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



## EricFiskCGD (Mar 14, 2014)

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?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Mar 14, 2014)

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.

The 24-70 f/2.8 v2 is targeted at the high end professional that needs to be able to gather as much light as possible to keep shutter speeds up, build extremely tough, and top end image quality (especially sharpness, this lens is super sharp wide open across pretty much the whole zoom range). And it has a price commensurate with it's qualities.


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Mar 14, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> 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.
> 
> The 24-70 f/2.8 v2 is targeted at the high end professional that needs to be able to gather as much light as possible to keep shutter speeds up, build extremely tough, and top end image quality (especially sharpness, this lens is super sharp wide open across pretty much the whole zoom range). And it has a price commensurate with it's qualities.



Thank you for that really good break-down. Do you have either of them or what's your preference?


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 14, 2014)

24-70 f2.8 II for now, until f2.8 IS releases

On top of that, another MUST have lens is 70-200 f2.8 IS II.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Mar 15, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, those 2 lenses are targeted at different markets.
> ...



I've already got the 24-105 f/4L so I don't see a need for the 24-70 f/4L IS for me, although from what I understand it's a bit sharper and does have that close-up mode, although I'd lose 35mm worth of reach.

I'd really love to get the 24-70 f/2.8L v2, and eventually I will, but it's rather expensive for me and I see more of a need for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS v2 first for me. And perhaps the new Tamron 150-600mm...so many lenses, so little money...


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 15, 2014)

Nope. Much more useful for FF. The range is a bit long and is expensive for APS-C.


----------



## Dukinald (Mar 16, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 24-70 f2.8 II for now, until f2.8 IS releases
> 
> On top of that, another MUST have lens is 70-200 f2.8 IS II.



Pulled the trigger on the 70-200mkii last year when they had the double dip. I came very close to getting the 24-70 2.8 mkii when they had the same offer. I held back because of the "clicking while zooming issue". So now, i'm still stuck with my 24-105L. Maybe the 24-70 2.8 IS is the one destined for me :


----------



## Sabaki (Mar 16, 2014)

The 24-70 f/2.8 mkii is the best. Any other choice is generally about price consideration. 

Like the 70-200, you can shoot at f2.8 and pretty much have everything in focus. The lens is about 2 years old and will serve you for at least the next 8-10.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 16, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> 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?



For everyone? No. The 24-70 (and 24-105) are general purpose zooms for full frame - they cover wide angle, normal, and short telephoto focal lengths. Very useful range for general/walkaround shooting. 

On APS-C, 24-xx doesn't include wide angle, making it much less useful, IMO. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS and 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS are much better options on crop bodies.


----------



## cid (Mar 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> EricFiskCGD said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a real newbie question...
> ...



I was using 24-70 on APS-C (60D) for about a year and I was very happy with results. In general, there were some situations where I missed wide angle of 15-85, but for me the constant aperture and image quality improvements over 15-85 were more important (so maybe 17-55 would be better choice for crop).
From last thursday I'm happy owner of 5D mk III and now I'm realizing true potential of my 24-70 mk II - it's incredible lens.
As others already mentioned, another must have lens is 70-200 f/2.8 IS - I fell in love with that lens on first try, it will be my next upgrage, but right now I have to save up (and enjoy 100L and 24-70 mkII on FF )) )


----------



## bobby samat (Mar 17, 2014)

if youre going to choose between the two, the main thing you want to think about is if you need 2.8. personally, i do.

i dont always shoot that open, but i have the option to if need be - which is very important to me. far more important than having IS.

as for the 24-70 range - you just have to decide how often you're going to use a 24-70 lens. if you generally shoot wide or tight and you have lenses to cover those focal ranges, than a 50mm may be a good choice for medium range shots.

i will say the overall quality of the 24-70 2.8 is pretty impressive and i really enjoy using this lens when the occasion calls for it.


----------



## edwyun (Apr 13, 2014)

I would try them both out if you can. I was all set to get the 24-70 f4 IS over the 24-70 f2.8 II. But when I tried them on a 6D and 5DIII, the shorter length of the F4 IS meant that the zoom ring was closer to the mount. So, when I used my left hand to zoom, my left hand would sometimes hit my camera-holding right hand. It's not as much of an issue with the f2.8 because the zoom ring is wider and further away from the mount. And I don't think I have large hands.


----------



## gary samples (Apr 13, 2014)

I love my 24-70 f2.8 II one of the best Lens I own !!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 13, 2014)

My 24-70 and my 24-105mmL are great for full frame bodies, but not nearly wide enough for crop bodies.
The 17-55mm IS is a winner for Crop bodies followed by the 15-85mm.


----------



## BL (Apr 13, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> 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?



No, not necessarily. There are some folks out there who generally prefer prime lenses in that focal length range for DSLRs (myself included) for various reasons (DOF, low light, size/weight, cost, etc.). Come to think of it, the only zoom lens I own is the 70-200 II... might have to fix that eventually


----------



## StephenC (Apr 13, 2014)

Unless you are planning on upgrading to a full frame sensor anytime soon I would recommend the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. It isn't an L lens but it really should be. You get the same 2.8 wide aperture as the very expensive 24-70 but don't loose out on the wide angle with your crop sensor and get IS. In my opinion, you wouldn't miss the 55-70mm range if you teamed this with one of the 70-200's (which I agree are also "must have"). Personally I went with the f4 version, as it is less heavy. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 16, 2014)

The 24-70 f/4 IS is highly tempting for a hiker's FF landscape lens due to the weight (8 oz less than the f/2.8 II), IS, and semi-macro capacity. The 24-70 f/2.8 II is a consideration if one plans to do wide field astrophotography - coma is "ok" at 24mm and nonexistent at 35mm.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 17, 2014)

Is there such a things as a must have lens ? , its not a necessity to own either a 24-70 or 70-200 you do it if it suits you, I personally shoot primes instead which give me the same or better quality in a much lighter faster package.

If you were going down that route though the F4L IS USM i presume will be very similar to the 24-105L which is a cracking lens and i have two of them which my second photographes use , though it will struggle for shutter speeds in average or low light. If this was going to be your one and only then it would be the 2.8 without a doubt.

www.andrew-davies.com


----------



## MTL18 (Apr 17, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> 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?



If you have a full frame, they are both popular lenses. However, 24mm is really 38mm on your T3i, so for you, I'd say it isn't a must have lens. 

You will want a lens that starts in the teens for close up/wide-angle photography. Good news for us crop sensors is that those lenses are typically cheaper!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 18, 2014)

I see the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens a different way than I normally do regarding zooms vs. primes. I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 on FF typically, so the added cost of the zoom was well worth it. It beats any of Canon's primes in the 24-70 range, at f/2.8 and narrower. I sold my 24L, 35L, and 50L when I got that lens, because the IQ was certainly better than yes, even those primes.

I don't recommend a 24-70 zoom lens, however, on a crop body (APS-C). FF though, yes, for once, you really do get all of your $2299 worth.


----------



## David_in_Seattle (Apr 18, 2014)

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 (Apr 21, 2014)

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 (Apr 27, 2014)

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 (Apr 27, 2014)

Razor2012 said:


> 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 FMC (Apr 30, 2014)

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 FMC (Apr 30, 2014)

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

Bernd


----------



## adhocphotographer (Apr 30, 2014)

Bernd FMC said:


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



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 (May 1, 2014)

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 FMC (May 3, 2014)

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 (May 3, 2014)

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 (May 3, 2014)

Drizzt321 said:


> 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 (May 3, 2014)

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 (May 4, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, those 2 lenses are targeted at different markets.
> ...



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


----------



## CarlTN (May 4, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> 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 (May 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> 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 (May 5, 2014)

Ruined said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (May 5, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, those 2 lenses are targeted at different markets.
> ...


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 (May 6, 2014)

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 (May 7, 2014)

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.


----------



## Act444 (May 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



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.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (May 30, 2014)

Primes is my thing, zooms are cool but not my cup of glasses.


----------

