Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II vs Canon 24-70 f/4 IS

J

jonoooo125

Messages
1,376
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking to get either one of these to replace my 24-70 2.8, just wondering which you would go for, I've read lots of reviews on both but they don't really compare to someone actually using it. Obviously the f/4 is slower but has IS and the added value of the new pinch cap from canon included for free! Just to be used in general, I have a 70-200 for anything longer and a 50mm 1.2 on its way for those certain shots! I'm only looking at either of these, not the sigma, tamron, or 24-105 either.

The IS would be handy for video but I only do 2/3 minute clips, usually on a tripod, 2.8 is always nicer than upping the ISO.

So, which would you go for?
 
From what I've read thus far, the f/2.8 II is amazing whilst the f/4 IS is rather underwhelming. Frankly I was expecting the f/4 IS to provide the same IQ as the f/2.8 II but this doesn't seem to be the case and I can't see why anyone would choose one over a 24-105 tbh.

I'd grab the f/2.8 II in a heartbeat though if you can afford it.
 
Vertigo1 said:
From what I've read thus far, the f/2.8 II is amazing whilst the f/4 IS is rather underwhelming. Frankly I was expecting the f/4 IS to provide the same IQ as the f/2.8 II but this doesn't seem to be the case and I can't see why anyone would choose one over a 24-105 tbh.
Click to expand...

The F4is is smaller,lighter,sharper,has less distortion and better macro capabilities than the 24-105.Pretty compelling reasons to buy over the 24-105 imo.

I wonder how many people would even ask the question about the 2 new zooms if the F2.8 had come with IS built in.I want the extra sharpness of the F2.8 but also need the IS.

Gary
 
It's 10% lighter and slightly shorter - you'd hardly notice that. It may be sharper but not by much at all. The 24-70 still has heavy distortion at 24mm from what I understand.

Basically, whilst the 24-70 is a bit better than the 24-105, it's not by much and in exchange you lose 35mm of range. When you can pick up used or even new 24-105s for far less than the 24-70 costs, I don't see it making sense to be honest. Personally I'd go 24-105 or 24-70 f/2.8 II.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with it, just have a bit of spare money so I thought if upgrade whilst I have the chance. Thank you for all the input, I thought I would want the IS (because of the size too, would fit nicely in a nappy bag) if anyone could redeem the f/4 because a few of the reviews I saw painted it in a bad light and also said the 24-105 would be better for the price. I think the mark II will be the better option so far
 
Last edited:
Most of the reviews I have seen for the F4is have been positive.The only real negative seems to be the price and that has dropped considerably.You can already pick it up for less than £900.
I'm sitting on the fence at the minute.I have had 2 absolute stinker 24-70 F2.8 Mk2 lenses and now just trying to convince myself to try another one.
Maybe don't rule out the Tamron 24-70 F2.8."Supposedly" better than the Canon 24-70 MK1 in every department.

Gary
 
The distortion and not great IQ compared to the new 2.8 were the points but yeah HDEW have it for £875 but for £500 more the 2.8 is an alright price too, I don't think the weight would matter so much, more the size. I've never had a non canon lens but I'll check out some reviews.

I'd saw someone had a couple of bad ones, you posted a picture of your garden with a blurry left left? I've never had any problem like that but I guess if I bought it new they would exchange it and I don't mind going through 3 or 4 copies
 
I won't be ordering either for a couple of weeks yet so I'll keep deciding. thanks for all the help Gary, last question though, you've had bad experiences with 2 2.8 II's, have you not considered the f/4?
 
Last edited:
Hi Jono

That's probably why I haven't picked up another one yet.The F4 actually looks pretty appealing.I use the focal length mainly for travel/landscape.I think the F4 is actually the better lens for me but I want the extra IQ of the F2.8.I have the money for the F2.8 but the loss of IS is a big blow.I take a lot of shots in dark buildings/churches etc where the IS is much more important than the F2.8.That's why I always preferred the 24-105 over the F2.8 MK1.
I'm just not sure whether I'll be happy at the IQ of the F4 when shot wide open.If that's the case I might as well just stick with the 24-105 and put the money towards the 24 Tilt/shift or Zeiss 21mm.
The iq of my 17mm tilt/shift has spoiled me.

Gary
 
vulcan2912 said:
Hi Jono

The combination of smaller size and less weight make the new F2.8 feel a lot less of a lens than the old F2.8.Probably not a great difference in real terms but it felt more like the 24-105 than the 24-70 Mk1.

Gary
Click to expand...

Yeah although the image quality is obviously fantastic, I'm really not a fan of the new 24-70 II design at all. In particular I love the reverse zoom with fixed hood design of the Mk1 as it made the hood more effective at all focal lengths and protected the extending barrel more. Miffed they've ditched that tbh.
 
I don't mind the opposite zoom barrel but the smaller hood is welcomed, though the hoods are pretty small on both, even though I don't use the hood, it's less space in the bag taken up

Also, a zeiss 21mm & ts-e 24mm would be a nice combo, both 82mm for filters same as the 24-70 II I think
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top