24-70 2.8 or 24-70 4.0 IS ?

[polarhannes]

Hi,

I am intending to buy a new 24-70 so I was wondering if the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM has a better IQ than the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM ? I would pair it with a 5D3.

I saw some very good reviews of the 2.8 II, but the 4 stop IS of the 4.0 sounds tempting...
I'd be glad to hear your opinions on what to buy.
Thanks in advance!

 

[emag]

Tamron.
EF 2.8 is optically better, EF 4 has IS. Tamron is no slouch optically, is 2.8 and has IS. At least for me, it's an easy decision. You wouldn't go wrong with any one of the three, actually....but the Tamron might be the only one capable of getting the shot in extreme conditions. Added bonus - if cost is a consideration the wallet impact is reasonable and I wouldn't consider the lens a compromise.

 

[Dylan777]

If you want: sharpest zoom at wide open and faster shutter speed, then f2.8 II is the one.

If you plan to shoot 90yrs grandma & granpa crossing street, then get f4 IS :-X

 

[7enderbender]

Hi,

I am intending to buy a new 24-70 so I was wondering if the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM has a better IQ than the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM ? I would pair it with a 5D3.

I saw some very good reviews of the 2.8 II, but the 4 stop IS of the 4.0 sounds tempting...
I'd be glad to hear your opinions on what to buy.
Thanks in advance!

It all depends. 2.8 is always nicer in my opinion - but still no substitute for a fast prime. IS I find pretty much useless in most cases and I'd rather not have it. But then I find the 24-70II outrageously overpriced for a lens with a plastic barrel. The 24-70 f/4 is a mystery to me. Why would I want that when I can get a 24-105 with the same slow f/4 aperture?
That being said - the 24-105 is quite alright in my experience for a lot of things where you don't need shallow DOF. You can always add an affordable 50 or 85 for that.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Tamron.
EF 2.8 is optically better, EF 4 has IS. Tamron is no slouch optically, is 2.8 and has IS. At least for me, it's an easy decision. You wouldn't go wrong with any one of the three, actually....but the Tamron might be the only one capable of getting the shot in extreme conditions. Added bonus - if cost is a consideration the wallet impact is reasonable and I wouldn't consider the lens a compromise.

+1. It provides the best balance of features and I have found the IQ awesome on my copy. I have also found some very practical uses of VC/IS in the field, including shooting some mild long exposures handheld when I had no tripod with me. The only thing the 24-70 f/4L offers to compete is the macro functionality. I have found, however, that the Tamron does great with extension tubes, so I would still choose it there.

If cost is no object and you don't really nned IS, go for the 24-70L MKII - it is considered to be one of the most optically superior zoom lens ever made .

 

[polarhannes]

Thanks everyone for your feedback so far!
I will check the internet for reviews of the Tamron 24-70, thanks for the suggestion.

The 24-70 f/4 is a mystery to me. Why would I want that when I can get a 24-105 with the same slow f/4 aperture?

Good point, is the IQ similar? If so the 24-105 would be another very good choice for a general walk around lens.

 

[Loswr]

The 24-105/4L IS is an excellent walkaround lens on FF. The time to buy one is as a kit with a new FF body, else pick up a "white box" version (where a retailer breaks the kit apart).

The 24-70/2.8L II delivers the best IQ for a zoom lens in it's range, better than some primes it overlaps, too.

The 24-70/4L IS is smaller and lighter than either of the two above, and does well for closeup (near marco) shooting, although working distance is limited.

If you're looking for a walkaround lens, I'd recommend the 24-105L. IS is great for static subjects, but does nothing for subject motion. If you'll shoot moving subjects (e.g. people) in low light, or portraits, the 24-70/2.8L II is a better choice.