Question regarding the 24-70 Canon lineup

All of the 24-xxx lenses are good. I was drawn to the f4is for its size and macro. I've owned the 24-80 2.8 1 and I was good but heavy. The 24-105 was nice too. I've never tried the 2.8 II and I'm sure it's great but for me I prefer my primes when I want faster and I have a lot of 77mm filters already.

I've only had the 24-70 for a short time but I'm really liking it but I mostly wanted it for travel.

Just decide if you want range. 2.8 or small with macro.

Tommydigi wrote in post #17839474
All of the 24-xxx lenses are good. I was drawn to the f4is for its size and macro. I've owned the 24-80 2.8 1 and I was good but heavy. The 24-105 was nice too. I've never tried the 2.8 II and I'm sure it's great but for me I prefer my primes when I want faster and I have a lot of 77mm filters already.

I've only had the 24-70 for a short time but I'm really liking it but I mostly wanted it for travel.

Just decide if you want range. 2.8 or small with macro.

LOL Tommy... that's exactly what I'm troubling over. I like the f/2.8 of my 100L IS.... but I also like the IS part. I get very nice hand held photographs. I love the range of the 24-105 but from everything I've read, I'd most likely be disappointed in some of the quality issues in some parts of said range. I use the 100-400ii for semi fake macro stuff now and it's a nice feature... one I'm sure I'd enjoy on the 24-70 f/4 IS.

I guess what it boils down to is..... I'm getting older and I worry about my abilities to hold a camera still enough to avoid camera motion blur. I use a monopod quite a bit of the time and that has almost eliminated that issue when using the 100-400L ii but it has very good IS. For that reason, I am leaning toward the 24-70 f/4 IS but that's really the only reason.

Ultimate sharpness and clarity easily go to the f/2.8 II. Ultimate versatility goes to the 24-70 f/4 IS. I've had both over the past 2 months, and have ended up with the f/4 IS. I intend to use it when I don't want to change lenses, for something smaller and easy to carry. It's size is just right for general walk around, and the IS is awesome.

It's not that much more expensive than the 24-105, and the only really deciding factor is the extra 35mm of reach. The 24-70 f/4 has better IQ all around (less distortion, sharper to the edges), in a smaller package.

unfortunately, there's nothing like experience, and that costs money. If you shoot the mid range a lot, you'll want to shoot both f4 and f2.8 variants eventually. I've gone back and forth on the f4 and f2.8 and historically, I favor f2.8. Just recently, I've gotten the urge for 2.8 again for event shooting, in particular, low light video. Maybe my views are slightly distorted, I was shooting videos of a christmas carol with the 135L + 4K. Few days later, shot a christmas play with the 24-105 + 1080p.... the difference in video quality is night and day..... however, I'm not sure if it's the newer camera, bright lens, or 4K making it so much better. The difference is huge.

MatthewK wrote in post #17839560
Ultimate sharpness and clarity easily go to the f/2.8 II. Ultimate versatility goes to the 24-70 f/4 IS. I've had both over the past 2 months, and have ended up with the f/4 IS. I intend to use it when I don't want to change lenses, for something smaller and easy to carry. It's size is just right for general walk around, and the IS is awesome.

It's not that much more expensive than the 24-105, and the only really deciding factor is the extra 35mm of reach. The 24-70 f/4 has better IQ all around (less distortion, sharper to the edges), in a smaller package.

Yep, and all the videos I watched with it pitted up against the 24-105 it was shining in areas where the 24-105 was kinda dull, especially around the corners.

Two years ago, St. Nick was kind enough to deliver a 5D Mark III under the tree. Since then I was looking to add a 24-70 to my lens lineup.
For many years I was using my trusty 24-105 on a 7D. Of course moving to full frame, the wide angle distortion was noticeable.
So for a few years I went back and forth on the two Canon options.
24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II or the 24-70 f/4 L IS.
Of course this is the only zoom where Canon does not give us what we really want, 24-70 f/2.8 L IS.
So f/2.8 vs f/4 L IS. We know the story...
This summer with an impromptu trip to Rome, I was looking at my lens line up. Since no tripods allowed in the Basilicas and churches and having to shoot HandHeld, I decided to look at my current lens line up. At the time it was the 17-40 f/4 L and of course the 24-105 f/4 L IS.
So I decided to get more in the scene and have Image Stabilization. Off to shop I went and came home with the 16-35 f/4 L IS.
Simply Wow!
Sharp, clean and handheld at 1/8 and below.
Then had a wedding a month later and rented the 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II. Again Wow!. But still no IS.
Of course Nikon now has the VR option in their 24-70 line up. After having a chance to see and compare both the Nikon options there was not a drastic difference in size and weight while on camera. The new VR was balanced well.
So St. Nick decided one of the two Canon's was going to be under the tree. So The decision was made in going for the smaller, less expensive option with IS included. The Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS.
So far pretty darn nice indeed.
With an added bonus trip to Florence and Venice in the next few months, having IS while shooting handhelds should yield similar results as in Rome.

You will love it. And if you don't you can rest assured there is no other lens that will make you happy either!

So I got my 24-70 f/4 last night, and got everything dialed in via DotTune, took some test snaps around the house. It's a perfectly sized lens, quite unobtrusive and really stays out of the way, if that makes any sense.

Test shots: I mainly wanted to see the 70mm focal length near MFD, because my previous (temporary) refurb copies were really, really soft at that length. Well, this one is no different. If someone asked me what lens took this, I'd almost venture: 50L at f/1.2. And that's fine for some things, but I know if I need critical sharpness here I'm using the 70-200.

Here's also a "macro" of the same area of the succulent.

It's funny how the more research I do, the less clear the choice gets. There are so many good posts that highlight the good and bad of each lens. Analysis paralysis is a real thing. I'm thinking that renting or borrowing if possible is key to being comfortable with a high end lens purchase. I do enjoy the research process, but it's rarely an easy choice. Forums like this are a huge help.

Glad you finally got your hands on a good copy Matt. The macro looks good. That handheld?

The Macro shots look good. I'm finding that feature to be a lot of fun with this lens.

Are you saying its really soft at 70mm MFD? I've gotta test mine out a bit more. I usually just do some real world test shots and it seems good to me.

nfoerster wrote in post #17846009
Glad you finally got your hands on a good copy Matt. The macro looks good. That handheld?

Thank, man! It's satisfying to finally get this lens back, I made a mistake letting it go before. It's just too useful for my style of photography.

The pics were hand held in not the best light, and only default sharpening from Lightroom import.

Tommydigi wrote in post #17846117
The Macro shots look good. I'm finding that feature to be a lot of fun with this lens.

Are you saying its really soft at 70mm MFD? I've gotta test mine out a bit more. I usually just do some real world test shots and it seems good to me.

Yeah, 70mm at MFD is pretty lackluster. Stopping down may help out, more testing needed. But you know, I can live with it.