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

[David_in_Seattle]

The 24-70 f/2.8 v2 offers the best IQ of any zoom lens in it's focal range by any manufacturer at the moment. But it comes at a significant cost. I use this lens on my 5Dmk3 and 1DX when I'm unable to use prime lenses. I never considered the f/4 version because I already have the 24-105 f/4. Optically the 24-70 f/4 IS is better than the 24-105, but the price difference isn't enough to warrant the upgrade (I got the 24-105 as part of a kit when I bought the 5Dmk3).

I also own a 60D with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS that I use when I need a lighter body for run and gun video recording. It's a great combo and I think the 17-55 is the best option for people with crop body DLSRs...that is unless you plan to upgrade to a full frame in the near future.

 

[Shield]

I had the 24-70 II for a while and sold it and picked up a 24-70 F/4. Why?

I'm normally a prime shooter, so F/2.8 isn't really that fast. The 24-70 2.8 II was a big bulky beast and I found myself grabbing the 35L more and more for F/1.6 - F/2 "fluff" shots. The 2.8 had no IS so it wasn't a good video choice.

My lens lineup is now:
35L, 85L II, 135L, 70-200 II, 24-70 F/4 (mostly for video) and the Tokina 16-28 2.8 for UWA.

I don't find myself lacking in anything from 16-200mm. The 24-70 F/4 is very sharp though - I just hated it as a walk around lens with the 5d3 + large flash. Way overkill.

 

[Razor2012]

The 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II are my most used lenses. Can't say enough about them. A 14-24 2.8L would nicely fill in that bottom end though.

 

[Dylan777]

The 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II are my most used lenses. Can't say enough about them. A 14-24 2.8L would nicely fill in that bottom end though.

+1...except. 16-35 III f2.8 IS with regular screw on filter

 

[Bernd Stuht]

Hello

Are here any practical Infos about the lower Distance Sharpness Problem of the 24-70 1:4L IS ?

I am not shure - do i need an 24-70 or not .

I´ve testet the 24-70 2.8L II from a Friend - very nice ;D - but i would like an IS !

actually : 17-40 4L - 50 1.4 - and 70-200 4L IS

i realy like UWW - so an 12-24 would be a Dream .

Have a nice Day !

Bernd

 

[Bernd Stuht]

Sorry, forgotten if necessary - Body is an Fullframe 5DM3

Bernd

 

[adhocphotographer]

Hello

Are here any practical Infos about the lower Distance Sharpness Problem of the 24-70 1:4L IS ?

I am not shure - do i need an 24-70 or not .

I´ve testet the 24-70 2.8L II from a Friend - very nice ;D - but i would like an IS !

actually : 17-40 4L - 50 1.4 - and 70-200 4L IS

i realy like UWW - so an 12-24 would be a Dream .

Have a nice Day !

Bernd

I still like my 24-105L.... I see the advantage of the 24-70 f/2.8 II, but if it was a toss up between the 24-70 f/4 and 24-105 f/4, i would go for the latter. Cheaper and longer... but the spare cash towards something else! Just to add confusion already!

 

[NancyP]

Bernd brings up an issue that has me hesitating about the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 - its relatively poor performance at and near its maximum magnification. This puts it out of the "one lens does everything well" category for me, as I often shoot in the 1:10-1:5 magnification range for nature photography. So, I am reflecting on the right solution for longer hikes. And I won't lie - IS can come in handy when it is difficult to deploy a tripod.

 

[Bernd Stuht]

Hello Nancy ( and all the others - of course )

I´ve never read about a slightly poor Performance of the EF 24-70 2.8 L II in closer Distance ?

The f4 IS Version was often criticize with this Problem.

I shot some Testpictures with the 2.8 II - normal Distances - and they were absolut sharp including
the Corners REALLY NICE LENS !

But - i think it is impossible to create a Lens that ist perfekt for all Situations ?

I would really like an IS - but for the next Future my Budget say´s NO to an new expensive Lens :'( .

So i have the "Chance" to wait : - and use the "Sneaker-Zoom" of my 50 1.4 .

I do not often uses Standard Focal Ranges, but - as you too - i search for a Lens for Hiking.

Greetings

Bernd

 

[RLPhoto]

There is no must haves. I hardly touch my 24-70mm and only have one as a backup in case one of my other lenses fails. The same with the 70-200mm, I still question if it's a must have for me.

 

[Sporgon]

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.

You may be interested to know that I have a friend and colleague who must be one of the most financially successful photographers in recent times - we're talking $400,000 yachts here, all genuinely from photography - and he now uses a 24-70 f4 IS.

It's inaccurate to say it's not aimed at 'top end'.

I'm tempted to say the 24-70 f2.8 II is aimed as much at very wealthy hobbyists as much as professionals who want the best possible IQ straight off the camera but I don't have any hard evidence for this, so I'd better not

 

[dolina]

Either lenses are targeted to those who need the f-number and IS. Doesn't matter whether you be wealthy or not as so long as the money's there the thing will get purchased.

 

[Razor2012]

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.

You may be interested to know that I have a friend and colleague who must be one of the most financially successful photographers in recent times - we're talking $400,000 yachts here, all genuinely from photography - and he now uses a 24-70 f4 IS.

It's inaccurate to say it's not aimed at 'top end'.

I'm tempted to say the 24-70 f2.8 II is aimed as much at very wealthy hobbyists as much as professionals who want the best possible IQ straight off the camera but I don't have any hard evidence for this, so I'd better not

There will always be those who want the 'best'. As in any hobby, it's there for the taking if you have the $$.

 

[CarlTN]

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?

Apparently it is. I thought I could get by without one, but I could not. I bought the 24-105. I saw no reason to pay up so big for the 24-70 f/4. If you do events shooting professionally with flash or strobes, the 24-70 f/2.8 (either the old or new version) is very likely essential...as is a 5D3. The 24 to whatever zoom focal range, is too useful for everything other than longer range sports or other telephoto uses...at least on a full frame camera. On a crop camera, evidently there are differing philosophies. Some lenses start at 18mm on the wide end, some at 15mm. 15 is what is equal to 24mm on full frame.

 

[Ruined]

There is no must haves. I hardly touch my 24-70mm and only have one as a backup in case one of my other lenses fails. The same with the 70-200mm, I still question if it's a must have for me.

I agree, in that, I generally use my 50L the most and the 24L offers better bokeh and low light capabilities. But, the 24-70 f/2.8 ii is quite nice if you can only take one lens with you (or won't have time for lens swap) and want the ability to do both landscape and portrait. 24-70 f/4 does not interest me.

I do though still use my 70-200mm f/2.8L II for a few reasons:
1) I don't like the angular bokeh of the 135L stopped down and the 85L doesn't have the reach of the 70-200.
2) It is generally more difficult to "zoom with your feet" when dealing with telephoto focal lengths, as that simply may not be possible depending on the situation.

I do hope Canon revisits the 135L soon, though, and puts some circular blades in it. I would buy it in a snap if it were 1500 street (at rebate time, of course!)

 

[RLPhoto]

There is no must haves. I hardly touch my 24-70mm and only have one as a backup in case one of my other lenses fails. The same with the 70-200mm, I still question if it's a must have for me.

I agree, in that, I generally use my 50L the most and the 24L offers better bokeh and low light capabilities. But, the 24-70 f/2.8 ii is quite nice if you can only take one lens with you (or won't have time for lens swap) and want the ability to do both landscape and portrait. 24-70 f/4 does not interest me.

I do though still use my 70-200mm f/2.8L II for a few reasons:
1) I don't like the angular bokeh of the 135L stopped down and the 85L doesn't have the reach of the 70-200.
2) It is generally more difficult to "zoom with your feet" when dealing with telephoto focal lengths, as that simply may not be possible depending on the situation.

I do hope Canon revisits the 135L soon, though, and puts some circular blades in it. I would buy it in a snap if it were 1500 street (at rebate time, of course!)

Your right about 24-70 and 70-200 but it doesn't make them must haves for every photographer. The 70-200 II is white, expensive and heavy. That's why I question buying one because I don't have a use for one.

 

[Don Haines]

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.

You may be interested to know that I have a friend and colleague who must be one of the most financially successful photographers in recent times - we're talking $400,000 yachts here, all genuinely from photography - and he now uses a 24-70 f4 IS.

It's inaccurate to say it's not aimed at 'top end'.

I'm tempted to say the 24-70 f2.8 II is aimed as much at very wealthy hobbyists as much as professionals who want the best possible IQ straight off the camera but I don't have any hard evidence for this, so I'd better not

Or it could be that the 24-70F4 and the 70-200F4 are targeted towards outdoors shooters who have to carry their gear a long way. Realistically, there is no IQ difference between the F4s and the F2.8s, the trade-off is weight for speed.

 

[Razor2012]

The 70-200 2.8 II does have some weight to it no doubt. I have shot with it a few times all day but in the end it's all worth it. I'll take the extra weight for speed everytime (there are exceptions).

 

[NancyP]

Don Haines gets the prize! For full-frame lightweight hiking kit, the 24-70mm f/4 IS has some appeal, due to the lighter weight and the semi-macro capacity, plus the IS makes it more convenient to take a reasonable-light shot because one doesn't have to deploy the tripod. I have been pack-hiking with a Cotton Carrier vest, backpack with usual camping gear-water-food, tripod lashed to the pack, and a Canon 60D with EF-S 15-85mm f/variable IS instantly accessible on the vest. 95% of non-wildlife shots can be handled with this single lens on an APS-C camera, and the true macro shots can be handled by the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 I carry in an accessible pocket. I have recently obtained a 6D, and am figuring out what FF lens kit I need. I suspect that I will end up with a day-hike kit containing primes, and a camping-hike kit containing a 24-70mm lens yet to be purchased, my current EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, and 1.4x TC and extension ring.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

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.

You may be interested to know that I have a friend and colleague who must be one of the most financially successful photographers in recent times - we're talking $400,000 yachts here, all genuinely from photography - and he now uses a 24-70 f4 IS.

It's inaccurate to say it's not aimed at 'top end'.

I'm tempted to say the 24-70 f2.8 II is aimed as much at very wealthy hobbyists as much as professionals who want the best possible IQ straight off the camera but I don't have any hard evidence for this, so I'd better not

Or it could be that the 24-70F4 and the 70-200F4 are targeted towards outdoors shooters who have to carry their gear a long way. Realistically, there is no IQ difference between the F4s and the F2.8s, the trade-off is weight for speed.

Sadly, in my experience that's only the case with the 70-200s (the 4 and 2.8 are both spectacular and you just pay for speed) . However, the 24-70 f/4 just isn't on the same level as the 2.8 version...sorry to say. Other than IS, I find it to be optically inferior (at least the ones I've tried) in almost every aspect (except maybe at 24mm). In particular it is quite underwhelming around 50mm. Maybe that's an optical compromise Canon had to make in order to fit the Macro feature in...otherwise I am sure they could have made it every bit as good as the 2.8, perhaps even better. This is not to say it is a bad lens...but I do think it is overpriced (I expect better at $1.5K price point - if it were $800, it would be an excellent alternative to the 24-105) and other lenses offer much better price/performance ratios.