# Canon 24-70 F/2.8 version 1 or 24-70 F/4 IS?



## cellomaster27 (Oct 17, 2016)

I know these lenses are quite different in most ways besides the focal range. I'm looking to buy one of these.. I have tried the sigma 24-70 but was NOT impressed at all. Same with the tamron 24-70 2.8: underwhelming. I just want to hear your thoughts and inputs! Thanks!


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 17, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> I know these lenses are quite different in most ways besides the focal range. I'm looking to buy one of these.. I have tried the sigma 24-70 but was NOT impressed at all. Same with the tamron 24-70 2.8: underwhelming. I just want to hear your thoughts and inputs! Thanks!



I can't speak for the f4 but I had the f2 8 version 1 and I was never really happy with it. I was under the impression that the Tamron was better then the version 1. If your not happy with any of the others then perhaps f2.8ii is what you should be considering.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 17, 2016)

Do you need f/2.8? Do you shoot action in low light? Then get the 24-70 L no-IS II.
Do you need stabilization , that is, do you shoot stationary subjects in low light? Then go for 24-70 f/4 L IS. Do you shoot video? Consider the 24-105 f/variable STM.


----------



## chilakamarthi (Oct 17, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> I know these lenses are quite different in most ways besides the focal range. I'm looking to buy one of these.. I have tried the sigma 24-70 but was NOT impressed at all. Same with the tamron 24-70 2.8: underwhelming. I just want to hear your thoughts and inputs! Thanks!



I don't know about Canon F/2.8 V1, But I used Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. Many people suggested me to go with that version - But I tried 3 copies and all three copies, I was not happy with sharpness even after micro adjustments. So I went to 24-70 F/4. I am happy with 20-70 F/4 with IS. I tried to put off IS and take pics and realized that my hands def need IS and so never thought about F2.8 II.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 18, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > I know these lenses are quite different in most ways besides the focal range. I'm looking to buy one of these.. I have tried the sigma 24-70 but was NOT impressed at all. Same with the tamron 24-70 2.8: underwhelming. I just want to hear your thoughts and inputs! Thanks!
> ...



I see. I tried the tamron but it just didn't excite me at all... from using the lens and to reviewing the pictures. If the version one from canon isn't too good.. maybe version 2 after all. I'm just on a tight budget after my 5D3 purchase. ;D



NancyP said:


> Do you need f/2.8? Do you shoot action in low light? Then get the 24-70 L no-IS II.
> Do you need stabilization , that is, do you shoot stationary subjects in low light? Then go for 24-70 f/4 L IS. Do you shoot video? Consider the 24-105 f/variable STM.



I don't shoot video and I have primes for low light stuff. Now, how much of a difference is it between the f4 IS and the 2.8 mark II? I do shoot quite a bit of portraits..



chilakamarthi said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > I know these lenses are quite different in most ways besides the focal range. I'm looking to buy one of these.. I have tried the sigma 24-70 but was NOT impressed at all. Same with the tamron 24-70 2.8: underwhelming. I just want to hear your thoughts and inputs! Thanks!
> ...



Nice! congrats on your satisfactory purchase. I'm leaning towards the F4 IS based on price and quality. No doubt that the 2.8 mark 2 is great.. and even the mark 1 doesn't seem half bad, but $$. but then maybe I should just wait a little and get the 24-105mm F4 IS II?


----------



## dexstrose (Oct 18, 2016)

I've been reading about new cameras. It made me rethink about glass to accommodate for high megapixle cameras that I may purchase in the future.

I wanted the 24-70 f4, but saved and now I have the 24-70 f2.8 II. Its on my camera most of the times. It has great af, contrast, and color. I really like how it feels on my 6d, not too heavy.


----------



## SteveM (Oct 18, 2016)

I should read the review of the 24-70 f4 IS over on 'photozone' before making any commitment. The old version of the 24-105 f4 IS is worth considering (providing you aren't shooting architecture.....ie straight lines). For people and landscapes this lens is very good, despite owning a 24-70 f2.8 mkll I use it quite often on weddings.


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 18, 2016)

I am reading about the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC lens being not sharp enough... is that the same lens that I took this photo with?

tack sharp at 1:1.

_HINT: do not forget to switch VC OFF at shutter speed faster than 1/70. Somehow if left ON it affects greatly the image sharpness even when taking photos handheld. I use VC of this lens only for photos taken at 1/60s and slower shutter speed handheld._

https://goo.gl/photos/2XEJT7Q649tY7AVC7

*New Haircut*


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Oct 18, 2016)

For the price, and if you're shooting portraits, a used 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens.


----------



## pwp (Oct 18, 2016)

hawaiisunsetphoto said:


> For the price, and if you're shooting portraits, a used 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens.



Well maybe...the 24-70mm f/2.8L (MkI) was a flawed design. There is no doubt that there are good copies out there, but this lens has predominantly been a disappointment to photographers worldwide. The ones that are showing up second hand now are likely to be units being quickly on-sold after a disappointing experience. I know I'm not the only one on this list who went through five 24-70mm f/2.8L MkI's. All were well below useable commercial standard. Even after servicing at CPS.

My hard earned advice would be to avoid lost time and almost guaranteed annoyance and forget about the 24-70mm f/2.8L MkI. 

-pw


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 19, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I am reading about the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC lens being not sharp enough... is that the same lens that I took this photo with?
> 
> tack sharp at 1:1.
> 
> _HINT: do not forget to switch VC OFF at shutter speed faster than 1/70. Somehow if left ON it affects greatly the image sharpness even when taking photos handheld. I use VC of this lens only for photos taken at 1/60s and slower shutter speed handheld._



Ah! No wonder.. the VC was really giving me terrible unusable photos. I was borrowing a friend's copy.. Good to know. But even then, that's really not useful to turn the VC off at shutter speeds more than 1/70.. that would be a nuisance. Thanks for the info!



pwp said:


> hawaiisunsetphoto said:
> 
> 
> > For the price, and if you're shooting portraits, a used 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens.
> ...



Thanks pw! I was so close to getting a mark 1.. glad I didn't jump on it! I think I'll get the 24-70 f/4 IS.. The 24-105mm f4 version 1 is good but the IS is marginal. I would like to get the version 2 but that's just paying premium atm.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 19, 2016)

I had 5 copies of the 24-70 mk I, and was not pleased with any. I liked my 24-105mm MK I better. 

But, the 24-70mm f/2.8 MK II is way out in front of all of them, if its not good enough for you, I'd say you might have camera issues or a bad lens.

The 24-70 mk II is available for $1600 (USA NEW), if that is more than you want to spend, then the 24-70mm f/4 is a hair better than the 24-105, but I'd get a gray market 24-105 for around $630. White Box USA versions often appear for the same price.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 19, 2016)

Maybe I have a freakishly good 24-70 f2.8 MkI, but I tested mine against two MkII's and basically couldn't tell them apart, so I kept the MkI.

For me the 24-70 f2.8 MkI has been an absolute blindingly good lens that I have used for over ten years. Only now is it getting some time off as the go to general purpose lens in favor of the 35 f2 IS.


----------



## jd7 (Oct 19, 2016)

FWIW I've been pretty happy with the 24-70 f/4 IS.

For comparison, I formerly owned the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, my brother has the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, my sister has a 24-105 f/4 (mk 1), and I've tried out the 24-70 f/2.8 II a couple of times (although only very briefly).

If you need (or just want!) f/2.8 for shallow DOF and/or fast shutter speed reasons, obviously the 24-70 f/4 IS isn't for you ... but I guess you wouldn't be considering the 24-70 f/4 IS if that was the case.

The things I like about the 24-70 f/4 IS are:

1. smaller and lighter than the other options - makes it good as a general walk around lens and for hikes and travel

2. IS really increases it's flexibility - shooting handheld in a dimly lit building, or shoot a landscape when you're stopped down quite a bit, etc. (Yes, a wider aperture gives flexibility in it's own way too, so of course there is a trade off.)

3. good IQ (IMHO, at least for my copy of the lens), including factors such as relatively low distortion as well as sharpness

4. quite handy semi-macro mode (note though that I don't do enough macro to want to own a dedicated macro lens)

The 24-70 f/2.8 II is obviously an excellent lens, but at least in the very limited time I've used it I haven't felt so impressed by it that I've wanted to pay the extra money for it - especially when I'd be giving up the IS and macro mode and carrying a bigger and heavier lens. If I needed a zoom in that range for events or indoor sports I'm sure I'd feel differently. Also, I do tend often switch to a prime for portraits in that focal length range.

Regarding sharpness of the 24-70 f/4 IS versus the others, if you haven't already seen it you might be interested to read this: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/
If you search around on CR, you will see a split of opinion - some people are very happy with their lens, and others say the sharpness is disappointing. Not sure what the explanation is for that, but sample variation between lenses seems like a possibility.

Good luck with your choice!


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 20, 2016)

jd7 said:


> FWIW I've been pretty happy with the 24-70 f/4 IS.
> 
> For comparison, I formerly owned the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, my brother has the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, my sister has a 24-105 f/4 (mk 1), and I've tried out the 24-70 f/2.8 II a couple of times (although only very briefly).
> 
> ...



Wow, thank you for your input. Quite detailed and definitely helping me to decide. I will post on here once I make my purchase/decision.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 20, 2016)

I have owned both and sold my 24-70 f/2.8L I for the 24-70 f/4L IS. For me and what I shoot, it was the perfect call.

If you need to shoot portraiture, events, reportage or sports, get the f/2.8L I. (*War* reportage in particular -- it's built like a tank!)

If you need to shoot landscapes, macro, video, if you travel or hike with it, if you are space-confined in your bag, etc. get the f/4L IS.

But if you want to get in the weeds, here are the upsides of the 24-70 f/4L IS:


Sharper
Lighter
Shorter length
Has IS
Has a much smaller lens hood
Has a 0.7x macro mode -- a killer feature for travel/hiking work: leave the 100L at home!

And the upsides of the 24-70 f/2.8L I:


Opens up to f/2.8
Has a fairly rare reverse telescoping acton, when coupled with its comically large lens hood (honestly looks like a 70-200 f/2.8 hood!) can optimally shade from flare throughout the zoom range. Every other 24-something Canon sells only optimally shades the sun at 24mm.
Built like a tank. Shockingly solid feeling.
Probably a slightly better bet on the resale market as an f/2.8 standard zoom is a staple pro tool.

- A


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 21, 2016)

pwp said:


> hawaiisunsetphoto said:
> 
> 
> > For the price, and if you're shooting portraits, a used 24-70mm f/2.8L is a great lens.
> ...


I agree, 24-70/2.8 MkI was a flawed design. It needed maintenance too often, and misfocused too often. It drove some people to switch to Nikon. It drove me to using primes only in that range. Although people used it in all sorts of circumstances, it was definitely not built like a tank. The solid feeling was deceptive, because it wouldn't stay in calibration. I would recommend any of the newer L zooms over the MkI.


----------



## mrzero (Oct 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I have owned both and sold my 24-70 f/2.8L I for the 24-70 f/4L IS. For me and what I shoot, it was the perfect call.
> 
> If you need to shoot portraiture, events, reportage or sports, get the f/2.8L I. (*War* reportage in particular -- it's built like a tank!)
> 
> ...



Excellent point about the reverse telescoping action on the 24-70/2.8 I as a pro, but there is also a con. This makes it impossible to use step-up filter rings or square filters. Probably a main reason why Canon dropped this design feature. But, maybe a nonissue depending on your use.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 21, 2016)

mrzero said:


> Excellent point about the reverse telescoping action on the 24-70/2.8 I as a pro, but there is also a con. This makes it impossible to use step-up filter rings or square filters. Probably a main reason why Canon dropped this design feature. But, maybe a nonissue depending on your use.



Sure, but can you use a step-up filter ring or (especially) a square filter with _any_ hood in place? The hood is usually the first thing to go, isn't it?

And Canon 100% got rid of this feature for another reason -- the hood was spectacularly big for the lens's FL. It caused problems fitting it into bags. See Mk II vs. Mk I below. The Mk. II style is used in all 24-somethings these days.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 24, 2016)

The EF 24-70mm MK1 is not a great lens, period. The EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM is OK at 24 or 70mm but not great at 50mm. Of the present the all round EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is a better lens. The new EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM MKII will be a huge seller Ive had a chance to use it and I will definitely be buying it.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The EF 24-70mm MK1 is not a great lens, period. The EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM is OK at 24 or 70mm but not great at 50mm. Of the present the all round EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is a better lens. The new EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM MKII will be a huge seller Ive had a chance to use it and I will definitely be buying it.



Disagree. I didn't buy a FF rig to take soft images, and the 24-105 is far more likely to take them than the 24-70 f/4L IS. The latter is simply a sharper lens, and the former is a proper hot mess at 24mm (not terribly sharp, a ton of distortion as well). 

If you need reach, get the 24-105L I, but don't for a moment presume it is the free lunch you are looking for. A 4.5x zoom is a clear step away from the IQ the 3x zooms offer.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > The EF 24-70mm MK1 is not a great lens, period. The EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM is OK at 24 or 70mm but not great at 50mm. Of the present the all round EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is a better lens. The new EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM MKII will be a huge seller Ive had a chance to use it and I will definitely be buying it.
> ...


Read the Photozone.de report on the EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM on FF. That report is spot on regarding the softness of this lens at 50mm, oh and the image shift. Sure the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM MK1 is not perfect either particularly chromatic aberration wise but its correctable to a degree, soft images at 50mm are not.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 24, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> Read the Photozone.de report on the EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM on FF. That report is spot on regarding the softness of this lens at 50mm, oh and the image shift. Sure the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM MK1 is not perfect either particularly chromatic aberration wise but its correctable to a degree, soft images at 50mm are not.



I've read it many times. Photozone did not say a word about the 50mm softness you referred to. In fact, _they never tested it at 50mm_. Further, the focus shift you refer to was apparently a mechanical issue that Canon fixed (see the final page's addendum).

LensRentals had a look at the 24-70 f/4L IS -- 22 copies in fact -- and Uncle Rog stated the following:

"We did find that 50mm resolution was slightly lower than 70mm for every copy. The center / weighted average at 50mm for the 24-70 f/4 IS was 875 / 700, compared to 920 / 750 at 70mm. Not a huge drop, but it was consistent. This is a bit surprising, but not a total shock. Some wide angle zooms exhibit similar behavior and the dip in resolution isn’t extreme."

That horrific 50mm softness value you see above is on the order of the 24-105's sharpness throughout the range. So at one focal length, the 24-105L I can keep up. At the others, not so much.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 25, 2016)

I can't speak to the 24-70 f/2.8L version 1, 24-70 f/4L, the Sigma, or the Tamron.

All I can say is that my copy of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II was worth every penny at every focal range. I am extremely happy with this lens and don't hesitate to recommend it to anyone. 

As long as I have an EF mount body, this lens will stay in my bag.

The colors are wonderful, I don't have a need for IS at these focal lengths (and I can be kinda shaky), and the sharpness is incredible.

The only thing I wish was different is changing focal length internally like the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Not sure I explained that correctly and that would probably make the lens even heavier. I wouldn't mind the extra weight though... especially if it didn't have IS.

Yes the price is high, but not too bad if one considers how long it will probably last.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 25, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The only thing I wish was different is changing focal length internally like the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Not sure I explained that correctly and that would probably make the lens even heavier.



You mean 'internal zooming', something we take for granted in our EF UWA and 70-200 L lenses. It wouldn't make the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens that much heavier, but it would make it perhaps 2" longer. For that reason -- stowability in a bag -- 24-something lenses are almost always externally zooming.

I personally love internal zooming as it eliminates a path for dust/dirt/moisture ingress, but I also hate it for packing reasons. I have some tiny military satchels and a small Domke bag that are just right for the 5D3 and one lens attached, and while my 24-70 f/4L IS fits beautifully, my 16-35 f/4L IS does not and only then do I wish it _did_ externally zoom. 

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing I wish was different is changing focal length internally like the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Not sure I explained that correctly and that would probably make the lens even heavier.
> ...



I understand what you mean.

Had no idea the 16-35 f/4L was internal zoom. Nice!

I carry in the Canon black and green backpack. There isn't a lot of room, but I can carry the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (attached to the 5D III), Tamron 15-30 (a very large lens, internal zoom), and my 24-70 f/2.8L II, plus 5 filters extra batteries, timer, etc., so it is heavy.

The good part is that I don't hardly carry the Tamron anywhere. In fact, I find myself carrying less and less. I used to try and always carry every lens I have. Going to nearly all zooms has helped, though I cannot say I remember any of my old EF-S lenses had any weight at all compared to these L lenses.

Here's my problem: Even if Canon came out with an internal zooming 24-70 f/2.8L, I don't know that I'd want to give up the lens I have. This dusty old desert I live in would have me tempted. 

I absolutely love the internal zooming on the 70-200 and the 15-30 though.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 26, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



It isn't. None of Canon's UWA's are or ever have been internal zooms.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I understand what you mean.
> 
> Had no idea the 16-35 f/4L was internal zoom. Nice!



It is and it isn't. Play the attached video.

My 'inner Neuro' wants to be correct on the fine print: some L zooms are internal zooming in that there is no classically telescoping external barrel and nothing internally ever comes proud of the filter ring _but in fact the front element does telescope inside of that external barrel_. So it's not completely closed off like a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II but it also doesn't technically telescope past the outer barrel. 

Some of the UWA L do this 'internally zooming practically but there is a sliding path for ingress during zooming' as do some other lenses (the 50L for one) -- go to this example at TDP and see what I am referring to:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=1073&LensComp2=0&LensComp=403

(Be sure to mouseover the "Select View" for zooming without a hood and what I'm talking about will become apparent)

But since I filter everything with UV/protect or CPL unless the ND grad holder is coming out, _I never notice this phenomenon_ -- to me, the front element 'is' the filter and it never moves forward throughout zooming. Problem solved.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I understand what you mean.
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > It is and it isn't. Play the attached video.
> ...



We're hemming and hawing over definitions. Carnathan at TDP calls both the 16-35s and the 50L as internal zooming/internal focusing despite this exception. You have a different definition, and that's fine.

(And I believe one of the UWA L lenses doesn't do this and is a pure internal zoom, perhaps the 17-40?)

_Functionally_, though, the exception lenses I am referring to do not telescope or push out with externally moving stuff like the classic 'T' shape that spits out of budget lenses and 24-something L lenses. There is no extending external neck that stuff can sneak into these exception lenses. They won't tug at a rain hood, extend in your bag, etc. and as such, I'm calling them just as good as a pure internal zoom -- provided you front filter.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



You and Brian can call anything anything you like. Canon make the lenses and they do not call them internal zooms, because they are not.

This is not a semantic argument, it is a technical definition. The distance from the front element to the mount changes, ergo it is not an internal zoom.

No the 17-40 is not an internal zoom.

All these AF EF UWA zooms grew from the EF 20-35 f2.8 http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/20-35mm-f28.htm

The 20-35 f2.8, 17-35 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8, 16-35 f2.8 MkII, 16-35 f2.8 MkIII, 17-40 f4, 16-35 f4 IS, 11-24 f4 and the 8-15 f4 are all the same design of zoom, not internal.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Thanks for pointing that out. My Tamron 15-30 isn't internal zooming after all.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 26, 2016)

I own the 24-70 f2.8L II and the original 24-105 f4.0L IS. I still find the 24-105 to be very handy. It is a favorite general purpose lens and landscape lens because of the IS. I often explore controlled motion blur, which makes IS essential. In many respects, the 24-105 is a more versatile, jack of all trades lens.

But, if you need a short zoom for low light events or indoor sports, the 24-70 II is a must-have lens. In these cases, you generally want shutter speeds of 1/100 or faster (1/500 for sports) and the 2.8 is a big help. Plus, I find that the AF on this lens is quicker and than the 24-105. 

To be fair, the 24-70 is also a sharper lens with less distortion. But, the 24-105 is no slouch and performs admirably for my needs.

The OP asked about the 24-70 f2.8 vs. the 24-70 f4 IS. If action and low light is more important than using shutter speeds longer than, say, 1/50, then definitely consider the 2.8 II version.

However, if versatility is of greater concern, then forget the 24-70 f4 and consider the new 24-105 f4 IS II.

For detailed reviews and direct IQ image comparisons, look up these lenses on TheDigitalPicture.com.

UPDATE: Oops, I didn't catch that the OP was looking at the original 24-70 2.8. The original 24-105 4L IS was introduced after the original 24-70 and, reportedly, was hit among wedding photographers over the original 24-70. I know the 24-70 f4 IS has some IQ benefits over the original 24-105, but I still suggest the either 24-105 (Mark 1 or 2) for the IS and the range.


----------



## pwp (Oct 26, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The EF 24-70mm MK1 is not a great lens, period....


You're not wrong; most copies are well below useable quality. Any of the good copies that exist are justifiably being held onto by their fortunate owners.

-pw


----------



## Gnocchi (Oct 26, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The EF 24-70mm MK1 is not a great lens, period. The EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM is OK at 24 or 70mm but not great at 50mm. Of the present the all round EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is a better lens. The new EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM MKII will be a huge seller Ive had a chance to use it and I will definitely be buying it.


Mine (24-70 f4) seems quite sharp at f4 50mm.


----------

