Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II vs f/4 IS

[NancyP]

I don't have either lens. One could get the 24-70 f/4L IS and either the 40 f/2.8 STM or the 50 f/1.8 II, and the two lenses (one IS, one fast) would weigh less than the 24-70 f/2.8 II. The 40 STM is a nice "street" lens - very non-intimidating, and shockingly good IQ, all for $150.00 and 135 grams.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The 24-70mm f2.8L II has much better image quality; especially at 50mm and above:

Actually both 24-70 f/4 IS I tried, even the worse one, had better edges at 70mm stopped down than all copies of 24-70 2.8 II I tried. Although the 24-70 2.8 II had better center across the board and even better edges at the wide side. Right tightly around 50mm is where the 24-70 f/4 IS does worst. The 24-70 2.8 II does best edge to edge the wider you go.

24-105 f/4 IS is fairly mediocre for (what used to be) an expensive L lens (granted now it can be had for $600 or even less at times, new, so it's not so bad for that, although for a few hundred more you can get the 24-70 f/4 IS which does a lot better for near 24mm and near 70mm landscape work), 24-70 f/4 IS is really good, 24-70 II 2.8 is best of best (unless there is no tripod and you need DOF and the light isn't great, then the 24-70 f/4 IS could easily be best).

 

[drjlo]

I shot an indoor, evening event with my new Canon 16-35 F/4L IS (my first F/4 lens), and I saw an alarming tendency for ISO to go straight up to my preset limit (6400). Noise still looks "good," but I usually like to keep my ISO lower than that. Manually setting the ISO lower brought shutter speed way down, but luckily, at wider focals the IS seems able to avoid blur decently. But at longer focal length like 50-70 mm with 24-70?

 

[bholliman]

I looked at both the 24-70/2.8 II and 24-70/4 IS to replace my 24-105/4 a few years ago and decided to go with the f/2.8 II. I've never regretted this decision and feel the f/2.8 II is worth the extra money for my uses. I often shoot wide open to better isolate subjects and would certainly miss f/2.8 if I didn't have it. I really do not miss the lack of IS in this focal range.

 

[eninja]

I say depends on your criteria.
For me, regarding F4L version:
. sharpness (passed)
. L lenss (passed)
. weight (passed)

for F2.8 ii

. sharpness (passed)
. L lens (passed)
. weight (fail)

I am happy with my F4L Lens.