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

[ahsanford]

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.

Disagree. I didn't buy a FF rig to take soft images, and the 24-105 is far more likely to take them than the 24-70 f/4L IS. The latter is simply a sharper lens, and the former is a proper hot mess at 24mm (not terribly sharp, a ton of distortion as well).

If you need reach, get the 24-105L I, but don't for a moment presume it is the free lunch you are looking for. A 4.5x zoom is a clear step away from the IQ the 3x zooms offer.

- 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.

Disagree. I didn't buy a FF rig to take soft images, and the 24-105 is far more likely to take them than the 24-70 f/4L IS. The latter is simply a sharper lens, and the former is a proper hot mess at 24mm (not terribly sharp, a ton of distortion as well).

If you need reach, get the 24-105L I, but don't for a moment presume it is the free lunch you are looking for. A 4.5x zoom is a clear step away from the IQ the 3x zooms offer.

- A

Read the Photozone.de report on the EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM on FF. That report is spot on regarding the softness of this lens at 50mm, oh and the image shift. Sure the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM MK1 is not perfect either particularly chromatic aberration wise but its correctable to a degree, soft images at 50mm are not.

 

[ahsanford]

Read the Photozone.de report on the EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM on FF. That report is spot on regarding the softness of this lens at 50mm, oh and the image shift. Sure the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM MK1 is not perfect either particularly chromatic aberration wise but its correctable to a degree, soft images at 50mm are not.

I've read it many times. Photozone did not say a word about the 50mm softness you referred to. In fact, they never tested it at 50mm. Further, the focus shift you refer to was apparently a mechanical issue that Canon fixed (see the final page's addendum).

LensRentals had a look at the 24-70 f/4L IS -- 22 copies in fact -- and Uncle Rog stated the following:

"We did find that 50mm resolution was slightly lower than 70mm for every copy. The center / weighted average at 50mm for the 24-70 f/4 IS was 875 / 700, compared to 920 / 750 at 70mm. Not a huge drop, but it was consistent. This is a bit surprising, but not a total shock. Some wide angle zooms exhibit similar behavior and the dip in resolution isn’t extreme."

That horrific 50mm softness value you see above is on the order of the 24-105's sharpness throughout the range. So at one focal length, the 24-105L I can keep up. At the others, not so much.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

I can't speak to the 24-70 f/2.8L version 1, 24-70 f/4L, the Sigma, or the Tamron.

All I can say is that my copy of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II was worth every penny at every focal range. I am extremely happy with this lens and don't hesitate to recommend it to anyone.

As long as I have an EF mount body, this lens will stay in my bag.

The colors are wonderful, I don't have a need for IS at these focal lengths (and I can be kinda shaky), and the sharpness is incredible.

The only thing I wish was different is changing focal length internally like the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Not sure I explained that correctly and that would probably make the lens even heavier. I wouldn't mind the extra weight though... especially if it didn't have IS.

Yes the price is high, but not too bad if one considers how long it will probably last.

 

[ahsanford]

The only thing I wish was different is changing focal length internally like the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Not sure I explained that correctly and that would probably make the lens even heavier.

You mean 'internal zooming', something we take for granted in our EF UWA and 70-200 L lenses. It wouldn't make the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens that much heavier, but it would make it perhaps 2" longer. For that reason -- stowability in a bag -- 24-something lenses are almost always externally zooming.

I personally love internal zooming as it eliminates a path for dust/dirt/moisture ingress, but I also hate it for packing reasons. I have some tiny military satchels and a small Domke bag that are just right for the 5D3 and one lens attached, and while my 24-70 f/4L IS fits beautifully, my 16-35 f/4L IS does not and only then do I wish it did externally zoom.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

The only thing I wish was different is changing focal length internally like the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Not sure I explained that correctly and that would probably make the lens even heavier.

You mean 'internal zooming', something we take for granted in our EF UWA and 70-200 L lenses. It wouldn't make the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens that much heavier, but it would make it perhaps 2" longer. For that reason -- stowability in a bag -- 24-something lenses are almost always externally zooming.

I personally love internal zooming as it eliminates a path for dust/dirt/moisture ingress, but I also hate it for packing reasons. I have some tiny military satchels and a small Domke bag that are just right for the 5D3 and one lens attached, and while my 24-70 f/4L IS fits beautifully, my 16-35 f/4L IS does not and only then do I wish it did externally zoom.

- A

I understand what you mean.

Had no idea the 16-35 f/4L was internal zoom. Nice!

I carry in the Canon black and green backpack. There isn't a lot of room, but I can carry the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (attached to the 5D III), Tamron 15-30 (a very large lens, internal zoom), and my 24-70 f/2.8L II, plus 5 filters extra batteries, timer, etc., so it is heavy.

The good part is that I don't hardly carry the Tamron anywhere. In fact, I find myself carrying less and less. I used to try and always carry every lens I have. Going to nearly all zooms has helped, though I cannot say I remember any of my old EF-S lenses had any weight at all compared to these L lenses.

Here's my problem: Even if Canon came out with an internal zooming 24-70 f/2.8L, I don't know that I'd want to give up the lens I have. This dusty old desert I live in would have me tempted.

I absolutely love the internal zooming on the 70-200 and the 15-30 though.

 

[privatebydesign]

The only thing I wish was different is changing focal length internally like the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Not sure I explained that correctly and that would probably make the lens even heavier.

You mean 'internal zooming', something we take for granted in our EF UWA and 70-200 L lenses. It wouldn't make the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens that much heavier, but it would make it perhaps 2" longer. For that reason -- stowability in a bag -- 24-something lenses are almost always externally zooming.

I personally love internal zooming as it eliminates a path for dust/dirt/moisture ingress, but I also hate it for packing reasons. I have some tiny military satchels and a small Domke bag that are just right for the 5D3 and one lens attached, and while my 24-70 f/4L IS fits beautifully, my 16-35 f/4L IS does not and only then do I wish it did externally zoom.

- A

Had no idea the 16-35 f/4L was internal zoom. Nice!

It isn't. None of Canon's UWA's are or ever have been internal zooms.

 

[ahsanford]

I understand what you mean.

Had no idea the 16-35 f/4L was internal zoom. Nice!

It is and it isn't. Play the attached video.

My 'inner Neuro' wants to be correct on the fine print: some L zooms are internal zooming in that there is no classically telescoping external barrel and nothing internally ever comes proud of the filter ring but in fact the front element does telescope inside of that external barrel. So it's not completely closed off like a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II but it also doesn't technically telescope past the outer barrel.

Some of the UWA L do this 'internally zooming practically but there is a sliding path for ingress during zooming' as do some other lenses (the 50L for one) -- go to this example at TDP and see what I am referring to:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=1073&LensComp2=0&LensComp=403

(Be sure to mouseover the "Select View" for zooming without a hood and what I'm talking about will become apparent)

But since I filter everything with UV/protect or CPL unless the ND grad holder is coming out, I never notice this phenomenon -- to me, the front element 'is' the filter and it never moves forward throughout zooming. Problem solved.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

I understand what you mean.

Had no idea the 16-35 f/4L was internal zoom. Nice!

It is and it isn't. Play the attached video.
No, it is not an internal zoom.

My 'inner Neuro' wants to be correct on the fine print: some L zooms are internal zooming in that there is no classically telescoping external barrel and nothing internally ever comes proud of the filter ring But that has got nothing to do with it, a lens is either internal zoom or it isn't, no Canon UWA zoom has ever been an internal zoom (that I can find) but in fact the front element does telescope inside of that external barrel. So it's not completely closed off like a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II but it also doesn't technically telescope past the outer barrel.

Some of the UWA L do this 'internally zooming practically but there is a sliding path for ingress during zooming' as do some other lenses (the 50L for one) -- go to this example at TDP and see what I am referring to:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=1073&LensComp2=0&LensComp=403

(Be sure to mouseover the "Select View" for zooming without a hood and what I'm talking about will become apparent)

But since I filter everything with UV/protect or CPL unless the ND grad holder is coming out, I never notice this phenomenon -- to me, the front element 'is' the filter and it never moves forward throughout zooming. Problem solved.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

It is and it isn't. Play the attached video.
No, it is not an internal zoom.

My 'inner Neuro' wants to be correct on the fine print: some L zooms are internal zooming in that there is no classically telescoping external barrel and nothing internally ever comes proud of the filter ring But that has got nothing to do with it, a lens is either internal zoom or it isn't, no Canon UWA zoom has ever been an internal zoom (that I can find) but in fact the front element does telescope inside of that external barrel. So it's not completely closed off like a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II but it also doesn't technically telescope past the outer barrel.

We're hemming and hawing over definitions. Carnathan at TDP calls both the 16-35s and the 50L as internal zooming/internal focusing despite this exception. You have a different definition, and that's fine.

(And I believe one of the UWA L lenses doesn't do this and is a pure internal zoom, perhaps the 17-40?)

Functionally, though, the exception lenses I am referring to do not telescope or push out with externally moving stuff like the classic 'T' shape that spits out of budget lenses and 24-something L lenses. There is no extending external neck that stuff can sneak into these exception lenses. They won't tug at a rain hood, extend in your bag, etc. and as such, I'm calling them just as good as a pure internal zoom -- provided you front filter.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

It is and it isn't. Play the attached video.
No, it is not an internal zoom.

My 'inner Neuro' wants to be correct on the fine print: some L zooms are internal zooming in that there is no classically telescoping external barrel and nothing internally ever comes proud of the filter ring But that has got nothing to do with it, a lens is either internal zoom or it isn't, no Canon UWA zoom has ever been an internal zoom (that I can find) but in fact the front element does telescope inside of that external barrel. So it's not completely closed off like a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II but it also doesn't technically telescope past the outer barrel.

We're hemming and hawing over definitions. Carnathan at TDP calls both the 16-35s and the 50L as internal zooming/internal focusing despite this exception. You have a different definition, and that's fine.

(And I believe one of the UWA L lenses doesn't do this and is a pure internal zoom, perhaps the 17-40?)

Functionally, though, the exception lenses I am referring to do not telescope or push out with externally moving stuff like the classic 'T' shape that spits out of budget lenses and 24-something L lenses. There is no extending external neck that stuff can sneak into these exception lenses. They won't tug at a rain hood, extend in your bag, etc. and as such, I'm calling them just as good as a pure internal zoom -- provided you front filter.

- A

You and Brian can call anything anything you like. Canon make the lenses and they do not call them internal zooms, because they are not.

This is not a semantic argument, it is a technical definition. The distance from the front element to the mount changes, ergo it is not an internal zoom.

No the 17-40 is not an internal zoom.

All these AF EF UWA zooms grew from the EF 20-35 f2.8 http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20-35mm-f28.htm

The 20-35 f2.8, 17-35 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8 MkII, 16-35 f2.8 MkIII, 17-40 f4, 16-35 f4 IS, 11-24 f4 and the 8-15 f4 are all the same design of zoom, not internal.

 

[Ozarker]

It is and it isn't. Play the attached video.
No, it is not an internal zoom.

My 'inner Neuro' wants to be correct on the fine print: some L zooms are internal zooming in that there is no classically telescoping external barrel and nothing internally ever comes proud of the filter ring But that has got nothing to do with it, a lens is either internal zoom or it isn't, no Canon UWA zoom has ever been an internal zoom (that I can find) but in fact the front element does telescope inside of that external barrel. So it's not completely closed off like a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II but it also doesn't technically telescope past the outer barrel.

We're hemming and hawing over definitions. Carnathan at TDP calls both the 16-35s and the 50L as internal zooming/internal focusing despite this exception. You have a different definition, and that's fine.

(And I believe one of the UWA L lenses doesn't do this and is a pure internal zoom, perhaps the 17-40?)

Functionally, though, the exception lenses I am referring to do not telescope or push out with externally moving stuff like the classic 'T' shape that spits out of budget lenses and 24-something L lenses. There is no extending external neck that stuff can sneak into these exception lenses. They won't tug at a rain hood, extend in your bag, etc. and as such, I'm calling them just as good as a pure internal zoom -- provided you front filter.

- A

You and Brian can call anything anything you like. Canon make the lenses and they do not call them internal zooms, because they are not.

This is not a semantic argument, it is a technical definition. The distance from the front element to the mount changes, ergo it is not an internal zoom.

No the 17-40 is not an internal zoom.

All these AF EF UWA zooms grew from the EF 20-35 f2.8 http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20-35mm-f28.htm

The 20-35 f2.8, 17-35 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8 MkII, 16-35 f2.8 MkIII, 17-40 f4, 16-35 f4 IS, 11-24 f4 and the 8-15 f4 are all the same design of zoom, not internal.

Thanks for pointing that out. My Tamron 15-30 isn't internal zooming after all.

 

[FTb-n]

I own the 24-70 f2.8L II and the original 24-105 f4.0L IS. I still find the 24-105 to be very handy. It is a favorite general purpose lens and landscape lens because of the IS. I often explore controlled motion blur, which makes IS essential. In many respects, the 24-105 is a more versatile, jack of all trades lens.

But, if you need a short zoom for low light events or indoor sports, the 24-70 II is a must-have lens. In these cases, you generally want shutter speeds of 1/100 or faster (1/500 for sports) and the 2.8 is a big help. Plus, I find that the AF on this lens is quicker and than the 24-105.

To be fair, the 24-70 is also a sharper lens with less distortion. But, the 24-105 is no slouch and performs admirably for my needs.

The OP asked about the 24-70 f2.8 vs. the 24-70 f4 IS. If action and low light is more important than using shutter speeds longer than, say, 1/50, then definitely consider the 2.8 II version.

However, if versatility is of greater concern, then forget the 24-70 f4 and consider the new 24-105 f4 IS II.

For detailed reviews and direct IQ image comparisons, look up these lenses on TheDigitalPicture.com.

UPDATE: Oops, I didn't catch that the OP was looking at the original 24-70 2.8. The original 24-105 4L IS was introduced after the original 24-70 and, reportedly, was hit among wedding photographers over the original 24-70. I know the 24-70 f4 IS has some IQ benefits over the original 24-105, but I still suggest the either 24-105 (Mark 1 or 2) for the IS and the range.

 

[pwp]

The EF 24-70mm MK1 is not a great lens, period....

You're not wrong; most copies are well below useable quality. Any of the good copies that exist are justifiably being held onto by their fortunate owners.

-pw

 

[Gnocchi]

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.

Mine (24-70 f4) seems quite sharp at f4 50mm.