# 24-70 f/2.8 II vs. f/4 IS



## m8547 (Feb 12, 2016)

So I have a 24-70 f/2.8 II, and I'm thinking of selling it to get a 24-70 f/4 IS. My camera is a 6D. I want to make sure I won't regret the decision to trade.

Reasons for trading:

I want lighter weight (about 200g lighter) for hiking
IS
Cheaper
Macro would be good for flowers
Compared to the 24-105, the 24-70 f/4 IS is better for me because:

18 point sun stars
Newer design with possibly slightly higher build quality and better image quality
More modern IS (1 stop better)
Macro
Already have 100mm+ covered if I bring the 100-400 ii
Downsides of the trade:

Lose 1 stop
Slightly worse image quality (sharpness and micro contrast is a bit worse on test charts, but the Imatest numbers are close)

I mostly do landscapes, and I don't usually carry a tripod, so it seems like I could benefit more from IS than from f/2.8. It would also be great to have something lighter and cheaper. I can afford the f/2.8 version since I own one, but I can always find other things to use the money for.

How much will I miss f/2.8? Honestly I haven't used the lens that much, but I don't take as many photos in the winter, and I've only owned this setup since the middle of last year. It seems like 70mm f/2.8 is not quite enough bokeh for outdoor portraits where you don't want to see a distracting background, but I haven't had a chance to try that much since I don't do many portraits. It seems like a f/1.4 prime or a 135mm f/2 would be better for that kind of thing. Or I could use my 100-400 ii as long as I take portraits from really far away. 

I also like to do night sky photos of the milky way. I've mainly used my Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for that so far. Is there anything comparable to the 24-70 f/2.8 ii around 24mm and f/2.8 or faster without much coma?


----------



## slclick (Feb 12, 2016)

Hi, I'm someone who has owned both of these(currently have the f/4) and the Mark 1 24-70 as well. I can tell you that I do not miss the 2.8. The IS in the f/4L truly does compensate very well for those extra stops and if you are a macro shooter (my primary theme) than you'll love the on the go ability if you don't have your macro specific glass with you. I wouldn't get hung up on the IQ, it's not that big of a hit. The f/4L is certainly sharper than the Mark 1 24-70 2.8. Sure it's not like the Mark 2 or the 70-200 2.8 ll but it's a modern lens with great IS, good coatings and a solid, compact build. I haven't regretted it at all. Now if I wanted to do dedicated macro work on a rail and with a mt-ex24 and all, I'd shoot with the 100L not the 24-70 but with a ring light it has given me really good results.


----------



## TeT (Feb 12, 2016)

+1 on the macro abilities... It is a great lens...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 12, 2016)

I bought the 6D with the 24-70 4 and have found it to be fine for hiking and the like and I have expressed many times that the macro feature, while not being the 100L is nice to have. The complaint about completely overshadowing your subject is overblown in the early reviews. 

Myself, I don't mind packing the extra weight of a lens and hike a lot with the 300 2,8 II but certainly lighter can be nice. Again personally I'm more inclined to like wider and tend to neglect 24-70, while using 11-24 and 70-200 and the 2.8 vs. 4 doesn't seem to phase me much except with teles and wildlife.

Jack


----------



## Act444 (Feb 12, 2016)

If you solely want lighter weight and IS, then by all means go for it. 

I have both lenses and the f4 version has its perks, although I will grab the 2.8 for most serious shooting. The IS is superb - you pretty much get very close to the full advertised 4 stops (!).


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 12, 2016)

Canon currently has a sale on their refurbished lenses (through 2/13), and the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM is in stock.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-24-70mm-f4l-is-usm-refurbished


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 12, 2016)

I have both lenses. I am considering selling the f/2.8 and keep the f/4, for the same reasons as you (and to fund a 35LII  ) I really like the f/2.8, but if I shoot in low light or want shallow DOF, I'd rather grab a prime lens. 

The f/4 lens is really good, and I find it's performance to be more even. It's not as good in the center, but at some focal lengths better in the corners.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 12, 2016)

I agree with the posts above saying the f/4 IS is a good lens, and I have gone down the path you are talking about in having the f/4 zoom and primes in that focal length. I think the f/4 IS makes an excellent landscape lens. But of course it does come down to how you (want to) shoot. Do you have Lightroom or some other software which can tell you what percentage of shots you have taken with your f/2.8 have been at wider than f/4? Of those, how many are shots you could easily have switched to a prime to take? If you can work out answers to those questions, it might help you work out whether you are likely to miss the f/2.8.

And of course as someone has already suggested, there is also the option of just having wider and longer, and not having a 24-70 at all.


----------



## kkelis (Feb 12, 2016)

If you hike without tripod you will appreciate very much the IS of the f/4. When you are tired you tend to shake a lot and IS is a must. Just for this reason i got the f/4 over the f/2.8


----------



## bholliman (Feb 12, 2016)

I just took advantage of the current Canon refurb sale and purchased a 24-70 f/4L IS. 

I've owned a 24-70 f/2.8 II for 2.5 years and love it. But, it is big and heavy and I often wish I had a lighter option for hiking or day trips with the family. I seldom shoot my 24-70 II at f/2.8 for these types of outings anyway. As others have pointed out, f/2.8 in this focal length range doesn't achieve much subject isolation. f/1.2 to f/2 primes are needed for really shallow DOF and light gathering in dark places.

So, I plan to use both the 2.8 II and 4 IS side by side and evaluate which I want to keep. If I'm happy with the the f/4 IS, I will probably sell the II and use the money for a fast prime, either the 35L II or 85L II.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 12, 2016)

I am still dithering. I tend to hike with the 6D, 40mm pancake lens, and a 125mm macro, plus light tripod. Sometimes I pop the 21mm in the bag too. I used to hike with the 60D and EF-S 15-85, no tripod - that was lighter, and convenient.


----------



## slclick (Feb 12, 2016)

Lately my two lens combo for hiking has been the 24-70 f/4L and the 135L. I find these two really cover everything I need with natural light, focal lengths and size/build.


----------



## TeT (Feb 12, 2016)

slclick said:


> Lately my two lens combo for hiking has been the 24-70 f/4L and the 135L. I find these two really cover everything I need with natural light, focal lengths and size/build.



A 1.4x is a good addition to that kit...


----------



## m8547 (Feb 12, 2016)

NancyP said:


> I am still dithering. I tend to hike with the 6D, 40mm pancake lens, and a 125mm macro, plus light tripod. Sometimes I pop the 21mm in the bag too. I used to hike with the 60D and EF-S 15-85, no tripod - that was lighter, and convenient.



The 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is even a bit lighter than the 24-70 f/4. But I prefer the 24-70 for various reasons.


If I sell the 24-70 f/2.8 II, I'd lose a good lens for night sky photography at 24mm. I could replace it with a Samyang 24mm f/1.4. That would use most of the money I save by trading to the 24-70 f/4, but I'd gain 2 stops for night sky photography at 24mm, but lose some image quality.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 12, 2016)

m8547 said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I am still dithering. I tend to hike with the 6D, 40mm pancake lens, and a 125mm macro, plus light tripod. Sometimes I pop the 21mm in the bag too. I used to hike with the 60D and EF-S 15-85, no tripod - that was lighter, and convenient.
> ...



2.8 II is one of the best SLR lenses on the planet. If it's working and it's paid for...

As for landscapes without a tripod, I believe, if you are generally healthy and have no physical reason for not carrying a tripod, you are limiting your options way too much. Besides deeper depth of field (stopping down) in less than bright sunshine, you can't do HDR, long exposures, or panoramas without a tripod. There are so many lightweight tripods, and the 24-70 does not need a monster for support or stability.


----------



## slclick (Feb 12, 2016)

TeT said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Lately my two lens combo for hiking has been the 24-70 f/4L and the 135L. I find these two really cover everything I need with natural light, focal lengths and size/build.
> ...



Yes, you are right, my Kenko Teleplus 300 1.3 goes very well with the 135L.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 12, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.



What utter crap.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Feb 12, 2016)

A while back I tried the 24-70 F4 L IS against my (then) 24-105 F4 L IS and found it to be very good - possibly better than my example. however it wasn't much and certainly not enough to be worth trading lenses. More recently I tried the 24-70 F2.8 L V2 lens - oops! I shouldn't have done that! My 24-105 was promptly sold and the 24-70 F2.8 V2 bought!
Why did I go for the 24-70 L F2.8 V2 - simply because my images were better - significantly better IMO. As to the F2.8 aperture? Don't know and don't care as I rarely use lenses like this wider than F5.6. IS? - one of the attractions of this lens is that it doesn't have it. In other words I don't have an extra element in the focal path that impairs IQ and makes an already large lens (for it's range and aperture) even bigger. You might have noticed that I am not a fan of IS - even on the longest lenses it just gets in the way!
Personally I think it would be a mistake to sell the 24-70 F2.8 V2 for the F4 IS version - but that is only because I have used them and cannot see any use for IS at any focal length that I have available - 16mm to 1120mm.


----------



## m8547 (Feb 12, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> As for landscapes without a tripod, I believe, if you are generally healthy and have no physical reason for not carrying a tripod, you are limiting your options way too much. Besides deeper depth of field (stopping down) in less than bright sunshine, you can't do HDR, long exposures, or panoramas without a tripod. There are so many lightweight tripods, and the 24-70 does not need a monster for support or stability.



Good point. I generally agree with you, but there are still some situations where I still won't use a tripod and want a lighter camera setup. 

Until recently, I didn't know how to use a tripod (_that's stupid, you screw the camera to it and point it where you want_). What I mean is, I didn't know how to take advantage of a tripod to take better photos, besides holding the camera steady. Recently I've learned about compositing and the value of a ND filter in some cases (for example, bluring away people in city shots or making calm water look more mirror like. I think "silky" waterfalls look stupid, so I won't use it for that). I need to practice these techniques before I am good at them.

I also realized I should get a lighter tripod. I currently have an 055xprob (6lbs with head), but I haven't found a replacement yet. 

Often bringing a tripod would be impractical. For example, if I'm mountain biking and I want to stop to get action shots of my friends, I'm not going to set up a tripod. It won't fit on my pack, and they barely have patience to wait while I take pictures at all.

Another case is backpacking. I often find amazing landscapes or interesting wildlife. My pack weighs at least 30-35 lbs with a camera without a tripod for a multi-day trip, and I'd prefer if I could get it closer to 20lb so I don't feel so drained after a day of carrying it. I'll bring a tripod if it's worth it, but first I need to get better at using one as I mentioned above. Even then, while I'm hiking I don't always want to stop to set up a tripod. Just taking off the pack for an extended stop is a lot of work, and it takes some time. If I see a nice flower I want to just be able to take a quick photo of it, usually. I plan to use a Peak Design Capture Clip to carry the camera while hiking. It would be nice if I was stronger, but I don't have time for that! 

Then there's vacation snapshots where I just want to capture the memory and not necessarily create a great photo. A tripod gets in the way depending on the situation. 

Finally, I'm not good at visualizing a photo before I take it, so I like to try different angles. A tripod slows down that process.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 12, 2016)

When I use a tripod, I do some scouting for desired angle and height of view before I set up. And yes, the first tripod I had was a 055XPROB with 410 geared head - I like it, but only if I don't have to go too far.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 13, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.
> ...



Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!


----------



## Pookie (Feb 13, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Yea, I'd go with Sporgon on this one +1000... I go handheld for panos about half the time. A tripod is nice but absolutely not necessary if you know what you're doing. Even with night shots you can do a pano if you're careful.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 13, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Handheld panoramas are quite easy. The only disadvantage as you quite rightly point out is the cropping because of alignment issues. Cranking up the ISO is a non-issue unless you really need a tripod for taking the shot anyway. For Bracketing / HDR, I'd agree with you that shooting handheld can get pretty shoddy with raising the ISO, but for panos, it really is a non-issue. 

Nevertheless, given Sporgon's work as you can see on his website, I'm quite sure he knows what he is talking about.


----------



## JonAustin (Feb 13, 2016)

johnf3f said:


> A while back I tried the 24-70 F4 L IS against my (then) 24-105 F4 L IS and found it to be very good - possibly better than my example. however it wasn't much and certainly not enough to be worth trading lenses. More recently I tried the 24-70 F2.8 L V2 lens - oops! I shouldn't have done that! My 24-105 was promptly sold and the 24-70 F2.8 V2 bought!
> Why did I go for the 24-70 L F2.8 V2 - simply because my images were better - significantly better IMO. As to the F2.8 aperture? Don't know and don't care as I rarely use lenses like this wider than F5.6. IS? - one of the attractions of this lens is that it doesn't have it. In other words I don't have an extra element in the focal path that impairs IQ and makes an already large lens (for it's range and aperture) even bigger. You might have noticed that I am not a fan of IS - even on the longest lenses it just gets in the way!
> Personally I think it would be a mistake to sell the 24-70 F2.8 V2 for the F4 IS version - but that is only because I have used them and cannot see any use for IS at any focal length that I have available - 16mm to 1120mm.



Interesting point of view; thanks for sharing. I'm at the other end of the spectrum, in that only one of my seven lenses _lacks_ IS. I've never considered it as "getting in the way," and I only rarely switch it off.

I'm on my 2nd 24-105/4L IS, and have considered replacing it with the 24-70/4L IS, but I've told myself I'm holding out for the 24-70/2.8L IS (you _know_ it's coming!). The 24-70/4L IS refurb sale linked above is _tempting_, though ...


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 13, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



OK, I was being a little abrupt, but I thought you liked straight talking and no gilding of the lily ? (  )

However I just can't see where you are coming from with the last sentence. Almost as soon as digital was created stitching programs followed, and even those early ones could cope well with rotational stitches as long as the subject wasn't too close, near nodal point, same exposure etc. Are you sure you're not printing out single frames and trying to join them together with tape ?

Lenses with the nodal point far out like the 24-70 group at short focal length were notorious for giving difficulties, but to day the good programs even deal with that, and in the case of mounting on a tripod it would only help if you had a sliding plate to get the nodal point back over the centre of rotation. 

No, you certainly do not need a tripod for panos, in fact it is an area where you can use the stitching technique to produce a hand held image that's technical quality is equal to a single frame shot from a ridged tripod. In the case of a single frame the tripod does often make a difference, even at quite fast speeds, but by stitching you are getting the benefit of larger format but without the hand holding issues of a larger format. This is because the movement of each smaller frame in rotational terms is not as great as a larger format. This is then enlarged less when compared with a single frame and so any movement is not as magnified. 

Also shooting freehand allows you to rotate much quicker, which can be a benefit if the light or subject is changing. Also a tripod_ can_ reduce creativity because you may miss shots from fiddling about setting up. Look at the difference in wedding photography to day. In the film days you had all those set up, formally posed shots because the tog was using a MF camera with 125 ISO film and needed a high f stop to get anything in focus and had to work on a tripod. Compare that with what we have to day and it's not all because of AF and limitless frame availability. 

As a general rule of thumb I only shoot panos from a tripod if I'm limited in light for a fast speed at low(ish) ISO. If I've enough light I prefer to shoot them freehand, whereas a single frame landscape shot I would want to be from a steady tripod or platform always. 

J.R. was kind enough to mention the images on my website; of all of them on there I would say about 20% are from a tripod, the others all freehand, and I think they are all pano stitches. 

The situation is also changing with HDR. As many cameras now shoot so fast, and some programs are so good at 'auto align' you can produce very high quality HDR images hand held. The trick is to not allow the camera to rotate during the sequence.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 13, 2016)

Pookie said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I was trying to be helpful.

Yes, photography should be fun.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Feb 13, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > A while back I tried the 24-70 F4 L IS against my (then) 24-105 F4 L IS and found it to be very good - possibly better than my example. however it wasn't much and certainly not enough to be worth trading lenses. More recently I tried the 24-70 F2.8 L V2 lens - oops! I shouldn't have done that! My 24-105 was promptly sold and the 24-70 F2.8 V2 bought!
> ...



It is quite a rare point of view as well!
When I said "getting in the way" I should have qualified this as it is more important on long lenses rather than lenses like the 24-70. Basically I have found that IS slows AF acquisition and hinders tracking of moving subjects - this is probably not a major consideration with the 24-70 for most users. The other point is that there is an extra element in the focal path that does nothing for IQ. I haven't used IS for just over 2 years and my keeper rate has improved - especially with longer lenses, so I prefer just not to have IS.
Just my thoughts, use whichever works best for you.


----------



## slclick (Feb 13, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...




Wait, what? Fun....? Now they tell me.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 17, 2016)

slclick said:


> Hi, I'm someone who has owned both of these(currently have the f/4) and the Mark 1 24-70 as well. I can tell you that I do not miss the 2.8. The IS in the f/4L truly does compensate very well for those extra stops and if you are a macro shooter (my primary theme) than you'll love the on the go ability if you don't have your macro specific glass with you. I wouldn't get hung up on the IQ, it's not that big of a hit. The f/4L is certainly sharper than the Mark 1 24-70 2.8. Sure it's not like the Mark 2 or the 70-200 2.8 ll but it's a modern lens with great IS, good coatings and a solid, compact build. I haven't regretted it at all. Now if I wanted to do dedicated macro work on a rail and with a mt-ex24 and all, I'd shoot with the 100L not the 24-70 but with a ring light it has given me really good results.


I have the same experience. I have owned and sold all the Canon 24-70L's, the 24-105L and the 24-405 STM. Which one remains in my bag? The 24-70mm f/4L IS.... for the same reasons explained by slclick and you.
I don't feel I have lost much in image quality after selling my 24-70/2.8L II and gained IS, lighter weight and can also carry a single set of 77mm filters, not the 82mm filters for the 24-70/2.8L II.
The 24-70/2.8L II is the best standard zoom lens, period. If I really need it in future I'll evaluate purchasing again but now I'm very pleased with the 24-70mm f/4L IS.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 17, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Trying to be helpful with poor, erroneous information... "helpful" advice like that isn't helpful at all and really doesn't add any "fun" to photography.


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 17, 2016)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, I'm someone who has owned both of these(currently have the f/4) and the Mark 1 24-70 as well. I can tell you that I do not miss the 2.8. The IS in the f/4L truly does compensate very well for those extra stops and if you are a macro shooter (my primary theme) than you'll love the on the go ability if you don't have your macro specific glass with you. I wouldn't get hung up on the IQ, it's not that big of a hit. The f/4L is certainly sharper than the Mark 1 24-70 2.8. Sure it's not like the Mark 2 or the 70-200 2.8 ll but it's a modern lens with great IS, good coatings and a solid, compact build. I haven't regretted it at all. Now if I wanted to do dedicated macro work on a rail and with a mt-ex24 and all, I'd shoot with the 100L not the 24-70 but with a ring light it has given me really good results.
> ...



+1. I agree completely. I'm about to sell the f/2.8LII and keep the f/4IS. I find it hard though. The f/2.8LII is the best one in terms of sharpness and contrast. I just don't use it enough.


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Feb 17, 2016)

The f/4 IS seems good value now compared with its launch price and I've been tempted by it in the past for its close-focus and for when my Tamron f/2.8 VC feels too bulky for the occasion. But I've been put off by reports on Photozone of significant focus shift on the f/4 IS (to me, an aberration that I'd usually consider a deal-breaker). Lenstip also found significant spherical aberration. Have users found this to be an issue in practical use?


----------



## Ladislav (Feb 17, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



+1 About 80% of my HDRs are handheld with exposure bracketing and sequential shooting on. Often I'm simply not allowed to use tripod and sometimes it just does not need to have exposure long enough to require tripod.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 17, 2016)

Pookie said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



And your attitude doesn't add fun to life. Chill, bra.

Nothing I said was erroneous--it just didn't jive with your opinion. I already admitted that "can't" was not the right word. I meant "shouldn't if best results are what you are after."

You can take a long exposure without a tripod, of course. You can take panorama elements without a tripod. Feel better? I meant a tripod is better to have for that type of photography.

You obviously hate tripods, so nothing I say will make you admit they are helpful.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 18, 2016)

Chapman Baxter said:


> The f/4 IS seems good value now compared with its launch price and I've been tempted by it in the past for its close-focus and for when my Tamron f/2.8 VC feels too bulky for the occasion. But I've been put off by reports on Photozone of significant focus shift on the f/4 IS (to me, an aberration that I'd usually consider a deal-breaker). Lenstip also found significant spherical aberration. Have users found this to be an issue in practical use?



If so, it hasn't bothered me to the point that the lens would be unusable. I will say that there is a noticeable loss of sharpness/contrast at around 50mm compared to other zoom lenses I have that cover that range (including the 24-105). 

However, distortion is VERY well controlled (but not absent)...which makes this lens a great "all-arounder" for landscapes, still life and travel/sightseeing/touring. For event shooting I still lean towards the 24-105 or the 24-70 II as both have more resolving power through the 35-60mm range.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 18, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit... as I said about half the time I never use one, Brah. Your "absolutes" are pretty ridiculous even in your responses. Giving bunk advice is never "fun" for anyone involved. 

Maybe we should have just stuck with the response from Sporgon to your original statement... Utter crap


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 18, 2016)

Pookie said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



What, poor erroneous information like this _"If you back up the light it will go softer."_ that is still not edited for correction? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29011.msg576139#msg576139


----------

