# Advice: Should I sell my 24-70mm f2.8L (I) and get the 24-70mm f4L IS?



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 9, 2014)

I have read that the 24-70mm f4L IS has less distortion than the old 24-70mm f2.8L, in addition to the Image stabilization and lighter weight so I am considering to get the IS version. I don't shoot much portrait and fast pace events so, I think the 4-stop IS may help me more on low light situations. I am just a hobbyiest, not a pro?

Thanks in advance for your comments.


----------



## Menace (Feb 9, 2014)

Try renting or borrowing to get a hands on feel, or even try one in a shop if possible at all.

Have a look at your Exit data to see at what aperture majority of your shots have been taken I.e. If a large % are at f 2.8 then you really will miss that 1 stop loss.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 9, 2014)

It looks like you've got the lenses to cover your low light/non flash needs, so if you think the 24-70 f/4 IS will be a good fit, then go for it!

It will require a change in how you use the lenses, but your primes will be used more. I'm assuming that you'd be selling your existing 240-70, but how about your 15-85? Perhaps a 10-22 would be a better complement for your WA/UWA needs.


----------



## Ruined (Feb 10, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I have read that the 24-70mm f4L IS has less distortion than the old 24-70mm f2.8L, in addition to the Image stabilization and lighter weight so I am considering to get the IS version. I don't shoot much portrait and fast pace events so, I think the 4-stop IS may help me more on low light situations. I am just a hobbyiest, not a pro?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your comments.



What are you shooting? Due to the shorter focal length, the IS in the 24-70 IS primarily helps with still life/object photography and video. If you are shooting anything that might be moving even slightly the IS really will not help as much as f/2.8 and you are probably better keeping the 24-70 f/2.8 I for low light.

If you do primarily shoot still life or video, then yes the f/4 IS would probably be a better bet.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 11, 2014)

Thanks to all for your comments. It looks based on your comments that keeping the old 24-70mm 2.8L is still a better option. 
I don't shoot movies but stills are my preferred subject even under low light conditions.


----------



## EBB281 (Feb 14, 2014)

[size=24pt]*[size=18pt]I think Canon Lenses are to expensive!! So i looked into the Rokinon set of primes great prices and quality here is the Rokinon 24mm Test :**)*[/size][/size] 
http://youtu.be/Wh3RsYQ-mio


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 14, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I have read that the 24-70mm f4L IS has less distortion than the old 24-70mm f2.8L, in addition to the Image stabilization and lighter weight so I am considering to get the IS version. I don't shoot much portrait and fast pace events so, I think the 4-stop IS may help me more on low light situations. I am just a hobbyiest, not a pro?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your comments.


 
You will notice the difference! I've had 5 of the old 24-70mm L's and was unhappy with all of them. Even my 24-105mmL was slightly better.


----------

