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

iso9000 · Mar 2, 2015

Hello,

As some of you may know, I am getting ready to buy my first set of Canon lenses. At first I was looking at the 24-105 f/4, but many have told me to pay a little bit more and get the 24-70 instead. So while I was searching, I found an f/4 and f/2.8. Now I know for wedding photographers who need to shoot in low light settings, the 2.8 would be a must have. But for someone who wants it for travel and start doing night photography and start shooting stars, would the f/4 be enough? The price difference is quite big, give or take a thousand dollars. I also hear the f/4 has a macro mode. Should I buy the f/4, or should I just pay extra and get the f/2.8?

jaomul · Mar 2, 2015

What camera do you have?

iso9000 · Mar 2, 2015

jaomul said:
What camera do you have?

This is going to be used with a Canon 5D Mark III

jaomul · Mar 2, 2015

Let me state first that I'm not really answering the question you asked. If you have not already bought the 5d, why not buy it with kit lens 24-105. There seems to be reviews that state the 24-70 is sharper. I don't doubt this but the 24-105 is also an excellent lens. Of course those that need f2.8 will dismiss the 24-105 as not being a pro spec, but it's an L lens, great build speed and image quality.

As a kit it normally doesn't add to much to the price with a new camera, and is easy enough to sell if you want to upgrade. I often carried a 5d with 24-105, I was always happy with this lens. I'm sure if you pixel peep the others may be better, but that lens gives great image quality and great range as a walkabout lens

iso9000 · Mar 2, 2015

jaomul said:
Let me state first that I'm not really answering the question you asked. If you have not already bought the 5d, why not buy it with kit lens 24-105. There seems to be reviews that state the 24-70 is sharper. I don't doubt this but the 24-105 is also an excellent lens. Of course those that need f2.8 will dismiss the 24-105 as not being a pro spec, but it's an L lens, great build speed and image quality.

As a kit it normally doesn't add to much to the price with a new camera, and is easy enough to sell if you want to upgrade. I often carried a 5d with 24-105, I was always happy with this lens. I'm sure if you pixel peep the others may be better, but that lens gives great image quality and great range as a walkabout lens

There is a deal for the Canon 5D Mark III with 24-70 f/4 for only $200 dollars more. I've heard so many people who have sold their 24-105 to get the 24-70 and is now their go-to lens

jaomul · Mar 2, 2015

Not sure prices of kits but both the 24-105 and 24-70 are pretty much 200 dollars difference here also. Maybe I'm in a minority but I'd prefer the 24-105. That 70-105 is great (at least for me) to have making it a more flexible lens

iso9000 · Mar 2, 2015

jaomul said:
Not sure prices of kits but both the 24-105 and 24-70 are pretty much 200 dollars difference here also. Maybe I'm in a minority but I'd prefer the 24-105. That 70-105 is great (at least for me) to have making it a more flexible lens

I've read a ton of comments and review on the 24-70, and everyone says the image quality is much sharper than the 24-105. They say the image is much less distorted, and focus speed is much faster.

jaomul · Mar 2, 2015

Go with your heart.

iso9000 · Mar 2, 2015

jaomul said:
Go with your heart.

Just having a hard time deciding if the 24-70 f/2.8 is worth twice as much as the f/4.

jaomul · Mar 2, 2015

Personally I think with a full frame camera that has iso ability of a 5d3, f2.8 is not worth twice the price unless your a pro working regularly in lower light. The larger aperture will also give better separation to subjects and backgrounds, but it's not a massive difference

iso9000 · Mar 2, 2015

jaomul said:
Personally I think with a full frame camera that has iso ability of a 5d3, f2.8 is not worth twice the price unless your a pro working regularly in lower light. The larger aperture will also give better separation to subjects and backgrounds, but it's not a massive difference

That's a great descriptive comment. Thank you! On that note, I was thinking of going with the f/4 anyways, as it does have IS and macro (though I have heard some negative things about this). I just can't see how the f/2.8 is worth TWICE as much. Though I heard if you are a bokeh enthusiast, the f/2.8 is the way to go.

Overread · Mar 2, 2015

Larger apertures require more glass - the setup gets larger overall to let in more light; add in the fact that its a zoom and that its a top end zoom and Canon are putting a lot of high-end heavy proper glass into it.

As for if its worth it or not its really a personal choice. I find f2.8 to be a good sweet spot for lenses, its wide enough to give lots of light; whilst being small enough that its a very usable aperture in most applications. Similarly many wider apertures will let in more light; but at the same time because the depth of field gets so small they become a lot less practical to use wide open all the time.

I would say that you could also consider the Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 OS. It's got a lower price than the Canon, offers you f2.8 and OS (which is Tamron talk for IS) and is still a very high quality set of optics (indeed many review and compare it favourably to the Canon - the Canon "wins" but not by much).

Personally the whole "only if you're a pro working" argument never holds any sway with me. Doesn't matter if you're being paid or not; if you "need" the gear for the type of shooting you do then you need it. Being paid or not isn't really coming into it - its really just asking if you can afford it (if you can't you can't; if you can you can).

mcap1972 · Mar 9, 2015

Easy. If you do a lot of low light photography go with 2.8 version

ronlane · Mar 9, 2015

If I could, I would go with the f/2.8. I rented one a couple of weeks ago (The mark I version) and I really liked it for low light. Up to that point, I was looking at getting the 24-105 as my everyday lens and I still may but not without considering the 24-70 f/2.8.

For me, it would be worth the money to get the extra f-stops of light, but I shoot in low light situations a lot.