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.
Much appreciated.
Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?
- Thread starter Cory
- Start date
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.
Upvote
0
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...
Very good flare resistance and bokeh. Highly recommended!
If you can get along with 4.0...
Upvote
0
picturefan said:
+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.
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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?
Upvote
0
Cory said:
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
Upvote
0
Cory said:
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.
Upvote
0
bhf3737 said:
+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
Upvote
0
Cory said:
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.
Upvote
0
Cory said:
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
Upvote
0
As always - thanks. I think I've decided on keeping the 16-35 and adding the 50 1.2. Yes, many criticisms, but my priority is that "special" quality so I'm glad to give up some sharpness for that and 50 would maybe be "the" walk-around lens that I'm after. Then, the 135 serves as the 85 as well with the added benefit of being the perfect lens.
Upvote
0
Cory said:
You can't really go wrong here.
There have been too many threads on lens holy trinities or magical combos (35 + 85, 50 + 135, etc.), but only you know what you like so try stuff and see.
Strongly a recommend a rent-before-buy if (a) you are unsure, (b) hate buyers' remorse or (c) hate reselling things. I'm not saying the 50L is bad -- far from it -- but you won't know if it's right for you until you use it, so a rental is always a wise step, IMHO.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
The cheapest way to check out the 50mm focal length might be buying a 50mm f1.8 STM. It's likely to cost less than a rental, and you don't have to send back. If it turns out that you need the focal length and wide apertures, then it might be time to think about the 50 f1.2
Upvote
0
Cory said:
The 24-70mm f/4L IS is a very nice lens and a bargain at its current price point in the US. I owned one 18 months ago when we visited Hawaii, and I was very happy with the images I took with it. The IS allows sharp images at very slow shutter speeds. I was able to take some waterfall images handheld at under 1 second exposure that were tack sharp bracing the camera against a tree, something I could never do with a non-IS lens.
If you are mostly shooting stationary objects this might be a better option than the f/2.8 II.
Personally, I love using a 24-70 in combination with the 135 f/2 as a 2-lens mini kit.
I've tried using the 16-35 f/4 IS along with a short telephoto like the 100 f/2.8L macro, 135 f/2 or 70-200, but I find I miss having 36-69mm coverage.
Upvote
0
