Canon 24-70 L: Do I need IS?

Portraiture = I want an f2.8 lens for lower ISO and better control of DOF for singles or couples
Landscapes = f4 or f2.8, doesn't matter, you will likely shut the aperture down anyways and wouldn't be at f2.8, so f4 IS

So get the 24-70 f4 IS for landscapes, and get a good fast prime for portraiture.

I have a few thoughts:

For landscape and travel, I'd rather have IS. It isn't just about light levels. I have many times taken shots with long shutter speeds to blur water motion. A tripod is best for this, but I've been successful many times handheld due to having IS.

If you are going FF in a year or more, I might wait and look at what the RF mount brings. The 24-105 RF already looks nice, but more importantly it seems plausible to me that future RF mount bodies may have IBIS. I was already shocked the EOS-R lacked it, and Canon has suggested it will arrive on future models. If you are not buying a FF body until later, I might wait to see if later brings IBIS.

The EOS-R had too many misses for me personally, but the next 1-2 bodies may bring something that really hits the mark for travel photography.

Another option is to get the 24-70 1:2.8L II now, and just hope that when you go FF you are using an IBIS body. That would make your 24-70 stabilized, the same way my Sony makes my 24-70L stabilized. Of course, that route means living with RF/EF adaptors so.....maybe not ideal.

Couple of shots here down in that ~ 1 second range. Again, a tripod is best but sometimes on travels you can't lug it or just don't have it when a moment appears.

Awesome. These are really helpful replies. Thanks, everyone.

It sounds like the majority believe I should go with the f4 IS version.

1. As a follow-up question, has anyone used this side by side with the f2.8? Does the sharpness drop off in any significant way with the f4?
2. On a side note, I'm currently comparing the Canon f4 version with the Tamron 24-70 f2.8, as suggested by one forum member. Everything looks good, but some report that again - it's not as sharp as the Canon equivalent. Definitely more of a bargain though, being fast and stabilized.

Thanks, all!

Dave

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18797513
I know i couldn't hand hold inside a church or castle at 1/10th of a second with an f2.8 lens, but i could if i had I.S. That's the difference. If all your stuff is outdoors with no restriction on tripod use, then go fast. I just wish my 17-40 has I.S. to give me a bit more versatility indoors.

I too went back and forth between the 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the 24-70 f/4 L IS. Knowing what the 16-35 f/4 L IS captured in the dark Basilicas of Rome Hand Held, where Tripods are prohibited, IS was a the key factor. These two along with my old trusty 70-200 f/4 L IS are my Greek Trilogy for European travel.
I will most likely add a 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark II for work State Side.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18797870
Portraiture = I want an f2.8 lens for lower ISO and better control of DOF for singles or couples
Landscapes = f4 or f2.8, doesn't matter, you will likely shut the aperture down anyways and wouldn't be at f2.8, so f4 IS

So get the 24-70 f4 IS for landscapes, and get a good fast prime for portraiture.

The 85 1.8 is an excellent inexpensive potrature lens.

Thanks, everyone.

I do have a Canon 50mm f1.8 that is effectively an 80mm with my M50. That works pretty well for portraits.

Any thoughts on the difference in sharpness between the f2.8 and the f4?

Thanks, Nick. Sounds like you've done your research and have some good, real-life experience.

How does the sharpness compare between the f2.8 and the f4?

The 24-70 f/2.8 L II is one of Canon’s best. The f/4 may not be there, however compared to my old 24-105 it is a huge jump forward. And the distortion at 24 mm is pleasing.
Boy I wish Canon would release a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS.........

Nick5 wrote in post #18798778
The 24-70 f/2.8 L II is one of Canon’s best. The f/4 may not be there, however compared to my old 24-105 it is a huge jump forward. And the distortion at 24 mm is pleasing.
Boy I wish Canon would release a 24-70 f/2.8 L IS.........

I think they didn't due to the additional weight. If we ever see one again it will be an RF mount.

Don’t know how old you are, but IS comes in handy for us old farts. ߤ

eddieb1 wrote in post #18799413
Don’t know how old you are, but IS comes in handy for us old farts. ߤ

Old enough Like I said it was not an east decision. I rarely buy one without it but I also don't have issues shooting at high ISO's. With the 24-70 II.

I'm leaning towards the IS f4 variation, but it does seem like a FF mirror-less with IBIS is right around the corner...

And the extra sharpness in the f2.8 is really enticing.

24-70 is the jack of all trades. Get the F2.8 if you are wanting to do more portraiture. or the f4 IS if wanting to do more landscapes. IS is handy when you close the aperture.

F2.8 is sharper at f4.

I would prefer and do have specific portrait and landscape lens. I have a 16-35 F4 for scapes, but my 100L macro has nearly as many landscapes under its belt. So maybe I am not the best to give advice.

Thanks, Patrick!

Do you know how the sharpness compares between f2.8 and the f4 at other apertures, other than f4?