buy the 24-70 4 IS... or wait for the 2.8 IS?

tomscott

Photographer & Graphic Designer
I have the 17-55mm IS, 24-105mm L IS and 24-70mm L F2.8. Ive always had an IS standard zoom from my days in APC, If you are used to IS you will miss is. Its not that the 24-70 range doesn't need it, but the IS is a big shoulder with heavy glass and also makes the shooting experience nicer with the steady viewfinder.

If you are used to getting away with shooting between 1/30th - 1/80th you will effectively have to double it without IS and FF. I found moving from the 17-55mm to the 24-105mm a really great path. I thought moving to FF would be a bigger issue with the larger mirror/more slap and shallower DOF. But I love the 24-105mm, I had no issue with the move at all. It is equal in IS/IQ to the 17-55mm and served me very well for my first 2 years with FF. Its not the absolute sharpest but its a brilliant range and 90% of the time will be all you need until you get into low light conditions. I also have an exceptional copy which isn't far off my MKI 24-70mm which I think adds to my opinion.

Moving up from APC to FF the mirror is a lot larger and the slap is more pronounced so shooting without IS higher speeds are needed.

Im a wedding photographer and bought the 24-70mm F2.8 about a year ago because of its low light capability. When out testing the lens I found my keepers were well down, you'll find that you do need to ensure your SS is faster or you will end up with blurry shots, more lazy on my side because I'm used to relying on IS. After a couple of outings with it there was no issues at all, I also have the 70-200mm non IS so started using the same technique and it worked a charm. It doesn't take long to get used to but its also a lot heavier and a pain to lug around, so unless I'm on a job I leave it at home and take the more compact, bigger range 24-105mm.

The 24-70mm F2.8 is an exceptional lens tho and the results are incredible. Its just a different way of working and not relying on IS isn't a bad thing and improves your technique. I generally get 95% of keepers with my 24-70mm down to around 1/40th.

I would recommend the 24-105mm F4 over the 24-70mm F4 for 2 reasons - range and price. Its no argument the 24-70 F4 has better IQ but it is marginal, it has less distortion true but this can be sorted in post. A good 24-105mm can be had for £400-500. Also to say that you can't get great results with one check Sean Bagshaw out on flickr his images are astounding using a 24-105mm and 16-35mm MKI

https://www.flickr.com/photos/seanbagshaw/

Joshua Trees and The Galaxy by Sean Bagshaw, on Flickr

Hint of Winter by Sean Bagshaw, on Flickr

and one from me with the 24-105 and 5DMKIII

Hallin Fell, Ullswater, Cumbria, starscape by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

The Macro capabilities of that lens are useful but I'm not sure how useful as you need to be so close you would scare anything away.

Like you I will buy the 24-70mm F2.8 MKIII when the IS version comes out. ATM I feel the MKII lens is too expensive without IS if it had it I would buy it in a heartbeat. IQ may be exceptional but the 24-70mm MKI version is still stellar and not that far behind if you have a good one and leaves you with £1000 change. Thats a lot of money you could add another lens, I added the 16-35mm MKII with the money I saved, which I love shooting with.
 

jdramirez

EOS 5D MK IV
May 31, 2011
2,944
0
42
I've seen the 24-70 f4L sell for as little as $850... I say get the 24-70 today... sell it at a small loss when the mythical lens comes out. And don't really worry about it.
 

Mort

EOS M50
Jun 28, 2013
25
7
www.facebook.com
I'll reiterate what StudentOfLight said about the Tamron. It's a shame that you aren't considering it. I have a 6D and the Tamron 24-70 VC and haven't missed the Canon Equivalent at all. As much as it pains me to relive this, the lens has fallen out of my bag once and was on my camera when my tripod tipped (cheap tripod) and still it performs flawlessly. IQ is sharp and the VC definitely helps in the lower light.

My copy, although great, was my second copy. You just have to test the sharpness when you get it and if it's not up to snuff, return it. Also, the Bokeh isn't the greatest. My copy does have that onion look, but for the most part, it's a non-issue.

I've compared my Tamron to a 24-105, and the mk1 24-70 and blew both out of the water. I haven't been privileged to play with either the 24-70 f/4 or the mkii 24-70 2.8, so I can't say where it is compared to those two. I will say that based on how recent the mkii just came out compared to how long the 24-70 lasted and the old 28-70, I think you'll be waiting at least 2 years before you'll see a 24-70 2.8 IS, but that is just my guess.

I would say your biggest question would be whether to save the money now with the f/4 IS or go big with the f/2.8. Which ever you do, don't look back and you'll love your decision
 

Attachments

Act444

EOS 6D MK II
May 4, 2011
993
102
I think you could be waiting a while. Better to get what you need now and then whenever it comes out, trade up.

Only reason to wait is if you have no real need for such a lens in the near future.
 

Skirball

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
461
0
cid said:
Skirball said:
It seems nobody read the part in the OP where he said "IS is a must".
It seems you haven't read what other people wrote. We were only suggesting that IS is not such a must at this focal length and wide aperture.

If we were talking about 70-200mm then I'm on the boat and IS is must, especially when you have shaky hands.
No, I did read what other people wrote; I'm just questioning it. There seems to be a tendency online for people to argue their own agendas instead of simply answering a question. The same argument can be seen in the 16-35 f/4 IS threads, where many are adamant that IS isn't needed on UWA. Yet, there are people who want it. So let them have it. If someone asks for a lens recommendation and says one of the absolute requirements is that it has IS, why not answer the question instead of question his needs?
 

AshtonNekolah

Time doesn't wait, Shoot Like It's Your Last.
buy the 24-70 f4 IS no telling when or if there will even be a 2.8, as for the record 24 to 69mm IS is not so important with primes in that range with very bright stops. if you want 2.8 get the tamron 2.8 with IS its just as good with a very soft vignetting that can be fixed in LR.
 

Laktibrada

I'm New Here
May 24, 2014
17
0
here i was thinking i would solve my issue between buying a lens and waiting...

now after reading all your input i desperately want to buy a lens because i feel like i need it and my life will never be complete without it :D

the ugly truth though - i do not desperately NEED another lens... i got quite used to the 50mm and can make it work for most situations; but i also know i missed out on some great shots because i was not able to capture the whole scene or zoom in a bit more

whats worse, some of you vouched in for lenses i did not even consider at the very beginning for various reasons - the 2.8 II and the Tamron and you guys make valid points to an extent where i am actually starting to favour these 2 lenses over the 4 IS
tamron is cheaper and has the extra stop, but its a 3rd party lens
2.8 II is the ultimative lens, however no IS and super expensive

decisions decisions....
2.8 II for 1650
Tamron for 780
4 IS for 800
 

tomscott

Photographer & Graphic Designer
I wouldn't call the 24-70mm a must have focal length. Its a useful length but not an exciting focal length.

It is a workhorse and a useful length for pros shooting weddings and documenting. But if you want a lens that gives you a more interesting look then the primes are a better choice.

Depends what you shoot, if your a run and gun shooter looking to fill a missing focal length again I would buy the 24-105mm save some money and wait, that extra range is useful. If you need 2.8 then yes go for it, but again 2.8 is quite narrow and I don't use it all the time. Whereas a 50mm 1.2 or 85mm 1.2 you buy it for the 1.2-2 range.

The tammy is nice, but the bokeh imo isn't that attractive, it has the onion effect and seems like there is quite a lot of variation between copies but is significantly cheaper.

This was the summary from the above link of the difference between the 24-70 F4 and 24-105mm

Less expensive and offering the same L-class build quality, the 24-105mm offers image stabilization and a longer telephoto focal length, but doesn't have the macro capability and is slightly more distorted in the wide angle. In terms of image quality, the 24-105mm is the same or better than the 24-70mm, especially at the 50mm setting.
 
Nov 19, 2012
6
0
I bought the Tamron 24-70 VC a few weeks ago, having dropped my 24-105 and damaged it beyond resonable cost of repair.. I wasn't sure if I would - (a) miss the focal length of the 105 or (b) wish I'd saved for the 24-70 L II
(not really an option for me at the moment) I hired first then bought, both copies were amazing. I like a bit of pixel peeping but I honestly can't tell the difference between the Tamron & my 100 2.8 L IS or Sigma 50 1.4 (first version) when viewed at 1:1. I've been shooting an hospital heritage collection recently, swapping between all three depending on the shot and I would say the Tamron beats the 50 1.4 at the apetures I am using. The VC is also the best I have ever come across, I can shoot 70mm at 1/4 second in low light and most are keepers.
Downsides are strong barrel distortion and vignetting at 24mm (correctable in Lightroom etc) and solid but all plasticy feel - (no worse than the 100 2.8 IS).. I wouldn't like the chances of dropping either of them once wheras I had to have a few go's to dispatch my 24-105
 

bmwzimmer

EOS 80D
Mar 11, 2013
112
0
So Cal
Laktibrada said:
here i was thinking i would solve my issue between buying a lens and waiting...

now after reading all your input i desperately want to buy a lens because i feel like i need it and my life will never be complete without it :D

the ugly truth though - i do not desperately NEED another lens... i got quite used to the 50mm and can make it work for most situations; but i also know i missed out on some great shots because i was not able to capture the whole scene or zoom in a bit more

whats worse, some of you vouched in for lenses i did not even consider at the very beginning for various reasons - the 2.8 II and the Tamron and you guys make valid points to an extent where i am actually starting to favour these 2 lenses over the 4 IS
tamron is cheaper and has the extra stop, but its a 3rd party lens
2.8 II is the ultimative lens, however no IS and super expensive

decisions decisions....
2.8 II for 1650
Tamron for 780
4 IS for 800
Let me simplify your choices a bit

2.8 II for 1650 used
Tamron for 1300 new
4 IS for 800 used

DO NOT THINK ABOUT BUYING THE TAMRON USED. With 3rd party glass, buy new with the factory warranty. It's so RISKY to buy used with all the bad Tamron/Sigma copies floating around. I was in your boat and like to buy/sell lenses on Craigslist and the first Tamron I looked at was disappointingly soft at 2.8 and the second one the guy bought grey market so no warranty.

Since you already have a fast 50L, stick to the f/4 IS. If you didn't own any fast primes, I'd cough up the cash and get a 2.8 or 2.8 is.
 

Laktibrada

I'm New Here
May 24, 2014
17
0
prices for the 2.8 II and 4 IS are in EUROs and for new lenses, not used ones ;)
there is a cashback promotion in slovakia untill the end of june - that is why i joined the forum - to try to make up my mind untill then ::)
 

tomscott

Photographer & Graphic Designer
Ye I agree if you can find good copies they do exist. I don't know how but I have managed to get stellar copies of the 24-105 and 24-70 MKI got the 24-105 new with the 5dMKIII and bought the 24-70 second hand but a very late build date almost last batch, also barely used.
 

Marsu42

Canon Pride.
Feb 7, 2012
6,316
0
Berlin
der-tierfotograf.de
tomscott said:
I wouldn't call the 24-70mm a must have focal length. Its a useful length but not an exciting focal length.
+1 ... which makes is to hard for me to shell out €2000 for something I'm not really excited about, but alas, I have come to realize it's kind of a "must have" if you don't have the time to frame with primes.

tomscott said:
The tammy is nice, but the bokeh imo isn't that attractive, it has the onion effect and seems like there is quite a lot of variation between copies but is significantly cheaper.
If you get an ok copy - which shouldn't be *that* hard if not mail-ordering and knowing what to look for - imho the "onion" bokeh isn't a show stopper, many lenses have it including my 100L macro which isn't known for sub-par iq. Speaking of copy variation: The 24-105 is said to have it, certainly the 24-70L1 (see lensrentals vs. L2).

tomscott said:
In terms of image quality, the 24-105mm is the same or better than the 24-70mm, especially at the 50mm setting.
Ugh, thanks for pointing this out! tdp tested 3 copies and 2 are a complete catastrophe considering this is Canon's newest lens - the other one (link below) is only ok-ish.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
 

cid

"light is defining shape"
Nov 27, 2012
401
0
500px.com
Laktibrada said:
prices for the 2.8 II and 4 IS are in EUROs and for new lenses, not used ones ;)
there is a cashback promotion in slovakia untill the end of june - that is why i joined the forum - to try to make up my mind untill then ::)
yes, that's how I happend to be owner of shiny new 70-200 mk II, I went to prolaika for some repair consultation and ended up 1800e lighter (after cashback)
::)
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,617
311
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I really liked the old mkI 24-70L for some of the reasons it was critisied for...unfortunatly by forum nerds and not real world users. The old mechanism was highly critisied becuase it was extended at the 24mm end, while at the 70mm the lens was at it's shortest. This had a number of excellent but unique features...firstly the huge and over sized hood worked really well at the long and short end. Most lenses, the hood only really works at the wide end and serves little purpose at the long end. Zoom burst shots were increadibly easy with this lens, pop the shutter on 1/6th second shoot and twist....easy. The changing balance of the lens actually helped this technique. The weather sealing was aided by the large hood and when on landcape workshops, other photographers who were using the 24-105 often commented how better the hood worked on my 24-70L.
The level of distortion at the 24mm end was very low for this type of lens. But the best feature was the as one got close to MFD at the 70mm end, the zoom breathing worked in reverse and added focal length as the focus got closer to MFD....which made it really cool for differential focussing and shallow depth of field techniques. When worked right, it was very easy to through the background out of focus by focussing on a detail which is close. For weddings, I could easily get by with most of a wedding using that one lens....that's versatility for you. Sure, there were sharper lenses available. But I've always found the mkI sharp enough, even withh 22mp.
The new mkII version has sacrificed all this for sharpness....and yes it's sharper, but that is all.
Anyone here tried the Nikkor version on a D800...I've heard it aint that great. most of the rave reviews of the Nikkor 24-70 were mated to the D700, which was only a 12mp camera.
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,617
311
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I far prefer the results from a 35L and 95L combo...but unfortunatly it's not always versatile enough to shot with, so out comes the zoom instead. With a general purpose zoom, versatility is the key and that's what is their key feature. They perform a functional role....not an impressive role, although I've gotten some great results from my 24-70L. But it harder to get "art" out of it than say my primes or TS-e lenses.
I still think that the 24-105 IS L is a more versatile lens, it's a pity it's not rumoured for an update...It could do with it. A 24-105 and 100-400 make a fantastic 2 lens combo.
 

Hjalmarg1

Photo Hobbyist
Oct 8, 2013
770
3
49
Doha, Qatar
iaind said:
It will be a long wait!!!!!

Looks like Canon strategy is f2.8 non IS and f4 IS for both 16-35 and 24-70 L series lenses

2.8II is a great lens
+1, agree it may never come, don't wait to see the 24-70mm f2.8L IS. Buy either one and enjoy now.
 

Laktibrada

I'm New Here
May 24, 2014
17
0
seems like i will be selling the 100mm zeiss at a slight profit (bought it really cheap)

i hate to part with it (will miss that smooth zeissy feeling when focusing, the buttery bokeh and the extreme sharpness), but i have that area covered with the 70-200 4 IS (yeah... not THAT sharp but will do)

and with the extra cash i will just go ahead and buy the overpriced monster, from which my wannabe career will profit the most...

24-70 2.8 II
70-200 4 IS
50 1.2

seems like a nice universal setup...
should make me satisfied for some time i hope... although... i was pondering a decent tripod for a long time ::) ;D