24-70 f/2.8 II vs. f/4 IS

Sort by date Sort by votes
M

m8547

Dec 19, 2012
70
0
5,036
#1
So I have a 24-70 f/2.8 II, and I'm thinking of selling it to get a 24-70 f/4 IS. My camera is a 6D. I want to make sure I won't regret the decision to trade.

Reasons for trading:
  • I want lighter weight (about 200g lighter) for hiking
  • IS
  • Cheaper
  • Macro would be good for flowers
Compared to the 24-105, the 24-70 f/4 IS is better for me because:
  • 18 point sun stars
  • Newer design with possibly slightly higher build quality and better image quality
  • More modern IS (1 stop better)
  • Macro
  • Already have 100mm+ covered if I bring the 100-400 ii
Downsides of the trade:
  • Lose 1 stop
  • Slightly worse image quality (sharpness and micro contrast is a bit worse on test charts, but the Imatest numbers are close)

I mostly do landscapes, and I don't usually carry a tripod, so it seems like I could benefit more from IS than from f/2.8. It would also be great to have something lighter and cheaper. I can afford the f/2.8 version since I own one, but I can always find other things to use the money for.

How much will I miss f/2.8? Honestly I haven't used the lens that much, but I don't take as many photos in the winter, and I've only owned this setup since the middle of last year. It seems like 70mm f/2.8 is not quite enough bokeh for outdoor portraits where you don't want to see a distracting background, but I haven't had a chance to try that much since I don't do many portraits. It seems like a f/1.4 prime or a 135mm f/2 would be better for that kind of thing. Or I could use my 100-400 ii as long as I take portraits from really far away.

I also like to do night sky photos of the milky way. I've mainly used my Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for that so far. Is there anything comparable to the 24-70 f/2.8 ii around 24mm and f/2.8 or faster without much coma?
 
#2
Hi, I'm someone who has owned both of these(currently have the f/4) and the Mark 1 24-70 as well. I can tell you that I do not miss the 2.8. The IS in the f/4L truly does compensate very well for those extra stops and if you are a macro shooter (my primary theme) than you'll love the on the go ability if you don't have your macro specific glass with you. I wouldn't get hung up on the IQ, it's not that big of a hit. The f/4L is certainly sharper than the Mark 1 24-70 2.8. Sure it's not like the Mark 2 or the 70-200 2.8 ll but it's a modern lens with great IS, good coatings and a solid, compact build. I haven't regretted it at all. Now if I wanted to do dedicated macro work on a rail and with a mt-ex24 and all, I'd shoot with the 100L not the 24-70 but with a ring light it has given me really good results.
 
Upvote 0
#4
I bought the 6D with the 24-70 4 and have found it to be fine for hiking and the like and I have expressed many times that the macro feature, while not being the 100L is nice to have. The complaint about completely overshadowing your subject is overblown in the early reviews.

Myself, I don't mind packing the extra weight of a lens and hike a lot with the 300 2,8 II but certainly lighter can be nice. Again personally I'm more inclined to like wider and tend to neglect 24-70, while using 11-24 and 70-200 and the 2.8 vs. 4 doesn't seem to phase me much except with teles and wildlife.

Jack
 
Upvote 0
#5
If you solely want lighter weight and IS, then by all means go for it.

I have both lenses and the f4 version has its perks, although I will grab the 2.8 for most serious shooting. The IS is superb - you pretty much get very close to the full advertised 4 stops (!).
 
Upvote 0
#7
I have both lenses. I am considering selling the f/2.8 and keep the f/4, for the same reasons as you (and to fund a 35LII :) ) I really like the f/2.8, but if I shoot in low light or want shallow DOF, I'd rather grab a prime lens.

The f/4 lens is really good, and I find it's performance to be more even. It's not as good in the center, but at some focal lengths better in the corners.
 
Upvote 0
#8
I agree with the posts above saying the f/4 IS is a good lens, and I have gone down the path you are talking about in having the f/4 zoom and primes in that focal length. I think the f/4 IS makes an excellent landscape lens. But of course it does come down to how you (want to) shoot. Do you have Lightroom or some other software which can tell you what percentage of shots you have taken with your f/2.8 have been at wider than f/4? Of those, how many are shots you could easily have switched to a prime to take? If you can work out answers to those questions, it might help you work out whether you are likely to miss the f/2.8.

And of course as someone has already suggested, there is also the option of just having wider and longer, and not having a 24-70 at all.
 
Upvote 0
#10
I just took advantage of the current Canon refurb sale and purchased a 24-70 f/4L IS.

I've owned a 24-70 f/2.8 II for 2.5 years and love it. But, it is big and heavy and I often wish I had a lighter option for hiking or day trips with the family. I seldom shoot my 24-70 II at f/2.8 for these types of outings anyway. As others have pointed out, f/2.8 in this focal length range doesn't achieve much subject isolation. f/1.2 to f/2 primes are needed for really shallow DOF and light gathering in dark places.

So, I plan to use both the 2.8 II and 4 IS side by side and evaluate which I want to keep. If I'm happy with the the f/4 IS, I will probably sell the II and use the money for a fast prime, either the 35L II or 85L II.
 
Upvote 0
#11
I am still dithering. I tend to hike with the 6D, 40mm pancake lens, and a 125mm macro, plus light tripod. Sometimes I pop the 21mm in the bag too. I used to hike with the 60D and EF-S 15-85, no tripod - that was lighter, and convenient.
 
Upvote 0
#14
NancyP said:
I am still dithering. I tend to hike with the 6D, 40mm pancake lens, and a 125mm macro, plus light tripod. Sometimes I pop the 21mm in the bag too. I used to hike with the 60D and EF-S 15-85, no tripod - that was lighter, and convenient.
Click to expand...

The 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is even a bit lighter than the 24-70 f/4. But I prefer the 24-70 for various reasons.


If I sell the 24-70 f/2.8 II, I'd lose a good lens for night sky photography at 24mm. I could replace it with a Samyang 24mm f/1.4. That would use most of the money I save by trading to the 24-70 f/4, but I'd gain 2 stops for night sky photography at 24mm, but lose some image quality.
 
Upvote 0
#15
m8547 said:
NancyP said:
I am still dithering. I tend to hike with the 6D, 40mm pancake lens, and a 125mm macro, plus light tripod. Sometimes I pop the 21mm in the bag too. I used to hike with the 60D and EF-S 15-85, no tripod - that was lighter, and convenient.
Click to expand...

The 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is even a bit lighter than the 24-70 f/4. But I prefer the 24-70 for various reasons.


If I sell the 24-70 f/2.8 II, I'd lose a good lens for night sky photography at 24mm. I could replace it with a Samyang 24mm f/1.4. That would use most of the money I save by trading to the 24-70 f/4, but I'd gain 2 stops for night sky photography at 24mm, but lose some image quality.
Click to expand...

2.8 II is one of the best SLR lenses on the planet. If it's working and it's paid for...

As for landscapes without a tripod, I believe, if you are generally healthy and have no physical reason for not carrying a tripod, you are limiting your options way too much. Besides deeper depth of field (stopping down) in less than bright sunshine, you can't do HDR, long exposures, or panoramas without a tripod. There are so many lightweight tripods, and the 24-70 does not need a monster for support or stability.
 
Upvote 0
#18
A while back I tried the 24-70 F4 L IS against my (then) 24-105 F4 L IS and found it to be very good - possibly better than my example. however it wasn't much and certainly not enough to be worth trading lenses. More recently I tried the 24-70 F2.8 L V2 lens - oops! I shouldn't have done that! My 24-105 was promptly sold and the 24-70 F2.8 V2 bought!
Why did I go for the 24-70 L F2.8 V2 - simply because my images were better - significantly better IMO. As to the F2.8 aperture? Don't know and don't care as I rarely use lenses like this wider than F5.6. IS? - one of the attractions of this lens is that it doesn't have it. In other words I don't have an extra element in the focal path that impairs IQ and makes an already large lens (for it's range and aperture) even bigger. You might have noticed that I am not a fan of IS - even on the longest lenses it just gets in the way!
Personally I think it would be a mistake to sell the 24-70 F2.8 V2 for the F4 IS version - but that is only because I have used them and cannot see any use for IS at any focal length that I have available - 16mm to 1120mm.
 
Upvote 0
#19
YuengLinger said:
As for landscapes without a tripod, I believe, if you are generally healthy and have no physical reason for not carrying a tripod, you are limiting your options way too much. Besides deeper depth of field (stopping down) in less than bright sunshine, you can't do HDR, long exposures, or panoramas without a tripod. There are so many lightweight tripods, and the 24-70 does not need a monster for support or stability.
Click to expand...

Good point. I generally agree with you, but there are still some situations where I still won't use a tripod and want a lighter camera setup.

Until recently, I didn't know how to use a tripod (that's stupid, you screw the camera to it and point it where you want). What I mean is, I didn't know how to take advantage of a tripod to take better photos, besides holding the camera steady. Recently I've learned about compositing and the value of a ND filter in some cases (for example, bluring away people in city shots or making calm water look more mirror like. I think "silky" waterfalls look stupid, so I won't use it for that). I need to practice these techniques before I am good at them.

I also realized I should get a lighter tripod. I currently have an 055xprob (6lbs with head), but I haven't found a replacement yet.

Often bringing a tripod would be impractical. For example, if I'm mountain biking and I want to stop to get action shots of my friends, I'm not going to set up a tripod. It won't fit on my pack, and they barely have patience to wait while I take pictures at all.

Another case is backpacking. I often find amazing landscapes or interesting wildlife. My pack weighs at least 30-35 lbs with a camera without a tripod for a multi-day trip, and I'd prefer if I could get it closer to 20lb so I don't feel so drained after a day of carrying it. I'll bring a tripod if it's worth it, but first I need to get better at using one as I mentioned above. Even then, while I'm hiking I don't always want to stop to set up a tripod. Just taking off the pack for an extended stop is a lot of work, and it takes some time. If I see a nice flower I want to just be able to take a quick photo of it, usually. I plan to use a Peak Design Capture Clip to carry the camera while hiking. It would be nice if I was stronger, but I don't have time for that!

Then there's vacation snapshots where I just want to capture the memory and not necessarily create a great photo. A tripod gets in the way depending on the situation.

Finally, I'm not good at visualizing a photo before I take it, so I like to try different angles. A tripod slows down that process.
 
Upvote 0
#20
When I use a tripod, I do some scouting for desired angle and height of view before I set up. And yes, the first tripod I had was a 055XPROB with 410 geared head - I like it, but only if I don't have to go too far.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

snappy604
RF wide angle - RF 15-35mm 2.8 vs RF 16-28mm 2.8
Replies
3
Views
342
snappy604
snappy604
Canon Rumors
The Follow-up to the RF 24-70 F2.8L IS USM Could See More of the World
Replies
50
Views
4K
Eric84
E
S
RF 24-105 f4-7.1 vs RF 24-70 f2.8 in daylight
Replies
20
Views
1K
Michael Clark
Michael Clark
AlanF
Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm
Replies
40
Views
10K
Del Paso
D
Richard-CN
Canon RF 14mm F/1.4 – Is it the Astrophography Dream Lens for RF?
Replies
99
Views
8K
KirkD
K
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu