeFan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
296 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 158
Joined Aug 2014
Location: Irvine, CA
     
May 22, 2015 09:47 |  #43

Jchap wrote in post #17566575 (external link)
No way the 4L is superior (IQ) to the 2.8L II. More practical (for me) in most situations, yes. Will it get used more, yes.

Did someone say the f/4L had superior IQ over the 2.8? Don't think so. Just that the IQ is so close the vast majority of people would never be able to tell the difference under normal circumstances. BTW, IS would be VERY valuable in this lens. Just look at the number of people asking for it!


Canon 90D | Tamron SP 35 f/1.4L DI | Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC G2 | Tamron SP 2X Pro TC | Tamron TAP-in Console

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
apersson850
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,098 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 329
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Traryd, Sweden
     
May 22, 2015 09:56 |  #44

Nick5 wrote in post #17566720 (external link)
The real "Solution" may be that Canon finally produces the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS Mark III. Yes, with Image Stabilization.

And then we don't get a wallet killer, but rather a vault killer.


Anders

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1210
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
May 22, 2015 10:07 |  #45

delta0014 wrote in post #17566489 (external link)
That's not even remotely true. You can argue which is better for the price but that's about it. The vast majority of people do not need IS on a 24-70 so that makes it irrelevant.

First of all, I own the 24-70 II and the 24-105 F4 IS.

I can tell you, as I have personally run almost exhausting tests on handheld sharpness, that if you want to extract the last 10% and 5% of a lens' sharpness for handheld tack sharp images (why else would you be paying $2k for the 24-70 II), and you want to take a statistical approach and see how many out of 10 can you get, then 1/FL is not good enough for the 24-70II if you want to be above 80% hit rate for 'tack sharp'. Again, I am not saying, if I have 10 shots, can i get a single 'sharp' image at 1/60th to 1/80th at 70mm using the 24-70 2.8 II - yes you can. What I am saying is can you get 8 to 9 out of 10 'tack sharp' images at 1/60th to 1/80th at 70mm - no way - I have tried it many times - not remotely possible. If you care about 'tack sharp' and you are using the 24-70 @70mm (which most wedding pros live at either end 24mm or 70mm of this lens) then you need to be at least using 1/2xFL - at least. Many times you don't need 'tack sharp' as you can get by with 'sharp' but 'tack sharp' is an entirely different ballgame.

When I use the 24-70 2.8 II for paid work I like to be at a minimum of SS = 1/250th with no flash - it is at that SS at 70mm where you are getting 9/10 images that you can say are indistinguishable between being on a tripod and being handheld. If you are into heavy post processing work, using grain, softening the images for a more painted look then none of the above remotely matters.

For me, statistically what is very obvious, is that IS either on the 24-105 or 24-70 F4s basically means that not only can you shoot at far lower SS, but your hit rate when doing so is way, way, way higher for 'tack sharpness'.

Anecdotally, in my opinion, it is one of the reasons why so many pros LOVE the 70-200 F2.8 IS II - not only is it sharp and has great contrast, but you can handhold it @ 200mm easily at 1/50th and get 'tack sharp' images 9/10 times all day long - which is 1 / (1/4 FL).

My own experimenting with hit rates handholding the 24-70 F2.8 II @70mm, the 85 F1.2 and the 135 F2, without flash, have led me to try and incorporate a monopod into my shooting when possible - I have a RRS Monopod head on a Manfrotto 561 Monopod - and with that setup, the above 3 lens transform and can be shot at 1/40 and produce tack sharp images.

I would sell the 24-70 2.8 II in a heartbeat if they came out with an IS version.

Finally, I was chatting with 2 local wedding pros recently, and I was a bit surprised, but not really, that both had recently ditched the 24-70 F2.8 (both had old versions). Both were 1 camera shooters. One went with the Canon 24-105 F4 IS and the other went with the 24-70 F4 IS. Both then switched to various faster primes as needed. I asked both of them what was the deciding factor - both said they rarely found themselves shooting at or wanting to shoot at F2.8 during weddings - either wanted F2 or wider for lower light or subject isolation or @ F4-F8 for Dof or sharpness. The are both very experienced wedding pros - so I found the decisions very interesting.


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

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

16,806 views & 6 likes for this thread
Goodbye Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II, I choose the superior f/4L version!
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 Darkod
1496 guests, 216 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.