Preparing for the switch

[Deleted member 374702]

Greetings!
I decided to switch to Canon from Nikon. There are many reasons behind the decision, but mostly: the lenses and the slower update cycle.

I like to shoot everything. Sometimes i feel like I'm going out and photographing birds in the park, sometimes i'm just in a mood for landscapes. To me the photography is a pleasure and a therapy, and more reasons to go out.

I'm going to buy two bodies: a fast shooter and one for general purposes.
7D mark II and 5D mark IV(when it's available).

For the lenses:
16-35mm f/4L
24-70 f/2.8L II or 24-70 f/4L
70-200 f/2.8L II
100-400 ver.II

As you can see, I can't decide between 24-70s. I'm going to shoot with it handheld.
Reading reviews and watching samples didn't help me, just gave me a headache. And unfortunately, I can't test them side by side because the store has only the f/2.8 model in stock.
In theory, f/2.8 should compensate for the IS on the f/4 with a faster shutter speed but I'm not sure if that's the case in real situation. And then there is the glass quality - the f/2.8 should produce sharper images, but again, in theory.
So I'd highly appreciate an advice from someone who has had experience with both lenses in real world.

Cheers!

 

[Marsu42]

In theory, f/2.8 should compensate for the IS on the f/4 with a faster shutter speed

Not so. I cannot give you a lens' owners comparison, but I can definitely say that IS is worth much more than the f2.8->f4 difference in terms of lens shake. Alas, with IS, it's all about statistics and your result will differ on consecutive shots - plus IS needs a short "swing in" time before it's effective.

So the real question are f2.8 vs. f4....
1. stopping power w/ faster shutter: do you shoot motion?
2. thin dof shooting
3. bulk: do you want the more portable f4 w/ built-in macro mode?
4. af speed (the camera always af's wide open)
5. future outlook redundancy - will you get some really fast f1.2/f1.4 primes sooner or later?

However, looking at your other lenses and general budget probably the f2.8 is the way to go as it has the best possible performance. Esp as you've already got the wide angle IS side covered with the 16-35/4.

 

[Random Orbits]

I prefer and have the 24-70 f/2.8 II. I take pictures of people and I generally need faster shutter speeds than 1/30s (absolute slowest) to get the shots I want, so IS isn't as important. Are there times I could have used it? Absolutely, but the number of those instances are a lot fewer than times that I preferred having f/2.8 rather than a maximum of f/4.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I actually started a thread a while back about whether to sell or keep my 24-70 f/2.8 II after I got a great price on the new f/4 IS version. (I wondered if I should reclaim some of my cash for the more expensive f/2.8 version.) The overall response was to keep the f/2.8. After much thought, I agreed. It's a great lens that is so good, it even negates the need for expensive primes in some cases. So with the lenses you have listed, you will probably not have a huge need to buy more than maybe one special prime in the future. And that helps justify the higher cost. Good luck and welcome to Canon!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Since the photographer and subject matter are 90+ percent of the value of the image, new gear would not improve my photos significantly. I'm comfortable with any major brand. The exception might be in taking photos of extreme low light subjects, or extreme high DR subjects, where hardware can make a difference.

As you get into the extremely high MP crop bodies, it requires a lot more skill to acquire sharp images, so the so called reach advantage is often offset for all but very skilled photographers. A used 1D Mark IV is a good compromise.

 

[Cosmicbug]

Don't forget the Canon 1.4X teleconvertor III to go with the 100-400 mk2

 

[slclick]

The 2.8 24-70 is crazy nice. I have had many varieties including Sigma and Tammy's but I just don't think I'll ever part with the Mk2.
The Street Price for it from Profeel is 1699 after a a 150 Canon rebate if that is any help in your decision, it was in mine!

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/03850/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f2.8L-II-USM-price.html

 

[FTb-n]

I shoot mostly events, school sports and portraits, with occasional travel photography thrown in. In my case, the 70-200 f2.8L II is my most used lens. This was the case with my 7D and is still the case with my 5D3.

I bought the 5D3 with the 24-105 f4L IS kit lens and I really like this lens. It's my first choice for a walk-around lens when I want to travel light with a single body and don't have a specific subject in mind. (For "serious" shoots, I use two bodies.) I also like the flexibility of shooting scenery around water (streams, waterfalls, etc.) with very slow shutter speeds and IS.

Still, the faster 24-70 f2.8L II was very tempting for its extra speed. For people shots, I prefer 1/100 min and generally shoot 1/200 and up. But, losing the IS was a huge concern. Until the temptation grew to strong to resist.

I now keep the 70-200 on one body and the 24-70 on the other (both 5D3's). I really like the 24-70. It's great for action shots. Because it's faster, it focuses quicker in low light. It also seems to be a brighter lens. Comparing the 24-70 at 70 with the 70-200 at 70, both at f2.8, the 24-70 seems to be 1/2 to 2/3 stop brighter. This helps me use a little faster shutter speed or lower ISO.

Typically, I shoot above 1/100 with the 24-70 and sometimes down to 1/60 without concern. On occasion, I will use 1/40 or 1/30 and take extra measures to brace myself. But, more likely, I'll bump up the ISO.

I can't gloss over the focus speed benefits of the 24-70. I shoot action -- which can include a fleeting moment during an event. The 24-70 is better at the quick aim-focus-shoot than the 24-105 f4 lens. Part of this may be an improved USM, but part is also the f2.8 aperture and the brighter optics. For me, this outweighs that benefit of IS on a short zoom for most of my shooting. (To be clear, I do rely on IS frequently with the 70-200.)

I also have the 35 f2.0 IS and plan to get the 50 fx.x IS if and when Canon refreshes it. The 35 is a fun lens and my "extra low light" lens of choice. I anticipate the future 50 to be the same. the 35 is as bright as the 24-70 and comparable in IQ with the 24-70 at 35mm.

I will admit that I have no plans to sell the 24-105, at least not yet. With IS, it is a a bit of a "security blanket lens". There was a time when I carried it and the 24-70 to events, but no more. The 24-70 has quickly become my preferred short zoom. If I get concerned about a low light situation and want IS, I tend to grab the 35 now -- two stops faster than the 24-105 with IS to boot.

Admittedly, I'm still torn about landscapes. Although not a main interest, I like IS for them and often use polarizers. While I stop down smaller than f4 for landscapes, the 24-70 may still be better suited (unless there's moving water and I want a slow shutter) because it is a bright lens.

Of course, your mileage may vary. But, I would recommend the 24-70 f2.8L II. If I could only have one 24-xxx Canon zoom, it would be the 24-70 f2.8L II.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I shoot mostly events, school sports and portraits, with occasional travel photography thrown in. In my case, the 70-200 f2.8L II is my most used lens. This was the case with my 7D and is still the case with my 5D3.

I bought the 5D3 with the 24-105 f4L IS kit lens and I really like this lens. It's my first choice for a walk-around lens when I want to travel light with a single body and don't have a specific subject in mind. (For "serious" shoots, I use two bodies.) I also like the flexibility of shooting scenery around water (streams, waterfalls, etc.) with very slow shutter speeds and IS.

Still, the faster 24-70 f2.8L II was very tempting for its extra speed. For people shots, I prefer 1/100 min and generally shoot 1/200 and up. But, losing the IS was a huge concern. Until the temptation grew to strong to resist.

I now keep the 70-200 on one body and the 24-70 on the other (both 5D3's). I really like the 24-70. It's great for action shots. Because it's faster, it focuses quicker in low light. It also seems to be a brighter lens. Comparing the 24-70 at 70 with the 70-200 at 70, both at f2.8, the 24-70 seems to be 1/2 to 2/3 stop brighter. This helps me use a little faster shutter speed or lower ISO.

Typically, I shoot above 1/100 with the 24-70 and sometimes down to 1/60 without concern. On occasion, I will use 1/40 or 1/30 and take extra measures to brace myself. But, more likely, I'll bump up the ISO.

I can't gloss over the focus speed benefits of the 24-70. I shoot action -- which can include a fleeting moment during an event. The 24-70 is better at the quick aim-focus-shoot than the 24-105 f4 lens. Part of this may be an improved USM, but part is also the f2.8 aperture and the brighter optics. For me, this outweighs that benefit of IS on a short zoom for most of my shooting. (To be clear, I do rely on IS frequently with the 70-200.)

I also have the 35 f2.0 IS and plan to get the 50 fx.x IS if and when Canon refreshes it. The 35 is a fun lens and my "extra low light" lens of choice. I anticipate the future 50 to be the same. the 35 is as bright as the 24-70 and comparable in IQ with the 24-70 at 35mm.

I will admit that I have no plans to sell the 24-105, at least not yet. With IS, it is a a bit of a "security blanket lens". There was a time when I carried it and the 24-70 to events, but no more. The 24-70 has quickly become my preferred short zoom. If I get concerned about a low light situation and want IS, I tend to grab the 35 now -- two stops faster than the 24-105 with IS to boot.

Admittedly, I'm still torn about landscapes. Although not a main interest, I like IS for them and often use polarizers. While I stop down smaller than f4 for landscapes, the 24-70 may still be better suited (unless there's moving water and I want a slow shutter) because it is a bright lens.

Of course, your mileage may vary. But, I would recommend the 24-70 f2.8L II. If I could only have one 24-xxx Canon zoom, it would be the 24-70 f2.8L II.

Big time Ditto. I could have written this entire post myself except for the bit about the primes because I don't own the 35 IS prime.

Another thing... we did a premium senior portrait shoot for my son a few months ago at a great studio with a great reputation. Spent over $1000 for the printed products and the digital image rights. The sitting went very smoothly and guess what they shot it all with? Canon 1DX, 24-70 f/2.8 II and 70-200 f/2.8 II. Portraits all came out great. I'm not saying some high end L primes wouldn't do better but they are definitely not crucial to have if you have those two stellar zooms in your kit. Just get them and see for yourself.

 

[can0nfan2379]

Greetings!
I decided to switch to Canon from Nikon. There are many reasons behind the decision, but mostly: the lenses and the slower update cycle.

I like to shoot everything. Sometimes i feel like I'm going out and photographing birds in the park, sometimes i'm just in a mood for landscapes. To me the photography is a pleasure and a therapy, and more reasons to go out.

I'm going to buy two bodies: a fast shooter and one for general purposes.
7D mark II and 5D mark IV(when it's available).

For the lenses:
16-35mm f/4L
24-70 f/2.8L II or 24-70 f/4L
70-200 f/2.8L II
100-400 ver.II

As you can see, I can't decide between 24-70s. I'm going to shoot with it handheld.
Reading reviews and watching samples didn't help me, just gave me a headache. And unfortunately, I can't test them side by side because the store has only the f/2.8 model in stock.
In theory, f/2.8 should compensate for the IS on the f/4 with a faster shutter speed but I'm not sure if that's the case in real situation. And then there is the glass quality - the f/2.8 should produce sharper images, but again, in theory.
So I'd highly appreciate an advice from someone who has had experience with both lenses in real world.

Cheers!

Like your choices but perhaps consider another option:

16-35/4
24-70/2.8
85 1.2
100-400

This might minimize your overlap between the 70-200 focal length and the 100-400 and give you an awesome fast prime in there.

 

[sdsr]

Like your choices but perhaps consider another option:

16-35/4
24-70/2.8
85 1.2
100-400

This might minimize your overlap between the 70-200 focal length and the 100-400 and give you an awesome fast prime in there.

Yes; or the 100L, which lets you do macro or anything else, has good IS and costs much less.

 

[tphillips63]

I would also suggest the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. I never had the version 1 but after I got it, about a year of having it, I sold my 24 and 35 and 24-105.
I really like it over them for convenience if anything else but the 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS is my most used.
I did keep two primes, 50 1.2 and 85 1.2. I am not sure I would choose the 70-200 over the 85 though, probably not, even though the 85 can make delicious bokeh.

The zooms you listed, I have them all except for 16-35 f/2.8L II, the new f/4 was not out back when I got it.
I am not sure of all the differences even though I read a lot of reviews on it, I have not been tempted to change out for it.

 

[StudentOfLight]

The EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM has received universally favorable reviews and performs well in lab tests.
You also really can't go wrong with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM. If you can afford it then don't waste time with any other 70-200mm lens.
The new 100-400mm also looks really good.

If I were in your position I might hold off on buying a 24-70mm. I suspect that Canon will release a 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS USM with a new "5D-IV" as a kit lens. That being said, if you will earn money through the lens then the current 24-70mm 2.8L II is very good optically so you won't regret the purchase and it will provide good service for the next few years.

In the interim you could fill the gap between the 16-35 and 70-200 with a fast prime like:
a) Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 - general low light photography or portraiture (on a 7D)
b) Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 - if you really want to specialize in portraiture (more suited for outdoor work on 7D)
c) Canon 100mm f/2.8 L macro - if you have an interest in macro

When you get a 24-70mm any of the above lenses will still be a valuable option in your camera bag.

 

[anthonyd]

I got the 24-70 f/2.8 last winter. It has come off my camera two, maybe three times since then, and it was because I put on an f/1.4 to do more bokehlicious portraits. It's a phenomenal lens, it won't let you down. If you walk around a lot and the weight is a concern, don't buy a lighter lens, buy a harness that takes the load off your neck, like the "Cotton carrier" or something.

 

[mackguyver]

I think you are right to stick with zooms if you're a bit of generalist and I'd go for the 24-70 f/2.8 II unless you need IS for video or something. It is an amazing lens and really does replace primes in terms of IQ from f/2.8+. The rumored IS version is likely many years away and will be outrageously expensive. I have the other lenses as well with the exception of the new 100-400 and that's exactly what I'd buy if I were starting again. They are all fantastic lenses and you can always add from there. Things like 1.4x extender for more distant shots, a macro if that's your interest, a fast prime, etc., but that set will be a really solid foundation.

 

[Danzq]

Do consider the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC!

It's alot cheaper than the Canon 24-70 2.8 II and has the "IS" factor. Very solid and well built lens and imo very nice value for money.

...just my 2 cents.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Actually, I'm mostly considering the Tamron due to the sharpness it delivers. It sure beats the Nikon's 24-70; as for the Canon I see it as a tie, based on the reviews and users experiences. It's almost twice cheaper! That's unbelievable! I even started to doubt the 70-200.
I hope it's not wishful thinking... but still the tests for the 24-70 are real

I own the Canon 24-70 and it works great. I have heard others mention the Tamron takes longer to focus. Otherwise, aside from some reports I've seen about some copies not being as sharp, it seems to be a great alternative to the Canon. I assume you have seen Dustin Abbot's fine review? He is a pretty solid Tamron supporter and his images are spectacular.

http://dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/

 

[sunnyVan]

Actually, I'm mostly considering the Tamron due to the sharpness it delivers. It sure beats the Nikon's 24-70; as for the Canon I see it as a tie, based on the reviews and users experiences. It's almost twice cheaper! That's unbelievable! I even started to doubt the 70-200.
I hope it's not wishful thinking... but still the tests for the 24-70 are real

I didn't read every reply. I did read that you were originally a nikon shooter. If you don't mind the switching cost to canon, you shouldn't forgo the opportunity of trying the best of the canon lens lineup, namely 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, etc. These are keeping certain canon users from switching to nikon. Well, my two cents.

 

[tron]

Thank you all for your input. 24-70 f/2.8 is going to be my choice. 8)

An excellent choice sir...