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

[MartynV]

Hi,

I wonder if anyone has replaced their 24-70 f/4L with a 24-70 f/2.8L II? If so, was it worthwhile taking into account the loss of the 0.7x macro mode and IS in exchange for a wider maximum aperture and (possibly) improved sharpness throughout the focal range?

For general use, say travelling, product photography or in the studio, does the new 24-70 f/2.8L have a major advantage over the f/4 version in respect of overall image quality?

I like my 24-70 f/4L but the background separation of the f/2.8 II looks good and the f/4's slight RSA problem at 70mm is a concern as I photograph plants.

Thanks in advance,


Martyn

 

[Act444]

I actually have both lenses (different uses).

If you shoot at or near 50mm a lot, I would say absolutely there is a huge difference in IQ. The difference is less at 24 and 70 though.

As to whether you can do without IS or not - that'll be up to you to determine. I'll just say that without it I find I need to use at least 1/125 shutter speed (towards the long end) to ensure sharp shots (and even then the success rate is not 100%). If I need to go slower, I either have to take a burst of shots or stabilize the camera somehow.

With the f4 version, I've been successful with shutter speeds as low as 1/15 sec (1/30 for 100% reliability). However, in many situations the 2.8 has superior enough IQ that even with higher ISO, there can be similar/greater levels of detail in the image.

 

[Andyx01]

I absolutely agree with Act444.

"slight RSA problem at 70mm" - By RSA (Residual spherical aberrations) - Are you referencing the focus shift when stopping down?

 

[anthonyd]

If background separation is your key objective and you shoot at around 50mm, I'd try a 50/1.4 (either Canon, or Sigma) instead of changing my 24-70. It's way cheaper, has more separation, more bokeh, it's lighter and you get to keep all the features of your 24-70/4.0 that you like.
If you are not sure whether a 50mm prime would work for you, rent it for a week and then make up your mind.

 

[jd7]

I chose between the Canon 24-70 f/4L and 24-70 f/2.8L II some time back, and I ended up taking the approach anthonyd suggests. In the end, though, it comes down to what you plan to use the lens for and your personal preferences/situation (eg how much the weight of a lens is an issue for you, budget). If you're looking for subject separation, a prime might be what you are after, but of course that won't be the case if you are looking for subject separation plus zoom-ability at the same time!

 

[Hardwire]

I will admit that apart from the times I need reach (sports, weddings etc) my 24-70 II is on the camera most of the time...it is such a good lens that you forget its not a prime at times.

To mirror what is said above, I also owned a Canon 50 1.4 which now collects dust since I got the 24-70 as I can live without the subject separation enough because of the image quality I get from the lens. I know this does not help in your choice of ditching the F4 version, but I guess I am saying that with the 2.8 II I have less need for the primes in that range most of the time and this may also help with your thought process (less glass to carry, change in the field etc etc)

 

[Larsskv]

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.

 

[MartynV]

I absolutely agree with Act444.

"slight RSA problem at 70mm" - By RSA (Residual spherical aberrations) - Are you referencing the focus shift when stopping down?

Hi, yes I'm referring to the focus shift at minimum focus distance at 70mm. This tends to occur when photographing flowers using the viewfinder between f/4-f/11.

 

[MartynV]

I chose between the Canon 24-70 f/4L and 24-70 f/2.8L II some time back, and I ended up taking the approach anthonyd suggests. In the end, though, it comes down to what you plan to use the lens for and your personal preferences/situation (eg how much the weight of a lens is an issue for you, budget). If you're looking for subject separation, a prime might be what you are after, but of course that won't be the case if you are looking for subject separation plus zoom-ability at the same time!

Thanks, I did try a 24-70 II today and it's quite a chunky lens for taking on holiday. Did you get the f/4L?

 

[MartynV]

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.

Thanks for the reply. I'm surprised that the f/4L holds up against the f/2.8L II. The f/4L's bokeh is somewhat better than my 35mm f/2 IS. Do you find the f/4L's macro mode useful?

 

[Famateur]

Do you find the f/4L's macro mode useful?

I've been quite pleased with my 24-70 F4L IS. If you're serious about macro, this lens won't replace your macro lenses. There have been enough times I've used the macro mode for a close detail shot, though, that it's a handy addition to a general purpose lens.

 

[Larsskv]

Re: Canon 24

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.

Thanks for the reply. I'm surprised that the f/4L holds up against the f/2.8L II. The f/4L's bokeh is somewhat better than my 35mm f/2 IS. Do you find the f/4L's macro mode useful?

I don't shoot macro that much, so I can't really comment on how good it is. To me, it's nice to have the opportunity.

With regards to my comments on sharpness with the f/2.8. The f/2.8 is very good all the way to the corners on all focal lengths. My problem however, is that on some focal lenghts, especially 35mm, the sharpness is pretty bad in parts (down to the left) of the image that is off center. It could be something wrong with it, but it is very good at both 24 and 70 mm, so I have settled with this minor weakness.

For my use, the f/4 is a great good light hiking and landscape lens, and the f/2.8 is a great all round lens. For a do it all lens, it's great to have the extra stop of light and excellent bokeh, over the f/4. The f/2.8 is the better performer for portraits.

Edit: Just to be clear - the f/2.8 definitely has something to it, that the f/4 doesn't, and it defends it's price, and position as the better all round lens. The increased clarity and contrast makes many photos, such as portraits, "pop" in a way that I find comparable to photos taken with my 85L II and Zeiss Macro-planar 50 mm f/2. If I had to choose only one lens, it would probably be the f/2.8. When I hesitate, it is because I have the advantages of the f/2.8 covered by the mentioned 85LII and Zeiss 50. If I didn't have those, I would with no doubt pick the f/2.8 over the f/4.

As a side note, I find it sad that the qualities of the f/2.8 (and 85L) with regards to clarity and micro contrast often is overlooked in many tests. There are something to such lenses, that don't show up in test charts and mtf curves, that makes a noticable difference, but to often is overlooked (With Dustin Abbott's reviews as a very welcome exception).

 

[Sabaki]

I would ask you two questions:

1. Are you willing to put up with the extra weight of the f/2.8ii, as to get the very best image quality?

2. Do you do some videography to necessitate the IS of the f/4.0 model?

I'm in a similar situation, do I want to upgrade my 70-200 f/4.0 IS to the 70-200 f2.8 mkii IS. The answer is a little more straight forward for my story as both have IS, one is lighter and the other has a larger aperture. Furthermore, I'm a photographer and if carrying heavier gear is the penalty for better IQ, even if marginally better, I will take that option.

 

[jd7]

I chose between the Canon 24-70 f/4L and 24-70 f/2.8L II some time back, and I ended up taking the approach anthonyd suggests. In the end, though, it comes down to what you plan to use the lens for and your personal preferences/situation (eg how much the weight of a lens is an issue for you, budget). If you're looking for subject separation, a prime might be what you are after, but of course that won't be the case if you are looking for subject separation plus zoom-ability at the same time!

Thanks, I did try a 24-70 II today and it's quite a chunky lens for taking on holiday. Did you get the f/4L?

Yes, I went with the f/4L. And I am happy with my choice. There are times when I wish it went to 2.8, of course, but there will always be times when I wish I had a wider aperture available, whatever lens I'm using!

I generally agree with the other comments in the thread about the f/4L being a good landscape and hiking lens - I really like it for those purposes. For example, if I am hiking for a few days with tent/food/etc on my back, my 6D + f/4L on a Blackrapid Sport is usually my choice. I don't think the macro mode will impress people doing "serious" macro work but I find it a nice addition when hiking and also for detail shots from time to time. I think the f/4L makes a pretty good general travel lens too, although no doubt some would trade the IS and lighter weight (and cheaper price) for the 2.8 aperture for that purpose.

For me, if I had been willing to sell my prime lenses and have just one lens in that focal length range, I think I would have chosen the 2.8. However, I wanted to keep the primes for their even wider apertures (ie wider than 2.8 ), I am not a pro so I don't "have to get the shot" (eg at events), and I wanted the lens largely for landscape/hiking/travel use. The fact it was cheaper also helped, especially since I didn't want to sell my primes!

I bought my 24-70 f/4L IS a little before the 16-35 f/4L IS was announced. If I was buying now, the 16-35 would be a candidate. I'm still not sure which I would choose though. The 16-35 would be tempting (and I am trying to find a way to justify adding one to my kit one of these days!) but to be honest I think the 35-70 range might be more useful than 16-24 for my purposes. You can often stitch to go wider (although not always).

 

[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).

 

[MartynV]

I would ask you two questions:

1. Are you willing to put up with the extra weight of the f/2.8ii, as to get the very best image quality?

2. Do you do some videography to necessitate the IS of the f/4.0 model?

I'm in a similar situation, do I want to upgrade my 70-200 f/4.0 IS to the 70-200 f2.8 mkii IS. The answer is a little more straight forward for my story as both have IS, one is lighter and the other has a larger aperture. Furthermore, I'm a photographer and if carrying heavier gear is the penalty for better IQ, even if marginally better, I will take that option.

Hi Sabaki,

1. I'll put up with the weight for image quality, but reports from others in this thread suggests that in good lighting the differences between the f/2.8 II and f/4L are not great.
2. Occasionally I do videography, but IS provides other benefits such as improved framing.
3. I used to own the 70-200 f/4L IS and I'm sure the new f/2.8 70-200 is worthwhile.
4. I wonder if the 24-70 f/2.8 II is conspicuous / a thief magnet for holiday use.

 

[Ozarker]

I will admit that apart from the times I need reach (sports, weddings etc) my 24-70 II is on the camera most of the time...it is such a good lens that you forget its not a prime at times.

To mirror what is said above, I also owned a Canon 50 1.4 which now collects dust since I got the 24-70 as I can live without the subject separation enough because of the image quality I get from the lens. I know this does not help in your choice of ditching the F4 version, but I guess I am saying that with the 2.8 II I have less need for the primes in that range most of the time and this may also help with your thought process (less glass to carry, change in the field etc etc)

Sold my 50mm f/1.4 too... along with all but one of my EF-S lenses. There are some who balk at the price of the f/2.8 II, but I figure it is going to save me money because I'll not be buying as many primes down the road. The lens really is that good. I thought it was sharp when I first got it. After using Focal to AFMA? Heck, this lens couldn't be any better. I'm very pleased.

After that, the fine reports concerning the 11-24mm f/4 caused me to have no regrets selling my EF-S 10-22. It will be a while before I can get the 11-24 f/4, but I am one happy Canon customer.

For those who've ever wondered about AFMA with Focal's software... do it. Made a big difference on my lenses.

 

[jd7]

I'm in a similar situation, do I want to upgrade my 70-200 f/4.0 IS to the 70-200 f2.8 mkii IS. The answer is a little more straight forward for my story as both have IS, one is lighter and the other has a larger aperture. Furthermore, I'm a photographer and if carrying heavier gear is the penalty for better IQ, even if marginally better, I will take that option.

I am lucky enough to have both the 70-200 4L IS and the 70-200 2.8L IS II. The 2.8 is absolutely fantastic, but the thing is the 4 is excellent too! The 2.8 may have a slight edge, but I think you'd be very hard pressed to notice it in real world shooting. In my opinion the only reason to get the 2.8 rather than the 4 is because you want the wider aperture for low light and/or shallower DOF, otherwise stick with the lighter and cheaper 4. That said, I periodically go to sell one or the other of them (replace it with 135L? just use my 85 1.4?) but I can't bring myself to do it. The 2.8 is awesome for people and events, but the 4 is great for travel and when hiking (SO much lighter, great for landscapes, still does well for people shots, zoom is handy, etc).

 

[Patak]

My take is: use the very best lenses and have no regrets, even if this means that you need to reduce the number of lenses you own. i had a choice to make between Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and Canon MK II and i went for Canon just because of clarity and micro-contrast as well as "pop" effect that i would only get with some prime lenses. Sharpness across the frame, to me, is not as important as the overall image quality and the number of "keepers".

Of all my lenses 24-70 and 135L are used the most, and the reason is that images are just more beautiful than with other lenses i own.

 

[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.

Both the F4 and the F2.8 MKII are amazing lenses with different advantages. If I ever go to F2.8, it'll probably be if Canon ever decides to put IS in it...and if I don't mind the weight.