January 24, 2018, 02:59:53 AM

Author Topic: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?  (Read 6980 times)

Cory

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
    • Cory Steiner Photography
Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« on: December 18, 2017, 08:43:27 AM »
     Thanks for any input.  I'm considering my main (do-most-everything) kit as a Canon 24-70 4.0 IS and Canon 135 2.0.
     Much appreciated.
6D, 16-35 4.0 IS, 40, 135 2.0
430EXII, Induro AT113/Sirui K-20x, Sirui T-025x
https://www.instagram.com/corysteinerphotography/

canon rumors FORUM

Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« on: December 18, 2017, 08:43:27 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 22042
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2017, 10:34:09 AM »
Seems like a good lens, but I far prefer the extra stop of the 24-70/2.8 II.  IS is great for static subjects, but as an all-around lens, I often shoot moving subjects where IS is of limited benefit. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

picturefan

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2017, 11:35:36 AM »
Great lens, very versatile. Very good IQ, nearly on par with 2.8 (if you don't pixelpeep), smaller, much more handy.
Very good flare resistance and bokeh. Highly recommended!

If you can get along with 4.0...

Larsskv

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
  • Enthusiast with Canon related GAS
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2017, 12:13:58 PM »
Great lens, very versatile. Very good IQ, nearly on par with 2.8 (if you don't pixelpeep), smaller, much more handy.
Very good flare resistance and bokeh. Highly recommended!

If you can get along with 4.0...

+1. I own both, and would like to add,the f2.8 LII has better bokeh, and slightly better contrast and clarity, and is of course 1 stop faster. The f4 is significantly smaller and lighter, is cheaper, has IS and macro. The f2.8 is the overall sharper lens, but the f4 is actually a bit better in the corners.

If I could choose, I would definitely pick the combo 24-70f4 + a used 50L f1.2 over a 24-70f2.8LII. Where I live, the price of these alternatives (used market) should be almost the same.

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6110
  • USM > STM
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2017, 01:54:06 PM »
I owned the 24-70 f/2.8L I and then replaced it with the 24-70 f/4L IS -- and I love it.

But we each have different needs.  See my prior pros/cons take on it from a few years back:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21677.msg412247#msg412247

- A

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3508
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2017, 02:25:34 PM »
I was an early adopter of the 24-70/4 when many on CR were ridiculing it. It was slightly better than the old 24-105L, biggest difference being at 24m. IMO it was a compact standard zoom introduced to complement the then new, small 6D FF camera, in fact that's why I bought one, got it in a 6D "kit". If you're not specifically wanting compact I'd look at the 24-105L II.

aceflibble

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2017, 02:59:44 PM »
If you're fixated on first-party lenses, it's good. The 24-70mm f/4L IS and the 100mm f/2.8L IS was and would still be my 'default' kit of choice for studio work if I were still doing a lot of portraiture. But for general-purpose shooting I just find f/4 too slow, even with IS. The big problem of course is if you ever have to shoot indoors without additional lighting (i.e. not in a studio), though it's not just a matter of exposure; on most cameras it means AF won't work as fast or accurately, too, and it can make for a dimmer viewfinder.

If first-party is all you'll go with, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is still preferable, and if that's out of budget or simply too large for you, stick with primes.

I do see you already list the 16-35 f/4 IS in your signature line. If I was going to make a 2-lens kit and restrict myself to zooms, and f/4 was enough, the 16-35 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS would be what I'd go for. The gap between 35mm and 70mm isn't really all that significant (look at how many people use 35mm in place of a 50mm, and how frequently people make 70mm work for a full-length portrait or even landscape) and the 24-70 f/4 IS is behind, both optically and mechanically, the 16-35 and 70-200 f/4 IS lenses. But since you already have the 135mm f/2 anyway... hell, I'd just stick with the 16-35 and the 135mm. Really, I would. Carrying the 24-70 and 135mm won't really give you much that your existing lenses wouldn't already do.

 
All that said, if you're willing to get a third-party lens, the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is a whole 'nother deal. At f/4 it's sharper than the Canon, and f/2.8 still gives respectable results; not quite as good as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8, but the Tamron version does have VC (a.k.a. IS), which the Canon f/2.8 lacks. So the Tamron is giving you the best of both worlds. Better performance than the 24-70 f/4 IS, with the option to bump up to f/2.8 when/if you really need it. (While also keeping the AF fully working, even if you shoot it at f/4 or smaller.) It's also cheaper than the Canon f/2.8 and in most countries it's even a little cheaper than the Canon f/4. On top of that you can still buy the first generation, which is almost the same (just a fraction softer on the 24mm end than the second generation) and that's even cheaper still. I don't know what your budget is, but it's always nice to spend less.

If you don't want to go third party and your existing 16-35 + 135mm aren't getting the job done for you, then as the final worthwhile option I'd say grab a 24-105 instead, and make it a one-lens system. The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS has a little less distortion than any of the 24-105s on the market, but that's really the only area where it leads. It's no better than them and obviously the 24-105 can stand in for the 135mm prime, if f/4 really is enough for you. (Pixel peepers may dispute this if you can find an absolutely perfect copy, but nearly everyone will admit that the average copy of the 24-70 and 24-105 are basically the same in terms of optical quality and mechanical operation.) Also worth noting is that the Sigma 24-105 (yes, third party again) absolutely beats the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-105 f/4 IS (both mkI and mkII) in every way, other than it is not weather sealed.

To summarise:
- The 24-70 f/4 IS is a good lens. It's not incredible, though, and it's far from the solution to everything.
- If your budget allows, the Canon f/2.8 is the better first-party choice for general 'do-everything' shooting.
- Third-party lenses have it beaten in every way.
- The lenses you already have are common substitutes for the 24-70 f/4, so you may be overestimating how much of a difference it would make for you.
- Canon's own 24-105 and/or standard primes are still more popular, for good reason.

I'd say if your existing 16-35 f/4 IS is something you're happy with but you just don't find yourself using the wide end that much and you don't mind a small step down in optical quality, then the 24-70 f/4 IS may well suit you. It's just very, very hard to recommend when there are so many other options out there doing the same thing better. The 24-70 f/4 IS is a true jack of all trades, master of none, and it shows. For a small portion of people, that is exactly what they want. For most people there will be a better option.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2017, 02:59:44 PM »

Cory

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
    • Cory Steiner Photography
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2017, 03:55:02 PM »
I hate to sound gasey, but what might one say about 16-35 4.0 IS, Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Canon 135 as a kit?
6D, 16-35 4.0 IS, 40, 135 2.0
430EXII, Induro AT113/Sirui K-20x, Sirui T-025x
https://www.instagram.com/corysteinerphotography/

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6110
  • USM > STM
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2017, 04:02:16 PM »
I hate to sound gasey, but what might one say about 16-35 4.0 IS, Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Canon 135 as a kit?

Depends on you and your needs.  Any prime-centric kit will push your patience for how frequently you do/don't want to change your lenses out. 

Also: caveat emptor with that Sigma.  It will split atoms sharpness-wise, but the AF has had well-documented problems of inconsistency (not front- or back-focusing, but just randomly whiffing).  So if you shoot events, weddings, reportage, candids, sports, etc. -- i.e. things you can't chimp and reshoot -- I'd strongly recommend another prime to serve that need.

- A

bhf3737

  • EOS Rebel SL2
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
  • ---
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2017, 04:07:08 PM »
     Thanks for any input.  I'm considering my main (do-most-everything) kit as a Canon 24-70 4.0 IS and Canon 135 2.0.
     Much appreciated.

If your photography use-cases include outside (i.e. no studio) use of macro, and you need IS for low light shots and you intend to do some handheld video work with it, it has all in one small package. Above that it is smaller, lighter and cheaper than both 24-105 f/4L and 24-70 f/2.8L II. The macro may not be 1:1 and the IS might not be as modern as what is on 100-400L II and color rendering may not be as good as f/2.8L sibling. But it has all.
I got it for a two week cruise and land trip and took it with me instead of 24-70 f/2.8L II. Used it for a lot of night shots (landscape, night festivals and fireworks), several macros (spiders and butterflies) and even a short family video. It could easily fit in my carry-on bag attached to the 5DSR and not so much weight on my back. I am happy with my decision.   

Cory

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
    • Cory Steiner Photography
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2017, 04:07:17 PM »
I hate to sound gasey, but what might one say about 16-35 4.0 IS, Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Canon 135 as a kit?

Depends on you and your needs.  Any prime-centric kit will push your patience for how frequently you do/don't want to change your lenses out. 

Also: caveat emptor with that Sigma.  It will split atoms sharpness-wise, but the AF has had well-documented problems of inconsistency (not front- or back-focusing, but just randomly whiffing).  So if you shoot events, weddings, reportage, candids, sports, etc. -- i.e. things you can't chimp and reshoot -- I'd strongly recommend another prime to serve that need.

- A
Canon 85 1.8 (for general purpose non-wide angle)?  Canon 50 1.2?
6D, 16-35 4.0 IS, 40, 135 2.0
430EXII, Induro AT113/Sirui K-20x, Sirui T-025x
https://www.instagram.com/corysteinerphotography/

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6110
  • USM > STM
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2017, 04:19:37 PM »
I got it for a two week cruise and land trip and took it with me instead of 24-70 f/2.8L II. Used it for a lot of night shots (landscape, night festivals and fireworks), several macros (spiders and butterflies) and even a short family video. It could easily fit in my carry-on bag attached to the 5DSR and not so much weight on my back. I am happy with my decision.

+1.  If you are an enthusiast that drags your camera everywhere, including places/venues/social events that would not play well with a flash, f/4L IS >> f/2.8.  The IS will save your bacon and keep your ISO at sub-stratospheric levels.

- A

Larsskv

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
  • Enthusiast with Canon related GAS
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2017, 04:26:21 PM »
I hate to sound gasey, but what might one say about 16-35 4.0 IS, Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Canon 135 as a kit?

Depends on you and your needs.  Any prime-centric kit will push your patience for how frequently you do/don't want to change your lenses out. 

Also: caveat emptor with that Sigma.  It will split atoms sharpness-wise, but the AF has had well-documented problems of inconsistency (not front- or back-focusing, but just randomly whiffing).  So if you shoot events, weddings, reportage, candids, sports, etc. -- i.e. things you can't chimp and reshoot -- I'd strongly recommend another prime to serve that need.

- A
Canon 85 1.8 (for general purpose non-wide angle)?  Canon 50 1.2?

Canon 50 f1.2 is my choice. I had the the Sigma 50 ART for a couple of weeks before I sold it. I favored the pictures I got from the 50L by a big margin. They weren’t as sharp, but looked much better. I saw Dustin Abbotts review of the 50L today, and he wraps up the qualities of the 50L in a very good way, I think.

Ps. AF is good on my copy of the 50L.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2017, 04:26:21 PM »

BillB

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 336
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2017, 04:27:58 PM »
I hate to sound gasey, but what might one say about 16-35 4.0 IS, Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Canon 135 as a kit?

Depends on you and your needs.  Any prime-centric kit will push your patience for how frequently you do/don't want to change your lenses out. 

Also: caveat emptor with that Sigma.  It will split atoms sharpness-wise, but the AF has had well-documented problems of inconsistency (not front- or back-focusing, but just randomly whiffing).  So if you shoot events, weddings, reportage, candids, sports, etc. -- i.e. things you can't chimp and reshoot -- I'd strongly recommend another prime to serve that need.

- A
Canon 85 1.8 (for general purpose non-wide angle)?  Canon 50 1.2?

The 85mm might be a better fit with the 16-35 (that is what I use).  On the other hand, the 50 f1.2 might fit better with the 135mm.  Big price difference between the 50 f1.2 and the 85 f1.8.

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6110
  • USM > STM
Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2017, 04:39:48 PM »
Canon 85 1.8 (for general purpose non-wide angle)?  Canon 50 1.2?

I'd get a modern fire-and-forget 'take it to the bank' autofocuser with ring USM, that's what.

As every autofocusing Canon 50 is compromised on that front in some way, I'd get the 85 f/1.4L IS, 100L or 135L, perhaps the 85 f/1.8 USM if you are cost-constrained.

- A

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2017, 04:39:48 PM »