Canon 24-70 f/4L to 24-70 f/2.8L II

[R1-7D]

I own both the 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the 24-70 f/4 L. I use the f/4 when hiking, due to it's weight and size advantage.

On my Canon 6D, I find that the f/2.8 is sharper in the center part of the image on all focal lenghts, has better micro contrast and clarity. Further, it is sharper in the corners at 24 mm. However, be aware that these differences are quite small, and for the most it requires pixel peeping to see any difference. The biggest advantage of the f/2.8 is the quality of the bokeh, I think.

However, when it comes to sharpness, the f/4 is the more even performer. While the f/2.8 is great in the center at all focal lengths, and great across frame at 24mm, the f/4 has more even sharpness across frame at other focal lengths than 24 mm.

On my 7DII I think the f/2.8 the advantage in performance is bigger than on my 6D. The f/4 however, is still the more even performer when it comes to sharpness adross frame.

All in all, the f/4 is a great lens - especially for landscapes, where even sharpness across frame is important. I will keep the f/4 due to the even sharpness, size and weight. IS is always ok to have, but I really don't miss it that much With the f/2.8. I'm not much of a macro shooter, so I won't comment on that.

This is not the first time I have heard someone say the f/4L IS is more even across the frame than the 2.8L II. I have come across successful professional landscape photographers using the f/4L IS. I asked one why he used the f/4L IS rather than the 2.8, and his comment was the f/4L is sharper across the frame. I hesitate to post that because of how highly regarded the 2.8 is, and the fact I have little personal experience with the 2.8, but there it is for whatever it may be worth. Anyway, I certainly believe the 2.8L II is a fantastic lens (particularly for events, which I assume it was largely designed for), but I think the f/4L is a pretty good lens too (albeit I assume it was designed more for landscape than events).

I personally have not experienced this, and I have shot a bit with the f/4 version.

The one thing I will say, however, is that from my own experience, the f/2.8 II lens has massive copy variation. I went through five before I was satisfied. I think the QC on this lens isn't Canon's finest and that a lot of people merrily go on their way without noticing what's wrong. I've had copies with decentered elements, with the barrel creek, and one that didn't AF properly.

 

[ahsanford]

Great topic to discuss. My thoughts -- in no particular order:

• The f/2.8L II is slightly sharper. I think that's been well discussed.
• The f/4 is clearly lighter and has a slightly shorter barrel. I believe that lets you get it into ballparks/stadiums with a 6" limit.
• The f/2.8 will generally yield better IQ in good shooting conditions, but if you are pulling something in terribly low light, the f/2.8 may need ISO 6400 to pull it off, and the IQ will suffer. The f/4's IS would allow you to net that same shot at ISO 800 or 1600. Something to consider.
• The f/4 is a logical choice if video or macro is something you need. The f/4's macro mode is a spectacular add, but understand that's meant to simple one-shot handheld walkaround when you see a bug or flower. It's not a tool for dedicated tripod/rails macro work due to that comically short working distance. All that said, I happen to love it for that, and it lets me leave the 100L at home when I travel.
• The f/2.8 is the only choice of the two if you are shooting fast moving subjects or if you want the bokeh.
• The f/2.8 should retain resale value better than the f/4 as more pros will reach for speed than IS.
• The f/2.8 gives you the nut punch of needing 82mm filters. The f/4 lets you keep using the far more common 77mm filters (that I'm guessing you may already own)
• Neither lens' hood correctly blocks out the sun at 70mm. It was built for 24mm only to keep the size down. If you really want optimal shading, you need the beastmaster f/2.8L Mark I, which works optimally for all FLs, but it is massive and requires you to use that older, clearly softer lens.

- A

 

[jd7]

Just a plug for the IS in the 24-70 F4L: Going through the photos from an event I shot last weekend, I was looking at a campfire shot and was pleasantly surprised with how sharp the image was. Then I looked and saw that I shot it at 1/20 of a second. I don't think I could have done that handheld without IS, even with F2.8. I really like this lens.

I have found the IS on the 24-70/4 more useful than I had anticipated - I feel like it really does add to the overall versatility of the lens.

 

[Famateur]

Just a plug for the IS in the 24-70 F4L: Going through the photos from an event I shot last weekend, I was looking at a campfire shot and was pleasantly surprised with how sharp the image was. Then I looked and saw that I shot it at 1/20 of a second. I don't think I could have done that handheld without IS, even with F2.8. I really like this lens.

I have found the IS on the 24-70/4 more useful than I had anticipated - I feel like it really does add to the overall versatility of the lens.

Agreed!

 

[jd7]

I own both the 24-70 f/2.8 L II and the 24-70 f/4 L. I use the f/4 when hiking, due to it's weight and size advantage.

On my Canon 6D, I find that the f/2.8 is sharper in the center part of the image on all focal lenghts, has better micro contrast and clarity. Further, it is sharper in the corners at 24 mm. However, be aware that these differences are quite small, and for the most it requires pixel peeping to see any difference. The biggest advantage of the f/2.8 is the quality of the bokeh, I think.

However, when it comes to sharpness, the f/4 is the more even performer. While the f/2.8 is great in the center at all focal lengths, and great across frame at 24mm, the f/4 has more even sharpness across frame at other focal lengths than 24 mm.

On my 7DII I think the f/2.8 the advantage in performance is bigger than on my 6D. The f/4 however, is still the more even performer when it comes to sharpness adross frame.

All in all, the f/4 is a great lens - especially for landscapes, where even sharpness across frame is important. I will keep the f/4 due to the even sharpness, size and weight. IS is always ok to have, but I really don't miss it that much With the f/2.8. I'm not much of a macro shooter, so I won't comment on that.

This is not the first time I have heard someone say the f/4L IS is more even across the frame than the 2.8L II. I have come across successful professional landscape photographers using the f/4L IS. I asked one why he used the f/4L IS rather than the 2.8, and his comment was the f/4L is sharper across the frame. I hesitate to post that because of how highly regarded the 2.8 is, and the fact I have little personal experience with the 2.8, but there it is for whatever it may be worth. Anyway, I certainly believe the 2.8L II is a fantastic lens (particularly for events, which I assume it was largely designed for), but I think the f/4L is a pretty good lens too (albeit I assume it was designed more for landscape than events).

I personally have not experienced this, and I have shot a bit with the f/4 version.

The one thing I will say, however, is that from my own experience, the f/2.8 II lens has massive copy variation. I went through five before I was satisfied. I think the QC on this lens isn't Canon's finest and that a lot of people merrily go on their way without noticing what's wrong. I've had copies with decentered elements, with the barrel creek, and one that didn't AF properly.

You might be interested to have a look at LensRentals take on the copy variation of the 2.8L II
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/07/24-70-f2-8-zoom-mtf-and-variation
although that examines the optics only, without including things like AF problems.

I would have been interested to see the results if the 24-70/4L IS had been tested too. Based on what I have read around the internet, including LensRentals' statements about the number of adjustable parts in it, and my own experience (it was poor out of the box and much better after a trip to Canon, but that is just one copy of course), I think it is probably subject to quite a bit of copy variation too.

 

[bholliman]

The one thing I will say, however, is that from my own experience, the f/2.8 II lens has massive copy variation. I went through five before I was satisfied. I think the QC on this lens isn't Canon's finest and that a lot of people merrily go on their way without noticing what's wrong. I've had copies with decentered elements, with the barrel creek, and one that didn't AF properly.

I must have been lucky with the f/2.8 II, as I rented them twice from Lensrentals.com and both copies were fantastic, which prompted me to sell my 24-105L and buy a f/2.8 II in the summer of 2013. My copy is awesome as well, extremely sharp across the frame with excellent micro contrast and color.

 

[jeffa4444]

My take on the 24-70mm f4L IS USM which I recently bought with my Canon 5DS and is recommended by Canon for the 50MP cameras. Virtually hardly any difference at most focal lenghts to my much older EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM (better at handling CAs), not as good optically as my EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM. It is a good walk around lens without being outstanding but then again its not bad either. Never tried the faster version.

 

[Sporgon]

My take on the 24-70mm f4L IS USM which I recently bought with my Canon 5DS and is recommended by Canon for the 50MP cameras. Virtually hardly any difference at most focal lenghts to my much older EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM (better at handling CAs),

It is significantly better at 24 mil. I tend to think of the 24-105L as a 28-105, then I'm happy. Of the two lenses, if someone really wants 24 mil and or compact size, I would recommend the 24-70/4L. Otherwise it's the 24-105 I use most.

 

[ahsanford]

My take on the 24-70mm f4L IS USM which I recently bought with my Canon 5DS and is recommended by Canon for the 50MP cameras. Virtually hardly any difference at most focal lenghts to my much older EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM (better at handling CAs),

It is significantly better at 24 mil. I tend to think of the 24-105L as a 28-105, then I'm happy. Of the two lenses, if someone really wants 24 mil and or compact size, I would recommend the 24-70/4L. Otherwise it's the 24-105 I use most.

Agree. The 24-70 f/4L IS is sharper on aggregate, but it is oddly softer around 50mm. Since I usually am slamming that to the 24 or 70 end, it's no bother for me.

I personally see the wide/standard EF zooms in 'tiers of awesomeness'. Optically only -- throwing out your aperture or IS or application-specific needs:

Top: 24-70 f/2.8L II, 16-35 f/4L IS, 11-24 F/4L

Very good: 24-70 f/4L IS, 16-35 f/2.8L II (debatable -- great in the center but oof in the corners)

Good: 17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L IS, 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS

Meh: 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 (honestly, I thought this was obsoleted)

But your opinion may vary.

People are super defensive of comments about the lower performance / likelihood of obsolescence of the 24-105L -- they really love the reach on that lens and many bristle at the thought that it has been jumped in the pecking order by the 24-70 f/4L IS, but I believe that to be backed up in reviews.

- A

 

[Sporgon]

My take on the 24-70mm f4L IS USM which I recently bought with my Canon 5DS and is recommended by Canon for the 50MP cameras. Virtually hardly any difference at most focal lenghts to my much older EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM (better at handling CAs),

It is significantly better at 24 mil. I tend to think of the 24-105L as a 28-105, then I'm happy. Of the two lenses, if someone really wants 24 mil and or compact size, I would recommend the 24-70/4L. Otherwise it's the 24-105 I use most.

Agree. The 24-70 f/4L IS is sharper on aggregate, but it is oddly softer around 50mm. Since I usually am slamming that to the 24 or 70 end, it's no bother for me.

I personally see the wide/standard EF zooms in 'tiers of awesomeness'. Optically only -- throwing out your aperture or IS or application-specific needs:

Top: 24-70 f/2.8L II, 16-35 f/4L IS, 11-24 F/4L

Very good: 24-70 f/4L IS, 16-35 f/2.8L II (debatable -- great in the center but oof in the corners)

Good: 17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L IS, 24-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS

Meh: 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 (honestly, I thought this was obsoleted)

But your opinion may vary.

People are super defensive of comments about the lower performance / likelihood of obsolescence of the 24-105L -- they really love the reach on that lens and many bristle at the thought that it has been jumped in the pecking order by the 24-70 f/4L IS, but I believe that to be backed up in reviews.

- A

Overall the 24-70/4 is the better lens - as long as you don't want 105

 

[ahsanford]

People are super defensive of comments about the lower performance / likelihood of obsolescence of the 24-105L -- they really love the reach on that lens and many bristle at the thought that it has been jumped in the pecking order by the 24-70 f/4L IS, but I believe that to be backed up in reviews.

- A

Overall the 24-70/4 is the better lens - as long as you don't want 105

Sure, but that hasn't stopped people from spooning with their 24-105L's at night in bed like people used to with their discontinued Amiga computers. People who love that lens really love that lens, so any discussion that the 24-70 f/4L IS as the future kitting choice for FF rigs winds them up something fierce.

I respect that, I do. People's needs vary, and some internet denizen pontificating about test charts completely sails over that fact. The 24-105L might be the perfect standard zoom for you.

- A

 

[Deleted member 20471]

IMHO, the best review and test of lenses, http://www.objektivtest.se, have review both lenses. Their findings are that the 24-70/4L IS is sharper at aperture 8 compared to the 24-70/2.8L II at the corners.

Review for the 24-70/4L IS
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.objektivtest.se%2Ftester%2Fcanon-ef-24-70-mm-f4-l-is-usm-test%2F&edit-text=

Review for the 24-70/2.8L II
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.objektivtest.se%2Ftester%2Fcanon-ef-24-70-mm-f28-l-ii-usm-test-klarar-det-mesta%2F

Due to this review, and that I wanted a lighter/smaller lens with IS I made the switch. I am mostly shooting landscape at aperture 8-11 from a tripod and some handhold (that’s why I wanted IS). Both lenses will create stunning pictures!

 

[BobVu]

My friend had 24-70 f4 IS and he liked its sharpness and IS. According to him F4 was a very good lens but not the best. He upgraded to 24-70 f2.8 II version and since the upgrade he's so impressed with the f2.8 version he sold all his primes: Sigma ART 35 f1.4, Sigma ART 50 f1.4, and Canon 135 f2. The reason he sold Canon 135 is because he also bought 70-200 f2.8 II. Both Canon f2.8 zoom lenses are excellent that you can forget changing it to prime lenses. I'm going to upgrade my 24-70 f2.8 I to the II version.

 

[ahsanford]

My friend had 24-70 f4 IS and he liked its sharpness and IS. According to him F4 was a very good lens but not the best. He upgraded to 24-70 f2.8 II version and since the upgrade he's so impressed with the f2.8 version he sold all his primes: Sigma ART 35 f1.4, Sigma ART 50 f1.4, and Canon 135 f2. The reason he sold Canon 135 is because he also bought 70-200 f2.8 II. Both Canon f2.8 zoom lenses are excellent that you can forget changing it to prime lenses. I'm going to upgrade my 24-70 f2.8 I to the II version.

It's a great zoom, don't get me wrong, but the 24-70 II's reputations of 'it lets me leave the primes at home' is only clearly true when you are looking at ordinary L primes from a sharpness perspective, like the older 35L (I) or clearly-not-built-primarily-around-sharpness 50L.

But stack up a modern prime against that 24-70 L II and it comes back down to earth: the Sigma 35 Art at f/1.4 outresolves the 24-70 II at f/2.8. I'd imagine the same would be true of the 35L II.

Also, it's modestly challenging to shoot that 24-70 II at f/1.4. :

Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 II is a stellar piece of gear, but an equally well designed/toleranced/built prime can do things that the zoom can't.

- A