Canon 24-70 f4 vs Canon 24-70 f2.8 II - comparison

Hi!

I need to buy a 24-70 (Canon not alternatives) to go with my 5D mark IV ... and was looking at some reviews.
The one I have trouble with is this one http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=2
Most reviews agree that the sharpness differences between the 2 are not so big ... but my eyes are telling me something different here (looking at the comparison chart) ...
Has anyone compared the two in the same circumstances and can share the results?

Thank you!

Not much to me. But I dont like 24-70 zooms.

You might want to wait and see what the new 24-105 is gonna do and how it will compare.

The stop of light you are going to save will probably be irrelevant on the 5D4 sensor. Your Iso is golden to 12800 and 25000 is usable

Thats what I am going to do

Why you dont like the 24-70?

Not everybody uses this focal length, and some people prefer primes. I happen to like it, and the 24-70 2.8 II is the best performer in this focal length, in my opinion. There's more to a lens than just sharpness, like color and contrast. I don't need the 2.8, but I like to blow the background out sometimes, and the 2.8 lens can focus better in low light (more sensitive AF). It works really well on my 5D4, as it did on the 5D3. Down sides are it's bigger, heavier, takes a 82mm filter, and has no IS. I almost always use a tripod, so I don't miss the IS. Hope this helps.

eric

xseven wrote in post #18146912
Why you dont like the 24-70?

Boring. 24-105 is much more practice

If I need Bokeh, which I often do, I use a prime.

35/85/135 live on my cameras

umphotography wrote in post #18146941
Boring. 24-105 is much more practice

If I need Bokeh, which I often do, I use a prime.

35/85/135 live on my cameras

+1 to the above minus the 85/135. 16-35 and 35 live on my camera.

I too am not a fan of the 24-70 focal length, but in an attempt to adopt a general purpose lens, last year I evaluated both the f/4 and the 2.8 II at different times. My conclusions are pretty much this:

- f/2.8 II is surgically sharp. If this is what you are after, read no further because this lens is cock of the walk. Only my 100L was sharper.
- f/2.8 II is bulky and expensive. f/2.8, whilst fast, isn't that much faster than f/4, and in low light f/2.8 won't be that much better. If you need low light capability, go flash or prime. This is primarily why I dropped this lens for the f/4 IS, along with the fact I had so much money tied up in a lens I didn't like or regularly use.

- f/4 IS is a swiss army knife of a lens. It's also sharp, though not as spectacular as its big brother. The macro mode makes it extremely versatile. The best part is it's miniscule size/weight; it balances well on the camera and is easy on your body during a long day of shooting.
- f/4 IS has softness and focus shift at minimum focus distance at 70mm. Not a huge deal, but it's something to look out for. The work around is to switch it over to the macro mode.

In the end I also ended up parting ways with the f/4 IS because I just wasn't using it. That's not a fault of the lens, it's just that I don't need a "general purpose" lens.

There's more to a lens than sharpness.
You are comparing a very good f/4 lens with IS with an excellent f/2.8 lens without IS.

Personally, I had the f/2.8 v1 and sold it because it was impractical indoor despite the f/2.8. Went to primes and never looked back.

For an all-purpose lens I would definitely consider the new 24-105 IS v2. Still an f/4 lens, so no luck indoors with non-still subjects.

I shoot the 24-70 II on a 6D and I've never missed having IS. It was a concern of mine when I purchased it, but in hindslight, I needn't have worried. I simply crank up the ISO and I have been able to get adequate shutter speed for most use cases.

I really like my 24-70 f4 but do miss the reach (and bokeh) the 105 gives you.

I'm gonna wait til next year for the 24-105 II.

xseven wrote in post #18146868
Hi!

I need to buy a 24-70 (Canon not alternatives) to go with my 5D mark IV ... and was looking at some reviews.
The one I have trouble with is this one http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=2
Most reviews agree that the sharpness differences between the 2 are not so big ... but my eyes are telling me something different here (looking at the comparison chart) ...
Has anyone compared the two in the same circumstances and can share the results?

Thank you!

You either need F2.8 or you don't. Don't worry about splitting hairs with sharpness. Sharpness tests are also very different, more critical, than looking at the sharpness of a real world photograph that is meaningful and not being hypercritical about pixel level sharpness. To me, for low light purposes, a wide angle (24mm) with IS is going to allow for a slower shutter speed than using simply 1 stop of aperture and pushing ISO more. Wide angle with 4 stop IS is very stable and can tolerate very low shutter speeds so you can get away with lower ISO, which is quite nice to have the option to choose to go for lower ISO or higher ISO. Having choice is always better.

Personally I'd rather have the 24-70F4L IS, but I don't feel F2.8 is necessary for that focal range so much (F2.8 on the wider end angles doesn't provide thin enough depth of field if depth of field is an argument for going F2.8, it really only starts to provide isolation/separation at the longest end, and even then, it's not profound, it can make nice soft backgrounds, but you have to also be close to the subject to really blow out the background; if thin depth of field isolation look is something you want, get a 70-200 F2.8 or get a much faster prime). Plus it has a pretty nice macro feature.

And really to me, a modern 4 stop IS 24-105 F4 or even the variable aperture (down to F5.6) would be fine for me. With those ranges, for generalist work, I'd be less concerned with max aperture and more concerned with modern IS and keeping the weight down while getting a lot of focal range, I'd just want it to have low vignetting if any, relatively sharp, and good color/contrast rendering. So really the often not talked about Canon 24-105 IS STM is probably a lens to also consider, if any of the above sounds interesting to you. Between a 24-105 IS STM and a 24-70 F4L IS, it would be hard for me to choose. I might lean more towards the 24-70 F4L IS because of the build and macro property. But the price of the 24-105 IS STM is very attractive and it's a pretty good lens.

Very best,

I had a 24-70... for about 2 weeks. Just long enough to figure out I had no use for one.

IS cannot stop moving subject.

If you're mainly shooting events I would get the 2.8, travel/outdoors 105/70 F4 IS. Personally I could not justify the 2.8 with my primes and I prefer primes most of the time.

I would say the only issue with sharpness ( and its not terrible ) with the 24-70 F4 is at MFD, everywhere else its very good and really if I get really close I'll probably use the macro feature which is a one of the reasons I got it. ( and the size/filter thread )

If you can wait I would check out the new 24-105II just to compare or just on a cheap v1. to hold you over.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18148060
IS cannot stop moving subject.

Does allow to shoot Hand Held up to 4 stops.