Canon 24-70 F/2.8 version 1 or 24-70 F/4 IS?

[cellomaster27]

I know these lenses are quite different in most ways besides the focal range. I'm looking to buy one of these.. I have tried the sigma 24-70 but was NOT impressed at all. Same with the tamron 24-70 2.8: underwhelming. I just want to hear your thoughts and inputs! Thanks!

 

[Ryananthony]

I know these lenses are quite different in most ways besides the focal range. I'm looking to buy one of these.. I have tried the sigma 24-70 but was NOT impressed at all. Same with the tamron 24-70 2.8: underwhelming. I just want to hear your thoughts and inputs! Thanks!

I can't speak for the f4 but I had the f2 8 version 1 and I was never really happy with it. I was under the impression that the Tamron was better then the version 1. If your not happy with any of the others then perhaps f2.8ii is what you should be considering.

 

[NancyP]

Do you need f/2.8? Do you shoot action in low light? Then get the 24-70 L no-IS II.
Do you need stabilization , that is, do you shoot stationary subjects in low light? Then go for 24-70 f/4 L IS. Do you shoot video? Consider the 24-105 f/variable STM.

 

[chilakamarthi]

I know these lenses are quite different in most ways besides the focal range. I'm looking to buy one of these.. I have tried the sigma 24-70 but was NOT impressed at all. Same with the tamron 24-70 2.8: underwhelming. I just want to hear your thoughts and inputs! Thanks!

I don't know about Canon F/2.8 V1, But I used Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. Many people suggested me to go with that version - But I tried 3 copies and all three copies, I was not happy with sharpness even after micro adjustments. So I went to 24-70 F/4. I am happy with 20-70 F/4 with IS. I tried to put off IS and take pics and realized that my hands def need IS and so never thought about F2.8 II.

 

[cellomaster27]

I know these lenses are quite different in most ways besides the focal range. I'm looking to buy one of these.. I have tried the sigma 24-70 but was NOT impressed at all. Same with the tamron 24-70 2.8: underwhelming. I just want to hear your thoughts and inputs! Thanks!

I can't speak for the f4 but I had the f2 8 version 1 and I was never really happy with it. I was under the impression that the Tamron was better then the version 1. If your not happy with any of the others then perhaps f2.8ii is what you should be considering.

I see. I tried the tamron but it just didn't excite me at all... from using the lens and to reviewing the pictures. If the version one from canon isn't too good.. maybe version 2 after all. I'm just on a tight budget after my 5D3 purchase. ;D

Do you need f/2.8? Do you shoot action in low light? Then get the 24-70 L no-IS II.
Do you need stabilization , that is, do you shoot stationary subjects in low light? Then go for 24-70 f/4 L IS. Do you shoot video? Consider the 24-105 f/variable STM.

I don't shoot video and I have primes for low light stuff. Now, how much of a difference is it between the f4 IS and the 2.8 mark II? I do shoot quite a bit of portraits..

I know these lenses are quite different in most ways besides the focal range. I'm looking to buy one of these.. I have tried the sigma 24-70 but was NOT impressed at all. Same with the tamron 24-70 2.8: underwhelming. I just want to hear your thoughts and inputs! Thanks!

I don't know about Canon F/2.8 V1, But I used Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. Many people suggested me to go with that version - But I tried 3 copies and all three copies, I was not happy with sharpness even after micro adjustments. So I went to 24-70 F/4. I am happy with 20-70 F/4 with IS. I tried to put off IS and take pics and realized that my hands def need IS and so never thought about F2.8 II.

Nice! congrats on your satisfactory purchase. I'm leaning towards the F4 IS based on price and quality. No doubt that the 2.8 mark 2 is great.. and even the mark 1 doesn't seem half bad, but $$. but then maybe I should just wait a little and get the 24-105mm F4 IS II?

 

[dexstrose]

I've been reading about new cameras. It made me rethink about glass to accommodate for high megapixle cameras that I may purchase in the future.

I wanted the 24-70 f4, but saved and now I have the 24-70 f2.8 II. Its on my camera most of the times. It has great af, contrast, and color. I really like how it feels on my 6d, not too heavy.

 

[SteveM]

I should read the review of the 24-70 f4 IS over on 'photozone' before making any commitment. The old version of the 24-105 f4 IS is worth considering (providing you aren't shooting architecture.....ie straight lines). For people and landscapes this lens is very good, despite owning a 24-70 f2.8 mkll I use it quite often on weddings.

 

[Alex_M]

I am reading about the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC lens being not sharp enough... is that the same lens that I took this photo with?

tack sharp at 1:1.

HINT: do not forget to switch VC OFF at shutter speed faster than 1/70. Somehow if left ON it affects greatly the image sharpness even when taking photos handheld. I use VC of this lens only for photos taken at 1/60s and slower shutter speed handheld.

https://goo.gl/photos/2XEJT7Q649tY7AVC7

New Haircut

 

[hawaiisunsetphoto]

For the price, and if you're shooting portraits, a used 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens.

 

[pwp]

For the price, and if you're shooting portraits, a used 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens.

Well maybe...the 24-70mm f/2.8L (MkI) was a flawed design. There is no doubt that there are good copies out there, but this lens has predominantly been a disappointment to photographers worldwide. The ones that are showing up second hand now are likely to be units being quickly on-sold after a disappointing experience. I know I'm not the only one on this list who went through five 24-70mm f/2.8L MkI's. All were well below useable commercial standard. Even after servicing at CPS.

My hard earned advice would be to avoid lost time and almost guaranteed annoyance and forget about the 24-70mm f/2.8L MkI.

-pw

 

[cellomaster27]

I am reading about the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC lens being not sharp enough... is that the same lens that I took this photo with?

tack sharp at 1:1.

HINT: do not forget to switch VC OFF at shutter speed faster than 1/70. Somehow if left ON it affects greatly the image sharpness even when taking photos handheld. I use VC of this lens only for photos taken at 1/60s and slower shutter speed handheld.

Ah! No wonder.. the VC was really giving me terrible unusable photos. I was borrowing a friend's copy.. Good to know. But even then, that's really not useful to turn the VC off at shutter speeds more than 1/70.. that would be a nuisance. Thanks for the info!

For the price, and if you're shooting portraits, a used 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens.

Well maybe...the 24-70mm f/2.8L (MkI) was a flawed design. There is no doubt that there are good copies out there, but this lens has predominantly been a disappointment to photographers worldwide. The ones that are showing up second hand now are likely to be units being quickly on-sold after a disappointing experience. I know I'm not the only one on this list who went through five 24-70mm f/2.8L MkI's. All were well below useable commercial standard. Even after servicing at CPS.

My hard earned advice would be to avoid lost time and almost guaranteed annoyance and forget about the 24-70mm f/2.8L MkI.

-pw

Thanks pw! I was so close to getting a mark 1.. glad I didn't jump on it! I think I'll get the 24-70 f/4 IS.. The 24-105mm f4 version 1 is good but the IS is marginal. I would like to get the version 2 but that's just paying premium atm.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I had 5 copies of the 24-70 mk I, and was not pleased with any. I liked my 24-105mm MK I better.

But, the 24-70mm f/2.8 MK II is way out in front of all of them, if its not good enough for you, I'd say you might have camera issues or a bad lens.

The 24-70 mk II is available for $1600 (USA NEW), if that is more than you want to spend, then the 24-70mm f/4 is a hair better than the 24-105, but I'd get a gray market 24-105 for around $630. White Box USA versions often appear for the same price.

 

[privatebydesign]

Maybe I have a freakishly good 24-70 f2.8 MkI, but I tested mine against two MkII's and basically couldn't tell them apart, so I kept the MkI.

For me the 24-70 f2.8 MkI has been an absolute blindingly good lens that I have used for over ten years. Only now is it getting some time off as the go to general purpose lens in favor of the 35 f2 IS.

 

[jd7]

FWIW I've been pretty happy with the 24-70 f/4 IS.

For comparison, I formerly owned the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, my brother has the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, my sister has a 24-105 f/4 (mk 1), and I've tried out the 24-70 f/2.8 II a couple of times (although only very briefly).

If you need (or just want!) f/2.8 for shallow DOF and/or fast shutter speed reasons, obviously the 24-70 f/4 IS isn't for you ... but I guess you wouldn't be considering the 24-70 f/4 IS if that was the case.

The things I like about the 24-70 f/4 IS are:

1. smaller and lighter than the other options - makes it good as a general walk around lens and for hikes and travel

2. IS really increases it's flexibility - shooting handheld in a dimly lit building, or shoot a landscape when you're stopped down quite a bit, etc. (Yes, a wider aperture gives flexibility in it's own way too, so of course there is a trade off.)

3. good IQ (IMHO, at least for my copy of the lens), including factors such as relatively low distortion as well as sharpness

4. quite handy semi-macro mode (note though that I don't do enough macro to want to own a dedicated macro lens)

The 24-70 f/2.8 II is obviously an excellent lens, but at least in the very limited time I've used it I haven't felt so impressed by it that I've wanted to pay the extra money for it - especially when I'd be giving up the IS and macro mode and carrying a bigger and heavier lens. If I needed a zoom in that range for events or indoor sports I'm sure I'd feel differently. Also, I do tend often switch to a prime for portraits in that focal length range.

Regarding sharpness of the 24-70 f/4 IS versus the others, if you haven't already seen it you might be interested to read this: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/
If you search around on CR, you will see a split of opinion - some people are very happy with their lens, and others say the sharpness is disappointing. Not sure what the explanation is for that, but sample variation between lenses seems like a possibility.

Good luck with your choice!

 

[cellomaster27]

FWIW I've been pretty happy with the 24-70 f/4 IS.

For comparison, I formerly owned the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, my brother has the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, my sister has a 24-105 f/4 (mk 1), and I've tried out the 24-70 f/2.8 II a couple of times (although only very briefly).

If you need (or just want!) f/2.8 for shallow DOF and/or fast shutter speed reasons, obviously the 24-70 f/4 IS isn't for you ... but I guess you wouldn't be considering the 24-70 f/4 IS if that was the case.

The things I like about the 24-70 f/4 IS are:

1. smaller and lighter than the other options - makes it good as a general walk around lens and for hikes and travel

2. IS really increases it's flexibility - shooting handheld in a dimly lit building, or shoot a landscape when you're stopped down quite a bit, etc. (Yes, a wider aperture gives flexibility in it's own way too, so of course there is a trade off.)

3. good IQ (IMHO, at least for my copy of the lens), including factors such as relatively low distortion as well as sharpness

4. quite handy semi-macro mode (note though that I don't do enough macro to want to own a dedicated macro lens)

The 24-70 f/2.8 II is obviously an excellent lens, but at least in the very limited time I've used it I haven't felt so impressed by it that I've wanted to pay the extra money for it - especially when I'd be giving up the IS and macro mode and carrying a bigger and heavier lens. If I needed a zoom in that range for events or indoor sports I'm sure I'd feel differently. Also, I do tend often switch to a prime for portraits in that focal length range.

Regarding sharpness of the 24-70 f/4 IS versus the others, if you haven't already seen it you might be interested to read this: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/
If you search around on CR, you will see a split of opinion - some people are very happy with their lens, and others say the sharpness is disappointing. Not sure what the explanation is for that, but sample variation between lenses seems like a possibility.

Good luck with your choice!

Wow, thank you for your input. Quite detailed and definitely helping me to decide. I will post on here once I make my purchase/decision.

 

[ahsanford]

I have owned both and sold my 24-70 f/2.8L I for the 24-70 f/4L IS. For me and what I shoot, it was the perfect call.

If you need to shoot portraiture, events, reportage or sports, get the f/2.8L I. (War reportage in particular -- it's built like a tank!)

If you need to shoot landscapes, macro, video, if you travel or hike with it, if you are space-confined in your bag, etc. get the f/4L IS.

But if you want to get in the weeds, here are the upsides of the 24-70 f/4L IS:

• Sharper
• Lighter
• Shorter length
• Has IS
• Has a much smaller lens hood
• Has a 0.7x macro mode -- a killer feature for travel/hiking work: leave the 100L at home!

And the upsides of the 24-70 f/2.8L I:

• Opens up to f/2.8
• Has a fairly rare reverse telescoping acton, when coupled with its comically large lens hood (honestly looks like a 70-200 f/2.8 hood!) can optimally shade from flare throughout the zoom range. Every other 24-something Canon sells only optimally shades the sun at 24mm.
• Built like a tank. Shockingly solid feeling.
• Probably a slightly better bet on the resale market as an f/2.8 standard zoom is a staple pro tool.

- A

 

[Refurb7]

For the price, and if you're shooting portraits, a used 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens.

Well maybe...the 24-70mm f/2.8L (MkI) was a flawed design. There is no doubt that there are good copies out there, but this lens has predominantly been a disappointment to photographers worldwide. The ones that are showing up second hand now are likely to be units being quickly on-sold after a disappointing experience. I know I'm not the only one on this list who went through five 24-70mm f/2.8L MkI's. All were well below useable commercial standard. Even after servicing at CPS.

My hard earned advice would be to avoid lost time and almost guaranteed annoyance and forget about the 24-70mm f/2.8L MkI.

-pw

I agree, 24-70/2.8 MkI was a flawed design. It needed maintenance too often, and misfocused too often. It drove some people to switch to Nikon. It drove me to using primes only in that range. Although people used it in all sorts of circumstances, it was definitely not built like a tank. The solid feeling was deceptive, because it wouldn't stay in calibration. I would recommend any of the newer L zooms over the MkI.

 

[mrzero]

I have owned both and sold my 24-70 f/2.8L I for the 24-70 f/4L IS. For me and what I shoot, it was the perfect call.

If you need to shoot portraiture, events, reportage or sports, get the f/2.8L I. (War reportage in particular -- it's built like a tank!)

If you need to shoot landscapes, macro, video, if you travel or hike with it, if you are space-confined in your bag, etc. get the f/4L IS.

But if you want to get in the weeds, here are the upsides of the 24-70 f/4L IS:

• Sharper
• Lighter
• Shorter length
• Has IS
• Has a much smaller lens hood
• Has a 0.7x macro mode -- a killer feature for travel/hiking work: leave the 100L at home!

And the upsides of the 24-70 f/2.8L I:

• Opens up to f/2.8
• Has a fairly rare reverse telescoping acton, when coupled with its comically large lens hood (honestly looks like a 70-200 f/2.8 hood!) can optimally shade from flare throughout the zoom range. Every other 24-something Canon sells only optimally shades the sun at 24mm.
• Built like a tank. Shockingly solid feeling.
• Probably a slightly better bet on the resale market as an f/2.8 standard zoom is a staple pro tool.

- A

Excellent point about the reverse telescoping action on the 24-70/2.8 I as a pro, but there is also a con. This makes it impossible to use step-up filter rings or square filters. Probably a main reason why Canon dropped this design feature. But, maybe a nonissue depending on your use.

 

[ahsanford]

Excellent point about the reverse telescoping action on the 24-70/2.8 I as a pro, but there is also a con. This makes it impossible to use step-up filter rings or square filters. Probably a main reason why Canon dropped this design feature. But, maybe a nonissue depending on your use.

Sure, but can you use a step-up filter ring or (especially) a square filter with any hood in place? The hood is usually the first thing to go, isn't it?

And Canon 100% got rid of this feature for another reason -- the hood was spectacularly big for the lens's FL. It caused problems fitting it into bags. See Mk II vs. Mk I below. The Mk. II style is used in all 24-somethings these days.

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

The EF 24-70mm MK1 is not a great lens, period. The EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM is OK at 24 or 70mm but not great at 50mm. Of the present the all round EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is a better lens. The new EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM MKII will be a huge seller Ive had a chance to use it and I will definitely be buying it.