# Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II vs f/4 IS



## rigrx (May 3, 2015)

Hey guys,

which lense should I prefer? 
I'm from austria and need a perfect every-day lense. I have a 24-70 2.8 I, but I want to 'upgrade' to one of these two. Which one is better for me? Is the 2.8 worth the extra money?

I would get a NEW 24-70 f/4 at 569 €, while the 2.8 would cost 1000 € more. 

I will use it also for video and so IS would be better for me, but I love Bokeh and on the 2.8 it is a little bit more...

What do you think? What would you choose? 569 € for this lense is really cheap for an L lense...


----------



## bmwzimmer (May 3, 2015)

First off the picture you posted is not the 24-70 f/4
Having owned all 3 24-70's, i can tell you if you bought the f/4, there will be thoughts in your mind that there's something better out there. 
If your needs were strictly photography, i'd get the 24-70ii
But if you need it for video, i would look into Tamron's excellent 24-70 2.8 VC


----------



## wyldeguy (May 3, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> First off the picture you posted is not the 24-70 f/4
> Having owned all 3 24-70's, i can tell you if you bought the f/4, there will be thoughts in your mind that there's something better out there.
> If your needs were strictly photography, i'd get the 24-70ii
> But if you need it for video, i would look into Tamron's excellent 24-70 2.8 VC



The picture he posted does in fact have the 24-70 f4L IS on the right. He just grabbed a googled photo that also contains the 28-70. Anyway to answer the question, it really depends on how you are going to use it. If you are going to be outdoors or have adequate lighting indoors then the f4 will do just fine. In fact with the IS it might be able to do with less light. The f2.8 will give you much better bokeh at the cost of the IS and probably much heavier. I use a sigma 2.8 and its lighter than the original canon, but it's still a beast. A lighter lens will encourage you to use it more. I barely use my sigma anymore because I have the canon 17-40 which is 1/2 the weight of the original canon 24-70. You might be interested in this video from DigitalRev  http://youtu.be/A-q0JcUCwpw


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2015)

wyldeguy said:


> The picture he posted does in fact have the 24-70 f4L IS on the right. He just grabbed a googled photo that also contains the 28-70.



In fact, it does not. The three lenses are the 28-70/2.8L, the 24-70/2.8L, and the 24-70/2.8L II. Not an f/4 or an IS lens in the bunch.


----------



## martti (May 3, 2015)

Why would you want to _upgrade_ to 24-70 f/4.0? 
I mean, what is the exact reason if you already have the old version of the f/2.8 zoom?
I sold mine with the idea to upgrade (maybe) later on. 
On my 5DIII I have the 35mm L with the 100mm f/2.0 in the bag. Or the old dust pump 100-400.
Probably the picture quality would be same or even better with the 24-70 f/2.8 II. 
If I get some stuff sold, I'll buy it. Definitely not the f/4.0, IS or no IS.


----------



## rigrx (May 3, 2015)

wyldeguy said:


> The picture he posted does in fact have the 24-70 f4L IS on the right. He just grabbed a googled photo that also contains the 28-70. Anyway to answer the question, it really depends on how you are going to use it. If you are going to be outdoors or have adequate lighting indoors then the f4 will do just fine. In fact with the IS it might be able to do with less light. The f2.8 will give you much better bokeh at the cost of the IS and probably much heavier. I use a sigma 2.8 and its lighter than the original canon, but it's still a beast. A lighter lens will encourage you to use it more. I barely use my sigma anymore because I have the canon 17-40 which is 1/2 the weight of the original canon 24-70. You might be interested in this video from DigitalRev  http://youtu.be/A-q0JcUCwpw



I have seen this Video already and the 24-70 f/4 seems to be a great lense and it also have IS. In many Situations a IS would be better than the 1 Stop, but I dont really know which to get.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 3, 2015)

You said "upgrading" and you're thinking to get the f/4L IS, that's degrading. I went many times through the same dilemma and finally went to the more expensive f/2.8L II and I can't tell you I have no regrets at all. It is money well invested if you are serious about IQ and sharpness.
Just save and get the version II.


----------



## rigrx (May 3, 2015)

martti said:


> Why would you want to _upgrade_ to 24-70 f/4.0?
> I mean, what is the exact reason if you already have the old version of the f/2.8 zoom?
> I sold mine with the idea to upgrade (maybe) later on.
> On my 5DIII I have the 35mm L with the 100mm f/2.0 in the bag. Or the old dust pump 100-400.
> ...



_Upgrade_ because of the IS and the same or better IQ in some situations. The Picture Quality would be much better with the 24-70mm f/2.8, but is it really worth the extra 1000 €? This is the real question for me. That's a lot of money... So, it doesn't matter if it have IS or not? Why?


----------



## rigrx (May 3, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> You said "upgrading" and you're thinking to get the f/4L IS, that's degrading. I went many times through the same dilemma and finally went to the more expensive f/2.8L II and I can't tell you I have no regrets at all. It is money well invested if you are serious about IQ and sharpness.
> Just save and get the version II.



Do you thing a used 24-70 would be just as fine as a new one? Or should I buy it new?


----------



## lensdop (May 3, 2015)

Goodday canonrumors!

Recently I bought a 6D with the 24-70 f4 as kit lens. 
Once before I have rented a 5dm2/24-70mm 2.8 (I).

First I must say, I'm (very) glad I choose de 6d over the sony a7ii. (which was also an option)
The 6d has better handling, colors!, focusing(yes, focusing of the 6d is simply good) and battery life. 

The lens 24-70 f4 is as sharp as the 24-70 f2.8 (I). (don't know for the II)
The IS and macromode is nice to have. 

I really, really like the canon 24-70 f4.
(The macromode was a suprise, it is a lot of FUN to use sometimes!)

If you have the oportunity to buy this lens for only 569, 
then you get a professional weathersealed L grade canon lens 
for the 1000 you saved you can buy a 135mm/f2 L !


----------



## JoeDavid (May 4, 2015)

The 24-70mm f2.8L II has much better image quality; especially at 50mm and above:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

I've always wanted one of the f4 lenses for the IS but I always come back to this comparison. What I really would like would be fore Canon to release an updated 24-105/4L IS with killer IQ but I think the 24-70/4L IS release pretty much ends that option.


----------



## jd7 (May 4, 2015)

For what it's worth, I'm pretty happy with the 24-70 4L IS for my purposes. I like its combination of relatively small size, light weight, and IS. And for someone like me who does not do enough macro to warrant buying a true macro lens, the macro mode can be a bit of fun. I particularly like it as a lens for hiking (especially when doing multi-day hikes with people who are not that interested in photography, which makes travelling light particularly important to me) - it works well as a landscape lens, the macro mode can be useful for little things you come across along the way, and it does fine for some portraits as long as you aren't looking for shallow depth of field. I've also been pleasantly surprised by how how useful I've found the lens indoors, with the IS counter-acting the comparatively slow max aperture, although of course the IS is not relevant when you want to stop action.

Regarding sharpness, there are a number of negative reports about the 24-70 4L IS, but also some very good reports (eg SLR Lounge) if you look around and it seems possible there is quite a bit of sample variation out there. Lens Rentals has an article about how complicated the lens is internally, which might explain why there are more than a few which are not well tuned (as pointed out to me previously by another CR member). If that is the case, some of the poorer samples presumably would be dragging down the average scores reported by LensRentals, which still have the 24-70 4L IS in second place behind the 24-70 2.8L II for sharpness amongst the 24-70s (albeit the Tamon 24-70 2.8 VC almost ties with it). From my own experience, my 24-70 4L IS was very poor at 50mm when I got it, but I had it serviced by Canon and it's a world apart now.

I am not trying to talk you out of the 24-70 2.8L II, and I'm not suggesting the people recommending it are wrong to recommend it. By all reports it's fantastic, but only you can decide which lens best suits your needs (and budget). It all comes down to what you want to use the lens for and your personal preferences (including about things like size and weight), so I'm just trying to give you a different viewpoint in case it helps you think through your decision.

You mention having IS might be useful to you for video, but you also mention bokeh. Obviously a 24-70 2.8 (whatever brand) will allow shallower depth of field, which should translate to more blur, which is often associated with "better" bokeh. My suggestion, then, is to think about your lens kit overall. If I had only one lens covering 24-70, I would choose the 24-70 2.8L II over the 4L provided I could afford it - in short, aperture would rule for me. However, if you really like bokeh and you are happy to own a few lenses, you might want to look into a prime or two so you get significantly shallower DOF (and probably "better" bokeh), and an even greater ability to stop action in low light, than the 2.8L II would give you. And if you go down the prime lens route, you might prefer a 24-70 4L IS in your kit over the 2.8L II so you have the IS for video plus save some money (amongst other potential reasons).

Whichever lens you end up getting, I hope you enjoy it!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 4, 2015)

richiexdee said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > You said "upgrading" and you're thinking to get the f/4L IS, that's degrading. I went many times through the same dilemma and finally went to the more expensive f/2.8L II and I can't tell you I have no regrets at all. It is money well invested if you are serious about IQ and sharpness.
> ...


I bought it second hand with very low use. It looks like new and I paid about $500 less than retail price. Very happy and no issues. There are many people that prefer lighter/smaller lenses but I rather get the ones that offer better IQ.


----------



## martti (May 4, 2015)

There seems to be some vagueness in the terms used.
When I 'upgrade' it means getting a better, newer or otherwise superior product to replace something I already have. It is not a synonyme to 'buy'. 
Whatever.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2015)

martti said:


> There seems to be some vagueness in the terms used.
> When I 'upgrade' it means getting a better, newer or otherwise superior product to replace something I already have. It is not a synonyme to 'buy'.
> Whatever.



So you're saying the 24-70/4L IS offers no feature(s) not available on the 24-70/2.8L?

Or maybe you've fallen into the common trap of believing that what matters to you is the same as what matters to everyone else. 

Whatever.


----------



## martti (May 4, 2015)

Of course. People have opinions and if they differ from mine they are either malicious or stupid or both.
My opinions aren't really opinions but rather 'observations' or 'conclusions'. Ore foresights.
That's the difference between me and the regular people.

OK? Happy?


----------



## K (May 4, 2015)

In my opinion, 

It is better to be one stop faster than it is to have IS. The reason being is, IS doesn't do anything at all for freezing the subject. A faster shutter freezes both your shake and the subject motion. Plus, for the times when it does not matter (no subject motion, and you're on a tripod), you still run a full stop better so you can lower the ISO for cleaner images. The advantages to 2.8 are many.

However, the OP mentions video. If good video quality is going to be a concern, then there is no question at all that IS is needed. Only IS will stabilize the video. IS becomes a must have, and trumps all other aspects. Thus, it becomes a question of how important is good video? F/4 is a very reasonable trade off for IS in the case of video. Then again, I wouldn't choose the 24-70 F/4 IS for video. If one is shooting 1080 resolution video - less expensive lenses with IS are a better choice. You won't see the extra sharpness of the 24-70 in 1080 video. It is wasted resolution and money for that purpose. 

Stills - faster lens.
Video - IS


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2015)

K said:


> It is better to be one stop faster than it is to have IS. The reason being is, IS doesn't do anything at all for freezing the subject. A faster shutter freezes both your shake and the subject motion. Plus, for the times when it does not matter (no subject motion, and you're on a tripod), you still run a full stop better so you can lower the ISO for cleaner images. The advantages to 2.8 are many.



While I agree for myself because I shoot a lot of moving subjects in the 24-70 range, I think it depends a lot on your subject matter. For mainly static subjects – cathedral interiors, landscapes (including waterfalls where you _want_ motion blur), etc., 3-4 stops of IS trumps 1 stop of light. 

For ultrawide, I had the 16-35/2.8 II but derived limited benefit from the f/2.8 aperture, so I sold it intending to get the 16-35/4 IS (actually, I bought the TS-E 17 instead, thought about the 16-35 IS again but then the 11-24/4 was announced...).


----------



## sunnyVan (May 4, 2015)

jd7 said:


> For what it's worth, I'm pretty happy with the 24-70 4L IS for my purposes. I like its combination of relatively small size, light weight, and IS. And for someone like me who does not do enough macro to warrant buying a true macro lens, the macro mode can be a bit of fun. I particularly like it as a lens for hiking (especially when doing multi-day hikes with people who are not that interested in photography, which makes travelling light particularly important to me) - it works well as a landscape lens, the macro mode can be useful for little things you come across along the way, and it does fine for some portraits as long as you aren't looking for shallow depth of field. I've also been pleasantly surprised by how how useful I've found the lens indoors, with the IS counter-acting the comparatively slow max aperture, although of course the IS is not relevant when you want to stop action.
> 
> Regarding sharpness, there are a number of negative reports about the 24-70 4L IS, but also some very good reports (eg SLR Lounge) if you look around and it seems possible there is quite a bit of sample variation out there. Lens Rentals has an article about how complicated the lens is internally, which might explain why there are more than a few which are not well tuned (as pointed out to me previously by another CR member). If that is the case, some of the poorer samples presumably would be dragging down the average scores reported by LensRentals, which still have the 24-70 4L IS in second place behind the 24-70 2.8L II for sharpness amongst the 24-70s (albeit the Tamon 24-70 2.8 VC almost ties with it). From my own experience, my 24-70 4L IS was very poor at 50mm when I got it, but I had it serviced by Canon and it's a world apart now.
> 
> ...



It's always good to have a balanced advice like this.


----------



## JonoRees (May 4, 2015)

Definately agree that there will be times that you think you should have picked up the 2.8, I know I have.

Look at the investment vs the number of times that you have been wide open & running out of usable iso? The times you feel you needed IS more that you need to carry a a mono/tri-pod.

Then consider the weight.....

the f4 is a perfect travel lens.

But they are right from 35-50 it's not the best but at 24 & 70 it's a lot better. By the sounds if it maybe I should get mine serviced.


----------



## NancyP (May 5, 2015)

I don't have either lens. One could get the 24-70 f/4L IS and either the 40 f/2.8 STM or the 50 f/1.8 II, and the two lenses (one IS, one fast) would weigh less than the 24-70 f/2.8 II. The 40 STM is a nice "street" lens - very non-intimidating, and shockingly good IQ, all for $150.00 and 135 grams.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 5, 2015)

JoeDavid said:


> The 24-70mm f2.8L II has much better image quality; especially at 50mm and above:



Actually both 24-70 f/4 IS I tried, even the worse one, had better edges at 70mm stopped down than all copies of 24-70 2.8 II I tried. Although the 24-70 2.8 II had better center across the board and even better edges at the wide side. Right tightly around 50mm is where the 24-70 f/4 IS does worst. The 24-70 2.8 II does best edge to edge the wider you go.

24-105 f/4 IS is fairly mediocre for (what used to be) an expensive L lens (granted now it can be had for $600 or even less at times, new, so it's not so bad for that, although for a few hundred more you can get the 24-70 f/4 IS which does a lot better for near 24mm and near 70mm landscape work), 24-70 f/4 IS is really good, 24-70 II 2.8 is best of best (unless there is no tripod and you need DOF and the light isn't great, then the 24-70 f/4 IS could easily be best).


----------



## drjlo (May 5, 2015)

I shot an indoor, evening event with my new Canon 16-35 F/4L IS (my first F/4 lens), and I saw an alarming tendency for ISO to go straight up to my preset limit (6400). Noise still looks "good," but I usually like to keep my ISO lower than that. Manually setting the ISO lower brought shutter speed way down, but luckily, at wider focals the IS seems able to avoid blur decently. But at longer focal length like 50-70 mm with 24-70?


----------



## bholliman (May 5, 2015)

I looked at both the 24-70/2.8 II and 24-70/4 IS to replace my 24-105/4 a few years ago and decided to go with the f/2.8 II. I've never regretted this decision and feel the f/2.8 II is worth the extra money for my uses. I often shoot wide open to better isolate subjects and would certainly miss f/2.8 if I didn't have it. I really do not miss the lack of IS in this focal range.


----------



## eninja (May 13, 2015)

I say depends on your criteria.
For me, regarding F4L version:
. sharpness (passed)
. L lenss (passed)
. weight (passed)

for F2.8 ii

. sharpness (passed)
. L lens (passed)
. weight (fail)

I am happy with my F4L Lens.


----------

