The MUST have Lens? "EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II or EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM"

[EricFiskCGD]

Here's a real newbie question...

After reading more than a few threads here I've seen that one of the same lenses keeps coming up in conversation - Either one of the EF 24-70mm's...

Is this the MUST HAVE lens for everyone?

 

[Drizzt321]

Well, those 2 lenses are targeted at different markets.

The 24-70 f/4 is targeted at the lower end of the market where IS (shooting at slow shutter speeds or have shaky hands) and wants closeup/short 'macro' operation with fairly good image quality, but not top end.

The 24-70 f/2.8 v2 is targeted at the high end professional that needs to be able to gather as much light as possible to keep shutter speeds up, build extremely tough, and top end image quality (especially sharpness, this lens is super sharp wide open across pretty much the whole zoom range). And it has a price commensurate with it's qualities.

 

[EricFiskCGD]

Well, those 2 lenses are targeted at different markets.

The 24-70 f/4 is targeted at the lower end of the market where IS (shooting at slow shutter speeds or have shaky hands) and wants closeup/short 'macro' operation with fairly good image quality, but not top end.

The 24-70 f/2.8 v2 is targeted at the high end professional that needs to be able to gather as much light as possible to keep shutter speeds up, build extremely tough, and top end image quality (especially sharpness, this lens is super sharp wide open across pretty much the whole zoom range). And it has a price commensurate with it's qualities.

Thank you for that really good break-down. Do you have either of them or what's your preference?

 

[Dylan777]

24-70 f2.8 II for now, until f2.8 IS releases

On top of that, another MUST have lens is 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

 

[Drizzt321]

Well, those 2 lenses are targeted at different markets.

The 24-70 f/4 is targeted at the lower end of the market where IS (shooting at slow shutter speeds or have shaky hands) and wants closeup/short 'macro' operation with fairly good image quality, but not top end.

The 24-70 f/2.8 v2 is targeted at the high end professional that needs to be able to gather as much light as possible to keep shutter speeds up, build extremely tough, and top end image quality (especially sharpness, this lens is super sharp wide open across pretty much the whole zoom range). And it has a price commensurate with it's qualities.

Thank you for that really good break-down. Do you have either of them or what's your preference?

I've already got the 24-105 f/4L so I don't see a need for the 24-70 f/4L IS for me, although from what I understand it's a bit sharper and does have that close-up mode, although I'd lose 35mm worth of reach.

I'd really love to get the 24-70 f/2.8L v2, and eventually I will, but it's rather expensive for me and I see more of a need for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS v2 first for me. And perhaps the new Tamron 150-600mm...so many lenses, so little money...

 

[Random Orbits]

Nope. Much more useful for FF. The range is a bit long and is expensive for APS-C.

 

[Dukinald]

24-70 f2.8 II for now, until f2.8 IS releases

On top of that, another MUST have lens is 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

Pulled the trigger on the 70-200mkii last year when they had the double dip. I came very close to getting the 24-70 2.8 mkii when they had the same offer. I held back because of the "clicking while zooming issue". So now, i'm still stuck with my 24-105L. Maybe the 24-70 2.8 IS is the one destined for me :

 

[Sabaki]

The 24-70 f/2.8 mkii is the best. Any other choice is generally about price consideration.

Like the 70-200, you can shoot at f2.8 and pretty much have everything in focus. The lens is about 2 years old and will serve you for at least the next 8-10.

 

[Loswr]

Here's a real newbie question...

After reading more than a few threads here I've seen that one of the same lenses keeps coming up in conversation - Either one of the EF 24-70mm's...

Is this the MUST HAVE lens for everyone?

For everyone? No. The 24-70 (and 24-105) are general purpose zooms for full frame - they cover wide angle, normal, and short telephoto focal lengths. Very useful range for general/walkaround shooting.

On APS-C, 24-xx doesn't include wide angle, making it much less useful, IMO. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS and 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS are much better options on crop bodies.

 

[cid]

Here's a real newbie question...

After reading more than a few threads here I've seen that one of the same lenses keeps coming up in conversation - Either one of the EF 24-70mm's...

Is this the MUST HAVE lens for everyone?

For everyone? No. The 24-70 (and 24-105) are general purpose zooms for full frame - they cover wide angle, normal, and short telephoto focal lengths. Very useful range for general/walkaround shooting.

On APS-C, 24-xx doesn't include wide angle, making it much less useful, IMO. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS and 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS are much better options on crop bodies.

I was using 24-70 on APS-C (60D) for about a year and I was very happy with results. In general, there were some situations where I missed wide angle of 15-85, but for me the constant aperture and image quality improvements over 15-85 were more important (so maybe 17-55 would be better choice for crop).
From last thursday I'm happy owner of 5D mk III and now I'm realizing true potential of my 24-70 mk II - it's incredible lens.
As others already mentioned, another must have lens is 70-200 f/2.8 IS - I fell in love with that lens on first try, it will be my next upgrage, but right now I have to save up (and enjoy 100L and 24-70 mkII on FF )) )

 

[bobby samat]

if youre going to choose between the two, the main thing you want to think about is if you need 2.8. personally, i do.

i dont always shoot that open, but i have the option to if need be - which is very important to me. far more important than having IS.

as for the 24-70 range - you just have to decide how often you're going to use a 24-70 lens. if you generally shoot wide or tight and you have lenses to cover those focal ranges, than a 50mm may be a good choice for medium range shots.

i will say the overall quality of the 24-70 2.8 is pretty impressive and i really enjoy using this lens when the occasion calls for it.

 

[edwyun]

I would try them both out if you can. I was all set to get the 24-70 f4 IS over the 24-70 f2.8 II. But when I tried them on a 6D and 5DIII, the shorter length of the F4 IS meant that the zoom ring was closer to the mount. So, when I used my left hand to zoom, my left hand would sometimes hit my camera-holding right hand. It's not as much of an issue with the f2.8 because the zoom ring is wider and further away from the mount. And I don't think I have large hands.

 

[gary samples]

I love my 24-70 f2.8 II one of the best Lens I own !!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My 24-70 and my 24-105mmL are great for full frame bodies, but not nearly wide enough for crop bodies.
The 17-55mm IS is a winner for Crop bodies followed by the 15-85mm.

 

[BL]

Here's a real newbie question...

After reading more than a few threads here I've seen that one of the same lenses keeps coming up in conversation - Either one of the EF 24-70mm's...

Is this the MUST HAVE lens for everyone?

No, not necessarily. There are some folks out there who generally prefer prime lenses in that focal length range for DSLRs (myself included) for various reasons (DOF, low light, size/weight, cost, etc.). Come to think of it, the only zoom lens I own is the 70-200 II... might have to fix that eventually

 

[StephenC]

Unless you are planning on upgrading to a full frame sensor anytime soon I would recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. It isn't an L lens but it really should be. You get the same 2.8 wide aperture as the very expensive 24-70 but don't loose out on the wide angle with your crop sensor and get IS. In my opinion, you wouldn't miss the 55-70mm range if you teamed this with one of the 70-200's (which I agree are also "must have"). Personally I went with the f4 version, as it is less heavy.

My 2 cents.

 

[NancyP]

The 24-70 f/4 IS is highly tempting for a hiker's FF landscape lens due to the weight (8 oz less than the f/2.8 II), IS, and semi-macro capacity. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is a consideration if one plans to do wide field astrophotography - coma is "ok" at 24mm and nonexistent at 35mm.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Is there such a things as a must have lens ? , its not a necessity to own either a 24-70 or 70-200 you do it if it suits you, I personally shoot primes instead which give me the same or better quality in a much lighter faster package.

If you were going down that route though the F4L IS USM i presume will be very similar to the 24-105L which is a cracking lens and i have two of them which my second photographes use , though it will struggle for shutter speeds in average or low light. If this was going to be your one and only then it would be the 2.8 without a doubt.

www.andrew-davies.com

 

[MTL18]

Here's a real newbie question...

After reading more than a few threads here I've seen that one of the same lenses keeps coming up in conversation - Either one of the EF 24-70mm's...

Is this the MUST HAVE lens for everyone?

If you have a full frame, they are both popular lenses. However, 24mm is really 38mm on your T3i, so for you, I'd say it isn't a must have lens.

You will want a lens that starts in the teens for close up/wide-angle photography. Good news for us crop sensors is that those lenses are typically cheaper!

 

[bdunbar79]

I see the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens a different way than I normally do regarding zooms vs. primes. I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 on FF typically, so the added cost of the zoom was well worth it. It beats any of Canon's primes in the 24-70 range, at f/2.8 and narrower. I sold my 24L, 35L, and 50L when I got that lens, because the IQ was certainly better than yes, even those primes.

I don't recommend a 24-70 zoom lens, however, on a crop body (APS-C). FF though, yes, for once, you really do get all of your $2299 worth.