Canon 24-70 f/4 AND 16-35 f/4 OR 24-70 f/2.8 ii

Hello,

I was wondering if I could get some opinions from people who may have used one or all three of these lenses (Canon 24-70mm f/4 and f/2.8 ii and canon 16-35mm f/4.

My question is, since I can get both the 24-70mm f/4 and 16-35mm f/4 for about the price of the f/2.8 ii, should I go with the two lenses? Are they as sharp as say the 100-400 ii?

I usually shoot landscape, but also wildlife and macro. There have been a few times (but not many) when I could use f/2.8. I mostly want sharpness and IQ, which I've read the 24-70 f/2.8 ii has by the truck load.

Thanks in advanced (and I hope this is in the right forum, first post...)

-Tim

I own 2 of the 3 lenses you mentioned: both the F/4's not the 24-70 f/2.8 II. I'd definitely pass on the 2.8 II for what you want: landscapes and a lil' macro. the IS is nice but when you're at sunrise/sunset or at night you'll still need your tripod (and turn your IS off for those, of course). Images from both my lenses are plenty sharp and I can't imagine not having a 16-35 for landscapes. I wouldn't be surprised if the 24-70 f/2.8 II is sharper at F/4 than both the f/4 zooms being discussed but for landscapes I'm usually shooting at f/5.6-11 anyway and I'd be surprised if there's a notable difference by then as those are usually the sweet spots where the differences are marginalized.

The macro function on the 24-70 f/4L isn't all that great. I often get so close that I'm casting a shadow on my subject and have to add some light. Its been good enough for ring shots though.

I sometimes wish I had the 2.8 for better low light focus at wedding receptions but I'll be grabbing a 5dIV soon for the lovely -3EV focusing and that should be good enough with the 24-70 f/4. I also have the 50mm f/1.2L when its really dim.

Welcome to the forum

I have the 24-70 f/2.8 and the f/4 16-35. I would never give up my 2.8, the wider aperture comes in handy when hand-holding in low-light situations.

Thanks for the info and insight. I actually have a 100mm f/2.8 L for actual macro shots. I'm not interested in the macro function of the 24-70 because I don't think it will compare to the prime. I more just want a midrange zoom that will give me sharp images.

I'll keep your suggestions in mind when I make a decision.

Thanks for the information. I actually had ordered the 24/70mm f/2.8 ii from Canon when their refurbished sale began a few days ago. However, despite me ordering immediately when they still had 9 lenses left in stock, my order was canceled because they filled my order last and ran out, thus canceling my order.... So then I began to question if I should get two lenses rather than one.

How does the sharpness of the 24-70 f/2.8 compare to your 16-35mm f/4?

THlRTEEN wrote in post #18157231
Thanks for the info and insight. I actually have a 100mm f/2.8 L for actual macro shots. I'm not interested in the macro function of the 24-70 because I don't think it will compare to the prime. I more just want a midrange zoom that will give me sharp images.

I'll keep your suggestions in mind when I make a decision.

13.
Like you, I have the 100 Macro L IS. It is stellar.
However I do not always have it with me, when traveling to Europe for example.
Having the capability to get a "Macro" shot with the 24-70 f/4 L IS may surprise you.

You don't say what body/sensor format you are using -- since all the lenses you mention are useful with full frame bodies, is that what you are using?

In that context, I'd definitely include a 16-35mm lens to give a wider view. Along with that, either of the 24-70 lenses should work for the type of shooting you describe.

For myself, I have used a 24-105 lens as a "walk-around" lens, useful hand-held or with a tripod, great for landscapes since you don't need an f/2.8 lens for that type of work, and if you are reasonably close it will work for wildlife as well.

I myself was drawn into event-type shooting, and I wanted something high performance/capable for a variety of shooting, so I picked up both the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8. They were both "work-horse" lenses, and served me well, both for sports and various events. They are a bit heavy, which did lean toward favoring the 24-105 as a walk-around lens.

'Course, that's assuming full-frame. With a crop camera/sensor there are other considerations. For example, I got some good use shooting with an EF-S 10-22 lens with my crop 30D!

Silver-Halide wrote in post #18154817
I own 2 of the 3 lenses you mentioned: both the F/4's not the 24-70 f/2.8 II. I'd definitely pass on the 2.8 II for what you want: landscapes and a lil' macro. the IS is nice but when you're at sunrise/sunset or at night you'll still need your tripod (and turn your IS off for those, of course). Images from both my lenses are plenty sharp and I can't imagine not having a 16-35 for landscapes. I wouldn't be surprised if the 24-70 f/2.8 II is sharper at F/4 than both the f/4 zooms being discussed but for landscapes I'm usually shooting at f/5.6-11 anyway and I'd be surprised if there's a notable difference by then as those are usually the sweet spots where the differences are marginalized.

The macro function on the 24-70 f/4L isn't all that great. I often get so close that I'm casting a shadow on my subject and have to add some light. Its been good enough for ring shots though.

I sometimes wish I had the 2.8 for better low light focus at wedding receptions but I'll be grabbing a 5dIV soon for the lovely -3EV focusing and that should be good enough with the 24-70 f/4. I also have the 50mm f/1.2L when its really dim.

Silvers summation above is pretty spot on.
For a few years I was looking to add a 24-70 to my Arsenal. When I went full frame to the 5D Mark III in 2013, the wide end distortion on the 24-105 was rearing its ugly head.
So which one? The 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II with its excellent performance or the smaller f/4 L WITH Image Stabilization.
Since I did not have an Ultra Wide Zoom, I needed to fill that void first. So I chose the 17-40 f/4 L over the one extra stop for double the price 16-35 f/2.8 L II. Since most of my Wide was stopped down, why not grab the 17-40. Then a few months later in the spring of 2014, Canon introduced the 16-35 f/4 L IS............now you're talking.
The next year with a trip to Rome was the excuse I needed to go grab the new Ultra Wide Zoom with IS. Since tripods are not allowed in the Basilica's, IS was calling me. My investment certainly did not let me down. Being able to shoot with a shutter speed of say 1/10 of a second, handheld with razor sharp results was worth every dime. Coupled with walking all day without enough water leading to the shakes, or Yips, does not help.
So what about the 24-70? F/2.8 vs f/4 With IS.......
With a return trip to Italy, this time to Venice and Florence, I decided to follow my own "When in Rome" findings.
I decided to buy the f/4 L IS. Since IS proved to be valuable in the Vatican and elsewhere, why not follow my lead.
So off to Italy again, with 2 Gripped 5D Mark III's, the 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and the wonderful big heavy 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Michelangelo's David deserves the best.
However my back and shoulder was killing me for weeks after our return home in February. Since the f/4's covered me in the 16-70 range, why not in the 70-200 range as well. So last summer I forced myself to swap out the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II for my old tried and true 70-200 f/4 L IS for a trip to Iceland.... No worries what so ever with the f/4 L IS. Sharp beautiful images without the added weight on my shoulder and body. Came home in great shape.
So while having f/2.8 is needed at times, I am now looking at things differently. Why not use the smaller lighter f/4's when warranted? Why put the stress on me physically when not needed. A different tool for different jobs, not just overseas, but here on the other side of the pond as well. Whether work or travel.
So I would certainly recommend two lenses over the one.

Hello,

Thanks for the info and insight. I should have mentioned I use both crop and full-frame cameras. I still haven't decided on which 24-70mm to get, but I've decided to get a 11-24mm rather than the 16-35mm. I love that it's cheaper and has IS, but I think the 11mm-15mm range is a huge draw.

I just found out that I'll be moving to Hawaii in a few months, so I'm thinking about what lenses I'd want and 11-24 seems like I could get some really unique shots. I agree with Nick, I don't always have my 100mm macro with me, so the 24-70mm f/4 could make for a more versatile lens over the f/2.8.

I've used both the 24-70 f4 and 24-70 2.8 ii. They both are great lenses - but its going to come down to what and how you shoot. Case in point - if you are photographing landscape without a tripod - its 2.8 all the way. But if you carry one all the time, use the tripod, get the f4 and call it a day

2.8 is only a benefit in low light over the other two IF your subject is moving. If not the IS will give you much more than 1 stop.

And if you need 2.8 for DOF, then you need 2.8. I don't shoot many landscapes at 2.8, but at those focal lengths the DOF wouldn't be that much different. If you want shallow DOF at 24-50mm you probably need something faster than 2.8 anyway.


You mention wildlife, but at 70mm? IDK, but if that really is important, then you need as fast as possible, so go with the faster glass.

Paul.C wrote in post #18214745
I've used both the 24-70 f4 and 24-70 2.8 ii. They both are great lenses - but its going to come down to what and how you shoot. Case in point - if you are photographing landscape without a tripod - its 2.8 all the way. But if you carry one all the time, use the tripod, get the f4 and call it a day

I think you gave the completely wrong advice. If you're shooting low light landscape without a tripod, most definitely take the F/4 with IS. It is basically 2-3 stops better for hand holding due to the IS.