# Should I switch?? 24-70L/2.8-II + 16-35L/2.8-I vs. 24-70L/4IS + 16-35L/4IS



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 1, 2014)

Basically, this is a question of whether or not to switch from f/2.8 to f/4 on these lenses. And gain IS and fancy Macro with the 24-70 f/4 IS in the process.

I own the 24-70 f/2.8 vII and the older 16-35 f/2.8 vI (One of my favorite lenses.)
(BTW, I also own (as a side note) the 24-105 f/4 IS if it matters.)

I also now own a 24-70 f/4 IS and I'm about to own a 16-35 f/4 IS. (Both purchased a great discounts to sell at a profit.)

I was considering selling my 24-70 f/2.8 vII since it's worth so much in comparison. And I have read a lot of good reviews on the 16-35 f/4 lens. (And honestly, I'm getting tired of waiting for a new version of the 16-35 f/2.8 lens.)

So what do you guys think I'll regret in losing the f/2.8 versions other than a stop of light and some loss of bokeh? I know the 24-70 f/2.8 vII is a dynamite lens but even in low light the f/4 should work pretty well on my 5D3, 6D or 7D-II. Esp with IS. Right?? I'm just wondering going forward in 2015 and beyond if I will care about 2.8 or not as the sensor tech continues to improve.

Yes, I do indoor shooting. No, I don't do much portrait work. Mostly event photography and low to normal ambient event stuff. Think wedding reception as a reference even though I don't do wedding receptions per se. I also have a EF 28/1.8 for dark campfire shots, etc.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Regrets?


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 1, 2014)

I don't miss the f/2.8 UW so much. If I need fast and wide, the 24LII is where it's at and the f/4L has been so sharp and good. I'd keep the 24-70 and sell the 16-35 f/2.8


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 1, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I don't miss the f/2.8 UW so much. If I need fast and wide, the 24LII is where it's at and the f/4L has been so sharp and good. I'd keep the 24-70 and sell the 16-35 f/2.8



*RLPhoto*, you'd keep _which_ 24-70? f/2.8 or f/4 IS? Thanks. Yeah, the 24LII is sweet but I didn't use it enough so I sold it recently. But it is definitely a sweet lens!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2014)

I'd keep the 24-70/2.8, and add the 16-35/4 IS. I think that would be a great combination! Personally, I have the former, and sold my 16-35/2.8 II intending to get the F/4 version of the UWA. Insead, I decided that TS-E 17/4 would meets my current needs better, so I bought that (although I still may end up with the 16-35/4 at some point in the future).


----------



## bholliman (Dec 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd keep the 24-70/2.8, and add the 16-35/4 IS. I think that would be a great combination! Personally, I have the former, and sold my 16-35/2.8 II intending to get the F/4 version of the UWA. Insead, I decided that TS-E 17/4 would meets my current needs better, so I bought that (although I still may end up with the 16-35/4 at some point in the future).



+1 

I contemplated selling my 24-70/2.8 II and replacing it with a 24-70/4 IS and using the additional funds toward a 400/5.6, but decided not to. The 24-70/2.8 II is an incredible lens and I don't like the idea of giving up some IQ as well as aperture to go with the f/4 lens. I often shoot my 24-70 wide open.

I primarily use UWA's for landscape, so f/4 is fine and the improved sharpness of the new lens in the corners makes the 16-35/4 IS a better option for my needs.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 1, 2014)

How often do you grab the 24-105 f4L over the 24-70 f2.8L II for low light events?

I shoot a lot of sports and events. My main lens is the 70-200 f2.8L II on a 5D3. For candids at events, I love the IS and will shoot at 1/40 sec if need be when the subject is relatively still. But, I prefer to shoot closer to 1/200. My first FF short zoom was the 24-105 f4L -- loved the IS, but I've been spoiled with the 2.8 speed of the 70-200.

With the 24-105 f4L I often need to rely on IS to shoot at slower shutter speeds. But, I now prefer using the 24-70 f2.8L with a faster shutter speed. I also find that the 24-70 f2.8L is MUCH quicker to focus in lower light than the 24-105. At a recent high school dance line event, I shot with two 5D3's and both the 70-200 and 24-70. The 70-200 was my primary lens, but I did a lot very quick grab shots with the 24-70 and was amazed how it locked on to focus so easily.

It is also worth noting the 24-70 is a brighter lens. I find that it's 1/3-2/3 stops brighter than the 70-200 f2.8. I think of it as a 2.4 with a little more DOF.

I'm still torn myself because there are times when I prefer the 24-105 because of IS. One is when shooting groups in lower light and I need a smaller aperture for it's greater DOF. IS offers me the slower shutter speeds that could challenge my hand holding abilities. A second scenario is landscapes with moving water where I want really slow shutter speeds.

Still, the 24-70 f2.8L is my go to short zoom for events. Low light performance and focus speed over the slower f4 lens is why. The killer IQ is an added bonus. I think you will regret getting rid of it.

FWIW, I also own the 35 f2.0 IS and plan to get the new 50 IS if Canon ever refreshes the 1.4 or 1.8. The 35 IS is great for really low light events. It's not as flexible as the 24-70, but it gives me the extra stop and the IS and works as my backup for these events. I'm hoping that a future 50 IS in the f2.0 or faster range will do the same. Then, I will be less inclined to use the 24-105.


----------



## zlatko (Dec 1, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> So what do you guys think I'll regret in losing the f/2.8 versions other than a stop of light and some loss of bokeh? I know the 24-70 f/2.8 vII is a dynamite lens but even in low light the f/4 should work pretty well on my 5D3, 6D or 7D-II. Esp with IS. Right??



Not for me. I feel that the extra stop is essential in the 24-70 lens, maybe not as important for the 16-35. IMO, the 24-70 f/2.8 vII is too good to give up. I feel that the only reason to give up a stop is if it saves significant size & weight, but the 24-70/4 IS doesn't do that. Having IS helps, but if you're indoors in low light, you can get some very slow shutter speeds with f/4. As high ISO improves, f/4 may become more usable indoors in low light, but I don't think we're quite there yet (though close). Depends on how much flash one wants to use.


----------



## craiglove (Dec 1, 2014)

I only own the 24-70 f4 and I love it. For me, on the wider end of zooms, 2.8 is not a deal maker for me. If you really need the shallower DOF, get the 2.8. My 70-200 is f4 also and that lens is astounding! I love the size, weight and price of the f4 models. Easy enough to bump the ISO and I get great results up to 1600 and above. The balance and feel of both lenses is excellent. Just for myself, I would prefer the f4 models for size and weight, regardless of price. Just IMHO of course. Happy shooting! And, yes the 16-35 f4 will be my next lens most likely...


----------



## JorritJ (Dec 1, 2014)

I still have the 16-35 2.8 but I haven't used it at all since getting the 4.0. I have rarely used the 2.8 as a 2.8 - aside from an attempt at astrophotography, for which it is really bad due to stars not being round-ish. Everything shot faster than f/11 is just so much sharper on the 4.0, not to mention the IS, replacing the 2.8 with the 4.0 is a no-brainer. Would definitely replace the 2.8 with the 4.0 again if I had to decide today.

I would probably keep the 24-70 2.8 II though. If you're going for 4.0 and IS, you might as well stick with the 24-105. The IQ is a bit less and it's not macro, but the extra reach...



FTb-n said:


> How often do you grab the 24-105 f4L over the 24-70 f2.8L II for low light events?
> 
> I shoot a lot of sports and events. My main lens is the 70-200 f2.8L II on a 5D3. For candids at events, I love the IS and will shoot at 1/40 sec if need be when the subject is relatively still. But, I prefer to shoot closer to 1/200. My first FF short zoom was the 24-105 f4L -- loved the IS, but I've been spoiled with the 2.8 speed of the 70-200.
> 
> ...



I'm divided on this as well. I've also kept the 24-105 4.0 when I got the 24-70 2.8 II. Though the -70 does focus significantly quicker in low light (especially on center point), for handheld shooting of static objects, the -105's IS beats the -70's 2.8 by about 3 stops. That's a big difference to the ISO setting... People and non-static objects of course move themselves so that also influences what is practical shutterspeed-wise. Perhaps I'm just a terrible amateur, but I struggle getting a sharp image out of the -70 at 1/mm or slower shutterspeeds.

My keeper rate on lower light conditions (including overcast winter days in shadow, not actual dark) is dramatically lower with the -70 2.8 than it is with the -105. If I go out on days like those, I'm always doubting which lens I should take.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 2, 2014)

Had the 16-35 f/2.8 II but replaced it with the 16-35 f/4 IS and still have the 24-70 II. Most of the pics I take have people as subjects, so IS is a lot less necessary at these focal lengths than for the 70-200. The f/2.8 is nice for trying to blur out a busy background, but with such short FLs as the 16-35, that's hard to do anyway. I would prefer a 16-35 f/2.8 III that is as good wide open as the 16-35 f/4 IS, but that's not available now. I prefer having the option of an additional stop rather than IS. You can lose a bit of editing latitude going from ISO 5000 to 10000, even though it is only a stop. And for crop cameras, having faster glass matters even more...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 2, 2014)

Thanks for all the comments so far. Several points have been made that I am glad to hear. I'm still watching comments and then I'll comment further. Thanks everyone!!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd keep the 24-70/2.8, and add the 16-35/4 IS. I think that would be a great combination! Personally, I have the former, and sold my 16-35/2.8 II to get the F/4 version of the UWA.



+1, I would buy the 16-35/4L IS. I have it after selling the 2.8L II version and no regrets at all. It's way sharper and IS comes very handy and helpful


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Dec 2, 2014)

I wish Canon would maker this easier for us all by releasing a 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM. A sharp 16-35 f/2.8 III would also be nice. With IS, the holy trinity zoom workhorse set would be amazing. I'm losing hope that Canon intends to alleviate our need to either sacrifice features our own two lenses for the same purpose.


----------



## tayassu (Dec 2, 2014)

I would not go for a "same-aperture-combo" but instead stay with the 24-70/2.8 just because it is an absolutely stellar lens and go for the 16-35/4 because it is way better than the 2.8.


----------



## jeanluc (Dec 2, 2014)

I have the 4 24-105, 2.8 24-70 II, the 2.8 16-35 II and the 4 16-35 IS.

The 24-70 is an awesome lens. Not much else to say.

I did my own "test " of the 16-35 lenses. I shoot these on a tripod at f16 most of the time for landscapes. Is the new f4 one better? At f16, maybe a little sharper at 200% view. Not much of a difference though. More open, you see the difference more.

So my choice for landscapes on a tripod are the 2.8 24-70, and the 4 16-35. 

To walk around, the 24-105 is pretty hard to beat.

I just wished they all had the same filter size.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 3, 2014)

Unless you use 24-70 f4 IS as landscape lens, otherwise, I'm voting for 24-70 f2.8 II + 16-35 f4 IS. The current 24-70 f2.8 is just too good, plus f2.8 can make huge dif. in higher ISO range.


----------



## FTb-n (Dec 4, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I wish Canon would maker this easier for us all by releasing a 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM. A sharp 16-35 f/2.8 III would also be nice. With IS, the holy trinity zoom workhorse set would be amazing. I'm losing hope that Canon intends to alleviate our need to either sacrifice features our own two lenses for the same purpose.


+1. But, I fear the price.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 4, 2014)

So far, from what I've read of the comments here, I am probably convinced about keeping the 24-70 f/2.8-II. Rats! You guys are really no help at all!  You were supposed to say that I could sell the 24-70 f/2.8-II with no regrets because the f/4 is almost as good. But Oh _NOOOO_! You just had to all say the f/2.8 really is that much better, didn't you?! Man! You just wait until you ask me if you should sell something!!!

A little background on my current 16-35L/2.8v1... I bought it used from a wonderful lady photographer who travels all over the world (still!) and has made some beautiful images in some very remote areas. It kind of feels like a "lucky lens". So even if I go the 16-35 f/4L, I would probably keep my existing 2.8-I. I also like that it shares the 77mm filter with the 24-105, 24-70f/4 and 70-200/2.8L. The 24-70f/2.8-II just has to be different with the 82mm, doesn't it??

Anyway, I've never faulted the 24-105 or had a problem with it. I like that lens and it stays. But I seriously think you guys are right. It does make more sense to have the 24-70f/2.8-II with the 16-35f/4. As much as it costs more, it's the right call.

And for those of you that mentioned a desire for a future 16-35-f/2.8vIII, _I AM RIGHT THERE WITH 'YA_ !!! That's why I skipped the v-II. I'm waiting for the III !! Come on Canon!! Get with it and bring out a 16-35 f/2.8 vIII !!! (And while you're at it, sneak in a 24-105 vII as well !)

Thanks for everyone's input, and thanks again for costing me yet more money on photo gear. Aaaargh!


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Dec 5, 2014)

If you're doing events, then I'd say you want 2.8 for your 24-70. At the ultra wide end I'd think not so much. Sounds like money isn't really a problem. And you're not talking about size and compactness as issues. Go with the fastest for mid range.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 5, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> If you're doing events, then I'd say you want 2.8 for your 24-70. At the ultra wide end I'd think not so much. Sounds like money isn't really a problem. And you're not talking about size and compactness as issues. Go with the fastest for mid range.



Yeah, that's the conventional wisdom. I agree. Thanks for the input. I'm going to try out the 16-35 f/4 before I sell it because I love that FL zoom range. I'll keep the 24-70/2.8 as much as it would have been nice to get back $1K and keep the f/4 instead. Sigh. Again, as others have lamented, Canon needs to release a *16-35/2.8-III* that matches the IQ of the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/2.8. Then life would be much simpler!  
Canon also needs to release a vII of the popular 24-105 f/4 IS to match the IQ of the 24-70 vII. (I have used the 24-105 + 16-35 together for a long time with great results.)

Regardless of what Canon can improve, I feel fortunate and grateful that after all these years I have grown a nice range of zoom lenses. See the gaps (in teal)?

Fun/Versatile
15mm FishEye (Love it!)
24-105 f/4L (Love it!)
24-105 f/4L IS *vII* (Still waiting Canon!!)

Essential for Events
16-35 f/2.8L *vIII* (Still waiting Canon!!)
16-35 f/2.8L vI (Love it!)
24-70 f/2.8L vII (_Growing_ to Love it!) Here's a party I recently shot with it... http://rustythegeek.zenfolio.com/ford50
70-200 f/2.8L IS vII (Love it!)

Essential for Sports/Reach
70-300 f/4.5-6L (_Growing_ to Love it!)
100-400 f/4.5-5.6L vII (Not sure if I need it or not. I don't use the 70-300 enough already.)


----------



## jeanluc (Dec 5, 2014)

I agree about the 24-105........some of my best shots have been with this lens, and if they made an updated version I suspect a lot of people would jump on it, including a lot of us who now use the 24-70.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 5, 2014)

jeanluc said:


> I agree about the 24-105........some of my best shots have been with this lens, and if they made an updated version I suspect a lot of people would jump on it, including a lot of us who now use the 24-70.



IMHO, the 24-105 is Canon's most popular, most purchased and most used workhorse lens in their L lineup. It was Most folks' FIRST L Lens. And it successfully whetted everyone's appetite for more L lenses. So I'm a little surprised that they haven't shown it more love.


----------

