Question regarding the 24-70 Canon lineup

I have had the 24-70 II for a week now and I absolutely love it, but I am beginning to think that the lens is way too much for me at the moment. When I say too much, I mean too expensive and too heavy to be comfortable mentally and physically as a walk-around. I miss having the IS that I had on my 24-105, and I just cannot justify spending an extra $1000 for an extra stop, and an extra $150 just to buy 82mm filters.

I was curious to know from those who exchanged the 2.8 for the 4 and if they were satisfied or not, loved it but had buyers remorse, etc.? What were the major differences noticed? If I do exchange, Im going to be applying part of that difference towards some accessories, mainly a new set of legs and a flash.

There is only one thing worse than buyer's remorse: seller's remorse. Whichever decision you make, spend some time on it. Buying a second copy knowing you sold the first one for a loss is humbling. Been there.

Do you need f/2.8? If you're not using f/2.8, why pay for it? Would the IS of the 24-70 f/4 suit your shooting better? Maybe the range of the 24-105L and one fast prime would serve you better. Just ideas. Sorry I can't help with the actual decision.

We are in the same boat on this one, as I just went through the 24-70 shuffle. Had the f/4 IS version for a few weeks, wasn't too thrilled about some of the performance aspects, and subsequently traded up for the f/2.8 II in the pursuit of image quality (and a "buy once, cry once" mentality I have with all things). Here are my thoughts:

f/4 IS

PROS:
- much lighter weight
- much smaller size
- IS is a great asset
- macro mode is really handy for walk-around/do-everything lens
- price: $1k less than the f/2.8 II

CONS:
- focus shift at 70mm at/near MFD. This really is what prompted me to move past this lens, as I would be shooting primarily at this focal length
- image quality is super good, but isn't quite f/2.8 II levels (more so a pro for the f/2.8, but it has to be mentioned). Except, 50mm is pretty soft. The two copies I tested were rather bleak.
- AF "hiccups". In certain situations, the AF just wouldn't respond, as if the lens didn't wake up with the camera. Both copies exhibited this behavior.

f/2.8 II

PROS:
- The IQ of the f/2.8 II is mind blowing good. SharpSharpSharp
- AF performance is top shelf

CONS:
- Price... ouch. But if you're in it to win it, this isn't a concern.
- Weight
- Size. It's not toooooo bad, but compared to the f/4, it's a behemoth.

Seriously, the f/4 IS is pretty darn good, and if your primary reason for owning a lens in this focal range is general purpose walk around use, no question this would be the lens I'd buy it. The macro mode is a bonus here, even though it isn't true 1:1. And the IS just makes it a winner.

If you're a shooting pro that has to have f/2.8 or win test chart sharpness contests, the II is the answer. The 2.8 II turns in such awesome image quality that it makes for a tough decision, but the weight and girth is a major consideration, along with the gaping hole in your bank account. If I was doing more event work or paid gigs, no doubt this lens would have been my go-to.

I had some bad buyers remorse because I firmly believe that my photography enjoyment will be better enhanced with a 100-400 II So, I recently returned the f/2.8 II. I'll more than likely add the f/4 IS to my line up at some point, as it just makes for the perfect walk around solution despite it's small quibbles.

Well, I am still in my exchange period with Ritz so I am not selling anything, just exchanging outright. I do miss the IS from my old 24-105 and definitely like the lighter, more compact form factor. I did find myself shooting at 2.8 while out on hikes, but that was mostly for semi-macro stuff that I wanted a decent bokeh on. About 85% of what I shoot has a huge DOF so I usually stop it up to 4+ anyways, so I don't think I will miss it as much as I originally thought.

As far as focal lengths, 24-70 is right in my ball park. I find myself hanging between 35-50mm a lot, but don't necessarily want the hassle of switching primes back and forth. Just want an all-around good zoom that can get somewhat close to the IQ of the 2.8 II. The 16-35 f4/2.8 is out of the question; too short.

IMO, 2.8 zooms zap the fun out of photography. Some folks swear by them, and I swear those folks have sore shoulders

MatthewK wrote in post #17823802
We are in the same boat on this one, as I just went through the 24-70 shuffle. Had the f/4 IS version for a few weeks, wasn't too thrilled about some of the performance aspects, and subsequently traded up for the f/2.8 II in the pursuit of image quality (and a "buy once, cry once" mentality I have with all things). Here are my thoughts:

f/4 IS

PROS:
- much lighter weight
- much smaller size
- IS is a great asset
- macro mode is really handy for walk-around/do-everything lens
- price: $1k less than the f/2.8 II

CONS:
- focus shift at 70mm at/near MFD. This really is what prompted me to move past this lens, as I would be shooting primarily at this focal length
- image quality is super good, but isn't quite f/2.8 II levels (more so a pro for the f/2.8, but it has to be mentioned). Except, 50mm is pretty soft. The two copies I tested were rather bleak.
- AF "hiccups". In certain situations, the AF just wouldn't respond, as if the lens didn't wake up with the camera. Both copies exhibited this behavior.

f/2.8 II

PROS:
- The IQ of the f/2.8 II is mind blowing good. SharpSharpSharp
- AF performance is top shelf

CONS:
- Price... ouch. But if you're in it to win it, this isn't a concern.
- Weight
- Size. It's not toooooo bad, but compared to the f/4, it's a behemoth.

Seriously, the f/4 IS is pretty darn good, and if your primary reason for owning a lens in this focal range is general purpose walk around use, no question this would be the lens I'd buy it. The macro mode is a bonus here, even though it isn't true 1:1. And the IS just makes it a winner.

If you're a shooting pro that has to have f/2.8 or win test chart sharpness contests, the II is the answer. The 2.8 II turns in such awesome image quality that it makes for a tough decision, but the weight and girth is a major consideration, along with the gaping hole in your bank account. If I was doing more event work or paid gigs, no doubt this lens would have been my go-to.

I had some bad buyers remorse because I firmly believe that my photography enjoyment will be better enhanced with a 100-400 II So, I recently returned the f/2.8 II. I'll more than likely add the f/4 IS to my line up at some point, as it just makes for the perfect walk around solution despite it's small quibbles.

This is honestly exactly what I wanted to hear, and it makes me feel a little bit better about stepping down. I am definitely not a pro, and I feel like my current skillset limits me on the technical aspects that would make IQ distinguishable between the two. And it being so much cheaper, I wont go 120% nuts if I drop it or get a ding on it.

Thanks!

EDIT: Did you ever have focus shift issues when going past the MFD in the macro mode?

Charlie wrote in post #17823830
IMO, 2.8 zooms zap the fun out of photography. Some folks swear by them, and I swear those folks have sore shoulders

I tend to agree with this, I've owned the 24-70 2.8 ( old version ) and 70-200 2.8 non IS and IS II. While they take great photos I never wanted to use them. I don't think the weight is as big of an issue on the new 24-70 but its still substantial.

I would say if you shoot events or similar types of fast moving photography you should have 2.8 zooms.

I also don't get the point of f/2.8 zooms. I shoot a lot of stuff at f/4-f/11. The f/2.8 zooms would gain me nothing there, except a lighter wallet. If I do want some aperture, the ROI for f/2.8 zooms is abysmal. For a bunch less money I can get a bunch more aperture. No doubt the 24-70 II is a really good lens. It isn't f/1.anything. To my way of thinking, a lens that costs $1700 should be an answer, not a compromise. Depends on how you shoot what, though.

The deal has been finalized. I am a new owner of the 24-70 f4L. My neck and shoulders have already thanked me.

Thank you for all of the comments. Definitely made me feel better about the swap!

nfoerster wrote in post #17824131
The deal has been finalized. I am a new owner of the 24-70 f4L. My neck and shoulders have already thanked me.

Thank you for all of the comments. Definitely made me feel better about the swap!

Congrats!!! Get out and enjoy, and show us some photos! When all of the anxiety is over and decision made, it's a great feeling!

The macro feature took me a little bit of time to figure out because it's actually a small zoom range when you switch over to macro mode (unlike shooting with the 100mm macro, which is just 100mm). To answer your previous question, I didn't experience any shift in macro mode, but I did when shooting at 70mm at MFD.

Oh, and once you see the sharpness the f/4 IS is capable of, you'll more easily forget about the f/2.8 II. I was going to post an image, but damn the resized jpegs don't do the shot justice.

Congrats! I've been considering one as well, I've heard a few mixed reviews about the sharpness but it seems many are really happy with it and the macro mode is a cool feature. Should make for a really versatile fun lens.

MatthewK wrote in post #17824337
Congrats!!! Get out and enjoy, and show us some photos! When all of the anxiety is over and decision made, it's a great feeling!

The macro feature took me a little bit of time to figure out because it's actually a small zoom range when you switch over to macro mode (unlike shooting with the 100mm macro, which is just 100mm). To answer your previous question, I didn't experience any shift in macro mode, but I did when shooting at 70mm at MFD.

Oh, and once you see the sharpness the f/4 IS is capable of, you'll more easily forget about the f/2.8 II. I was going to post an image, but damn the resized jpegs don't do the shot justice.

Tommydigi wrote in post #17824365
Congrats! I've been considering one as well, I've heard a few mixed reviews about the sharpness but it seems many are really happy with it and the macro mode is a cool feature. Should make for a really versatile fun lens.

Thanks Tommy and Matthew. Really in love with this lens right now. Going out later to hopefully get some nice sunsets. For now, you can see my four legged wonder that is Lenny

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CivD​eh

Very nice shot. Looks like it was taken with a prime.

I'm planning to get one too. Hoping to find a good deal bundled with a 5d3.

I'd kill for a 5D3! Might consider it if I ever think about doing events.

you might find it's too heavy for you