Move from 24-105 F4 IS to 24-70 2.8II - will I miss IS ?

I think you will miss the IS. Keep what you have and borrow/rent if the need is really there for those certain times.

Nickoff wrote in post #17820729
I have that twitching feeling again for new glass (and it's Xmas!). My main workhorse is the 24-105L that I use as a general purpose, jack of most trades lens. I'm a hobbyist and shoot mainly landscapes, overseas trips, family and friends etc. I suppose my biggest let down with the lens is sharpness and speed, although the length is great if you just want to cart around one lens. I would say, skill wise, I'm OK but not in the same league as many of the posters of this forum and don't have the steadiest of hands. Have those that have moved to the 24-70 2.8II ever missed IS ? Also, I assume that many team this lens with the 70-200 2.8II and as two lens rig for general shooting?

Heya,

Rent it and see for yourself?

Personally, if I have the option to get stabilization, I would get it, in a general purpose lens. You already have that in your 24-105L. The move to a sharper, faster medium range zoom is going to cost you in some way, be it compromise or in literal cash.

You could try to get it all in one lens, but Canon doesn't produce that yet. They will milk the 24-70 flavor until they finally release the F2.8 IS II at some point.

So in the mean time, you have Tamron's 24-70 F2.8 VC. It's nearly as good as the MKII, fast F2.8, and has good stabilization (VC). It's also significantly cheaper. If you find you like 24-70 instead of 24-105, and don't miss the last 34mm of focal length for some reason, you could sell your 24-105L and buy the Tamron 24-70 with a lot less out of pocket.

But ultimately I think you should rent the lenses you are considering and see if it's worth it to you for how you shoot.

Very best,

Keep the 24-105 IS. Buy a fast prime if I were you. The 24-70ii is nice but way overpriced. I'll use that $ in a 85L or add a 70-200ii.

Sold and bought the 24-105L three times, last time I bought it back with 5D3 kit and would never sell it again. f/2.8 isn't fast enough anyway so whenever I need speed I'd rather have a f/1.4 prime, the zoom range is much more useful with the 24-105. Personally i would never even consider the 24-70 2.8 II, it's not fast enough and the zoom range is inferior as a general walkaround lens.

Thanks for all your thoughts. I think I'll rent one over the Xmas period and see if I like it enough to hand over the cash. If I go fast prime I know I'll end up in the 24 V 35 debate....!

Have a great Xmas everyone and all the best for the new year.

Nick

Nickoff wrote in post #17823108
Thanks for all your thoughts. I think I'll rent one over the Xmas period and see if I like it enough to hand over the cash. If I go fast prime I know I'll end up in the 24 V 35 debate....!

Have a great Xmas everyone and all the best for the new year.

Nick

Hey Nick, good name! . I made the dumb mistake of trading up my 24-105L towards a 24-70 2.8 II and honestly I missed having the IS of the former. I made a compromise and exchanged that for the 24-70 f4 IS because it was beating the 24-105 in almost every category. Haven't looked back since. May want to consider. To me the extra 1$k wasn't worth the extra stop.

Nick

nfoerster wrote in post #17824877
Hey Nick, good name! . I made the dumb mistake of trading up my 24-105L towards a 24-70 2.8 II and honestly I missed having the IS of the former. I made a compromise and exchanged that for the 24-70 f4 IS because it was beating the 24-105 in almost every category. Haven't looked back since. May want to consider. To me the extra 1$k wasn't worth the extra stop.

Nick

Interested in you observations regarding to 24-70 F2.8 V2, mainly because they are completely opposite to my experiences. Still we are all different!
I rarely use my 24-70 V2 more open than F5.6 yet my images are far better than all the 24-105/24-70 F4s that I have tried/owned. I can only guess you may have had a sub standard 24-70 F2.8 V2?
As to the lack of IS? Well I find it useless on my Canon 800mm (yes I often hand hold it) so it's hardly going to be an issue at these focal lengths!
As I said we are all different but even before I had eye surgery I could see the advantages of the 24-70 F2.8 V2 on the rear screen of my camera - let alone my monitor or a print.
Still if the 24-70 F4 works better for you then that's great.

johnf3f wrote in post #17825013
Interested in you observations regarding to 24-70 F2.8 V2, mainly because they are completely opposite to my experiences. Still we are all different!
I rarely use my 24-70 V2 more open than F5.6 yet my images are far better than all the 24-105/24-70 F4s that I have tried/owned. I can only guess you may have had a sub standard 24-70 F2.8 V2?
As to the lack of IS? Well I find it useless on my Canon 800mm (yes I often hand hold it) so it's hardly going to be an issue at these focal lengths!
As I said we are all different but even before I had eye surgery I could see the advantages of the 24-70 F2.8 V2 on the rear screen of my camera - let alone my monitor or a print.
Still if the 24-70 F4 works better for you then that's great.

You asked if you were going to miss IS. I bought the 24-70II and missed it. In post, I was getting much more usable shots with the f4. It sounds like you have a pretty stable set of hands though, so it may not be an issue for you either way.

nfoerster wrote in post #17826192
You asked if you were going to miss IS. I bought the 24-70II and missed it. In post, I was getting much more usable shots with the f4. It sounds like you have a pretty stable set of hands though, so it may not be an issue for you either way.

Well I have pretty weak arms, smoke too much and drink too much - I don't think any of those are good for stability. Perhaps I have hammered/abused my body so much that it doesn't twitch any more!
The slowest shutter speeds relative to focal length I have managed recently was when trying out the Sigma 150-600 Sports. Quite a nice lens with excellent balance which allowed sharp shots at 1/160th at 600mm (with that nasty OS thingy turned off). I am sure a younger/fitter person could have done better, I strongly suspect that I am not a Super Hero!

Nickoff wrote in post #17820729
... I'm OK but not in the same league as many of the posters of this forum and don't have the steadiest of hands. Have those that have moved to the 24-70 2.8II ever missed IS ? Also, I assume that many team this lens with the 70-200 2.8II and as two lens rig for general shooting?

You will never miss IS. Remember there was a time when no lens had IS. Guess what? We managed to get along just fine.
The combo of the 24-70mm f2.8L II and the 70-200mm f2.8L II are the two best lenses of their kind on the planet.

Again, my 2 cents.

ebiggs wrote in post #17827313
You will never miss IS. Remember there was a time when no lens had IS. Guess what? We managed to get along just fine.
The combo of the 24-70mm f2.8L II and the 70-200mm f2.8L II are the two best lenses of their kind on the planet.

Again, my 2 cents.

I agree with some of the above but also disagree. With a move to higher megapixel cameras it does matter. I can tell you that my wedding only Canon 24-70 F2.8 II lens (historically used on a 5D3) is now my favourite lens on my Sony A7Rii - and it is because of IBIS and the 42 megapixel cropability which makes the lens act like a 24-140 F2.8 IS lens (which for most people would be the only lens ever needed). IS and lots of megapixels mean you can crop cleanly and it works.

This is a side point, but given the Original Poster has both a 50L and 135L, I would like to make the following comment - the 135L on a Sony A7Rii and be easily handheld at 1/20th and get tack sharp images - on a camera like the 5DSR you need to be up at 1/640 to get repeated clean images with that lens on the 5DSR.

I'm a big believer and use the 2 camera 24-70, 70-200 F2.8 event shooter setup - but for portraits of family members and all around everything else, you just can't beat the FL range of 24-105 with IS. If the OP didn't own the Canon version I would highly suggest looking at the Sigma Art 24-105 F4 OS because it is materially sharper than the older Canon version - it is in fact on par with Canon's 24-70 F2.8 II - I have extensively tested both with my 5DSR on a tripod and it is an excellent lens and far, far sharper in the longer FLs.

It should be pointed out the OP is more of a hobbyist looking for a lens mostly for travel etc.

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17821012
The Canon 24-70 F2.8 II is a Pro Event Lens - period.

I really do agree with this statement.

I have rented the 24-70 f/2.8 II for two occasions - a wedding and for a week of dance rehearsals and recitals.

Mostly it was used at f/2.8 but I was delighted with it at every setting. But it's so overpriced and so much heavier that I just don't see it as a walkaround or vacation lens.

(BTW, I also rented,a few years back, the Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 VC. Did not like that one.)

That being said, for non-pro work, I am very satisfied with my set of the 24-105 f/4 IS, 35 f/2 IS and 50 f/1.4.

You don't need IS if you are shooting fast enough

Eastport wrote in post #17827420
Mostly it was used at f/2.8 but I was delighted with it at every setting. But it's so overpriced and so much heavier that I just don't see it as a walkaround or vacation lens.

That's the exact line of reasoning that was the deciding factor for me in letting go of the f/2.8 II. For walk around and vacation, I want as small and manageable as possible, and I'm alright with losing some over all image quality in exchange.