Canon 24-70L f/2.8 II

I, like many others it seems, am debating whether to purchase a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L or the 24-70L F/4. I am an amateur photographer with no studio. Most of my pictures are taken while traveling, outdoors or inside places of interest. I have had a 28-135 forever that I want to upgrade. I have read dozens of reviews from both professional and amateurs, alike. While the 2.8 gets wonderful reviews for IQ, it ALWAYS gets knocked for not having IS. Despite this knock, I cannot find one review that describes the implication of not having IS. Since everyone is raving about IQ, should I just assume that the IS is not a factor at all? Even Ken Rockwell,who seems to detest tripods, recommends that everyone should get the 2.8. Should I assume from this that shake is not an issue? If shake is not an issue, why is everyone knocking the lack of IS? I am worried about spending $1,700 for this lens if shake will be a problem. If anyone out there owns this lens, could you please offer some practical advice?

On the other hand, I am very intrigued by the size, weight and macro feature of the 24-70mmL f4. I have the 16-35mm L f/4 experience no problems whatsoever with light, even indoors. I use a Canon 6D.

Any insights will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Mitch

Since you are not a pro,

• is the cost of the expensive lens justifiable?
  
  • This is a hard one for us non-pros, since we are not making money with the gear.
    

Next is bulk

• Can you handle the bulk (size and weight) of the larger lens, for a long shooting session?
  
  • A large heavy lens might be OK for a few minutes, as when checking it out in the store. But maybe not when shooting for 1-3 hours.
    

I shoot a 70-200 f/4 lens, because the f/2.8 lens is 2x heavier, bigger and 2x more expensive.

IS may be grossly overrated, but IMHO it is very useful.

If you find yourself in a low light situation with static subjects, you can still shoot hand held with a better chance of keepers than without IS.

Even just being able to shoot at 1/30 or 1/15 sec is valuable. You don't have to be down at the extreme end at 1/2 or 1/4 sec.

There is a line of thought that says IS is not as useful for the medium and short focal lengths. And because of less magnification compared to a tele, it is true, to some degree. But when you end up in low light at 1/15 sec, IS will seem like a good idea.

I for one would not like to go back to no IS.

. . . Most of my pictures are taken while traveling, outdoors or inside places of interest. If anyone out there owns this lens, could you please offer some practical advice? . . .

I've used the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L USM and the EF 24 to 105 F/4L IS USM for several years, though my two lenses are not the same two lenses cited in your question they are reasonable enough facsimiles to classify as the basis for "practical advice".

My basic “travel kit” (i.e. travelling on holiday) is a 5D Series and the 24 to 105 IS, (because that lens has Image Stabilization) additionally I carry one fast Prime, usually a 35mm.

My main passions when travelling are Architecture, especially Places of Worship, both inside and outside and local people generally in “street / candid” situations.

I strongly emphasis your consideration of the great value of Image Stabilization for the main working lens if you travel:

> without a Tripod or Monopod

> cannot afford the time to construct or look for camera supports

> have a passion for photographing indoor architecture (i.e 'buildings' and parts or the contents of them)

> shoot outdoor 'Landscapes' or achitecture in any low(er) light outdoor situations (e.g. night time or in overcast conditions)

Typically I will pull interior shots (in dark environs) at 1/15th without a worry, 1/8th is common. Although F/4 compared to F/2.8 requires one extra stop of ISO, the gain of being able to use a much slower Shutter Speed when IS is engaged, seriously outweighs that loss.

As a practical example, let’s say I want detail of a Church interior and the scene is EV100 = 5 (i.e. requires F/2.8 @ 1/100th @ ISO3200), then, at FL = 50mm, I would be confident at pulling that shot Hand Held with the 24 to 70/2.8.

But the kicker is if I were using my 24 to 105F/4 IS, I would be confident pulling F/4 @ 1/13th @ ISO800, (i.e. two stops 'better' of ISO) and if the shot was important enough, I would pull a second shot at F/5.6 @ 1/6th @ ISO800 (i.e. larger DoF and/general IQ) and a third at F/4 @ 1/6th @ ISO400 i.e. three stops 'better' of ISO).

Sure the 6D (and my 5D Series) work pretty good at high ISO settings and good Post Production skills will enhance that, but even better results are had when shooting at lower ISO.

For Hand Held Landscape work, especially in overcast situations and for night time photography, even if there is a breeze, IS remains a valuable tool because it affords the Photographer a greater range of ISO and Aperture selection: it remains the Photographer’s CHOICE to elect to use IS and drop the Shutter Speed to allow a slower ISO and/or larger Aperture and as a result maybe have tree branches slightly blurred because of Subject Movement – but the salient point is – IF you have IS available then you have those choices.

Having those choices in the field, is certainly not overrating the value of IS.

You also mention the “macro” capacity of the 24 to 70/4L IS. Something that I didn’t consider when buying my 24 to 105, but now something that I use quite a bit when on holiday, is the “macro” capacity – actually it is better described as a lens which has a ‘good close-up capacity’, and that’s handy if you like to capture detail, for example of woodwork or flowers, etc – in this case the IS is also useful, because the resultant Camera Shake Blur is exacerbated if you are shooting at close Subject Distances.

WW

I've used the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L USM and the EF 24 to 105 F/4L IS USM for several years, though my two lenses are not the same two lenses cited in your question they are reasonable enough facsimiles to classify as the basis for "practical advice".

 

My basic “travel kit” (i.e. travelling on holiday) is a 5D Series and the 24 to 105 IS, (because that lens has Image Stabilization) additionally I carry one fast Prime, usually a 35mm.

 

My main passions when travelling are Architecture, especially Places of Worship, both inside and outside and local people generally in “street / candid” situations.

 

I strongly emphasis your consideration of the great value of Image Stabilization for the main working lens if you travel:

> without a Tripod or Monopod

> cannot afford the time to construct or look for camera supports

> have a passion for photographing indoor architecture (i.e 'buildings' and parts or the contents of them)

> shoot outdoor 'Landscapes' or achitecture in any low(er) light outdoor situations (e.g. night time or in overcast conditions)

 

Typically I will pull interior shots (in dark environs) at 1/15th without a worry, 1/8th is common. Although F/4 compared to F/2.8 requires one extra stop of ISO, the gain of being able to use a much slower Shutter Speed when IS is engaged, seriously outweighs that loss.

 

As a practical example, let’s say I want detail of a Church interior and the scene is EV100 = 5 (i.e. requires F/2.8 @ 1/100th @ ISO3200), then, at FL = 50mm, I would be confident at pulling that shot Hand Held with the 24 to 70/2.8.

 

But the kicker is if I were using my 24 to 105F/4 IS, I would be confident pulling F/4 @ 1/13th @ ISO800, (i.e. two stops 'better' of ISO) and if the shot was important enough, I would pull a second shot at F/5.6 @ 1/6th @ ISO800 (i.e. larger DoF and/general IQ) and a third at F/4 @ 1/6th @ ISO400 i.e. three stops 'better' of ISO).

 

Sure the 6D (and my 5D Series) work pretty good at high ISO settings and good Post Production skills will enhance that, but even better results are had when shooting at lower ISO.

 

For Hand Held Landscape work, especially in overcast situations and for night time photography, even if there is a breeze, IS remains a valuable tool because it affords the Photographer a greater range of ISO and Aperture selection: it remains the Photographer’s CHOICE to elect to use IS and drop the Shutter Speed to allow a slower ISO and/or larger Aperture and as a result maybe have tree branches slightly blurred because of Subject Movement – but the salient point is – IF you have IS available then you have those choices.

 

Having those choices in the field, is certainly not overrating the value of IS.

 

You also mention the “macro” capacity of the 24 to 70/4L IS. Something that I didn’t consider when buying my 24 to 105, but now something that I use quite a bit when on holiday, is the “macro” capacity – actually it is better described as a lens which has a ‘good close-up capacity’, and that’s handy if you like to capture detail, for example of woodwork or flowers, etc – in this case the IS is also useful, because the resultant Camera Shake Blur is exacerbated if you are shooting at close Subject Distances.

 

WW

William, thanks so much for your reply, and thanks to all the others who offered some guidance and advice. Much of my photography is exactly as you describe. I’ve been running with my 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 50mm f/1.8 II most of the time when I travel. I was looking for a lens that I wouldn’t have to change as often, especially when I didn’t need the 16mm end of the range. I love the IQ of the prime, and have been reading that both the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/4 offer comparable IQ throughout the range. Based on the advice and my research, I have decided to go with the 24-70mm f/4 for my walk around lens. I also have a 70-300 and 100-400l if I need more.

James, your advice was brilliant and I did exactly what you suggested. What I realized was that I could not necessarily detect the small blur from any shake on such small screen, especially if it’s dark, until it’s too late. But the time I might see such error on my computer, it will be too late!! That did it for me!

Thanks everyone!!

Mitch

William, thanks so much for your reply, and thanks to all the others who offered some guidance and advice. Much of my photography is exactly as you describe. I’ve been running with my 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 50mm f/1.8 II most of the time when I travel. I was looking for a lens that I wouldn’t have to change as often, especially when I didn’t need the 16mm end of the range. I love the IQ of the prime, and have been reading that both the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/4 offer comparable IQ throughout the range. Based on the advice and my research, I have decided to go with the 24-70mm f/4 for my walk around lens. I also have a 70-300 and 100-400l if I need more.

 

Mitch

For a travel lens, why not the 24-105 that William suggested?

If the weight is not too heavy, I would go with a wider range lens.

IMHO, the 70mm end of a 24-70 is a bit short for a GP lens. I would end up swapping lenses too much or just leaving the 24-70 because I would not want to swap lenses.

That is the route that I went with my micro 4/3 camera and the 12-60 lens (24-120 FF equiv) for a GP travel lens.

For a travel lens, why not the 24-105 that William suggested?

For clarity, my 24 to 105/4L IS was not my 'suggestion' for the OP instead of him buying the 24 to 70/4 L IS, but I do understand what Gary's comment means . . .

My opinion agrees with Gary (and I am sorry that I didn't think of stating it earlier):

IF you are considering an F/4 lens WITH Image Stabilization, then I think that you should look at the 24 to 105 F4 L IS MkII.

I have not used this lens, yet my understanding is that the MkII lens has substantial improvements on my lens.

I agree with Gary - I find that the 70 to 105 Focal Length is very useful and that extra reach is not to be under estimated.

Regarding speed of AF - I have not found that a problem when using my 24 to 105 F/4 lens, especially for Landscapes, Architecture and the like, when travelling on holiday, if fact I haven't found it a problem shooting action, either.

WW

IF you are considering an F/4 lens WITH Image Stabilization, then I think that you should look at the 24 to 105 F4 L IS MkII.

 

WW

Thanks for the clarification. But everything I’ve read suggests that the 24-70 models out perform the 24-105 models on every level, particularly IQ. Additionally, the 24-70 f/4 is less expensive, smaller and lighter than its 24-105 Mk II counterpart. From my experience using my 28-135, I observed that I seldom shoot at more than 70mm, mostly between 35-70. Lastly, with my 16-35 F/4L IS, I experience absolutely no problems whatsoever with light indoors or out.

Thank you, all.

Mitch

I have the 24-70mm L 2.8 II, or in whatever order the designations go. I bought it because it was the sharpest lens and that I know that L-lenses really deliver in terms of color and contrast. It is very sharp. It sits on my 5D Mark IV and I do not consider it bulky. I do not regret that purchase.

Thanks for the reply. I initiated this discussion hoping to learn whether not having IS is an issue. Do you find that a problem on this model? Do you ever wish that you had IS? If so, how do you need to compensate for not having IS? Thanks

I initiated this discussion hoping to learn whether not having IS is an issue. Do you find that a problem on this model?

The impact of IS is a function of focal length. Whether it matters depends on what you shoot. I'm sure you know the very approximate rule of thumb: the shortest shutter speed on a FF camera that is safe in terms of inadvertent camera motion is 1/FL. You can go down to 1/3 or 1/4 of that with IS, depending on the lens. OOH, as noted above, it does nothing for subject motion. So if you are content with shutter speeds of at least 1/80 at 70mm, you may not find the lack of IS a problem. If not, then yes.

I don't have IS on my shortest lens (17-40), but I have it on everything longer, and the lack of IS is one reason why I was unwilling to splurge on the 24-70 /2.8. but that's just my preferences.

 

IF you are considering an F/4 lens WITH Image Stabilization, then I think that you should look at the 24 to 105 F4 L IS MkII. WW

 

Thanks for the clarification. But everything I’ve read suggests that the 24-70 models out perform the 24-105 models on every level, particularly IQ. Additionally, the 24-70 f/4 is less expensive, smaller and lighter than its 24-105 Mk II counterpart. From my experience using my 28-135, I observed that I seldom shoot at more than 70mm, mostly between 35-70. Lastly, with my 16-35 F/4L IS, I experience absolutely no problems whatsoever with light indoors or out.

 

Thank you, all.

 

Mitch

The shorter zoom ratio 24-70 would have a higher IQ than the longer ratio 24-105.

The 24-105 has the flexibility of a longer reach, so you are not swapping lenses as much.

But if you rarely shoot longer than 70mm, then stay with the 24-70. The lens should match YOUR shooting style, not mine.

Yes price and weight is a consideration, that is why I got the 70-200 f/4 rather than the larger, 2x heavier and 2x more expensive f/2.8 lens.

The younger folks can handle the weight of the f/2.8 lens better than this old man.

As for IS . . . if possible, GET IT. I've shot at slower than the standard guideline of "1/focal length" enough times to appreciate what IS brings.

Now that I have IS lenses, whenever I use my older non-IS lenses, I really appreciate it. I don't worry about how slow I am shooting at, as much, vs when shooting with a non-IS lens.

Without IS, raise the ISO level until you can shoot at a high enough shutter speed to deal with camera shake. I would rather have ISO noise, than a blurred image from camera shake.

There are many tricks from the pre IS days that you can use; brace yourself against anything you can, use a tripod, monopod or rope-pod, shoot using target shooting techniques, etc. I have to use these techniques with my non-IS lenses.

Take what you have and analyze your true handholding skills in a series of shots. - I'd expect 1/250sec at 70mm to look better with IS on, at least when you are pixel peeping.

If I really needed a 24-70/2.8 for indoor events or such I'd pick the stabilized Tamron. Sod sharpness; who needs it when denoising eats the few Megapixels at hand anyhow? Where will be pixels to peep? - AF performance of the L gets better reviews but is it that crucial to have?

I haven't shot anything wide on Canon yet. - Looking at my Monochrom pictures and EXIFs I can assure you that f2, no IS and desperate max. ISO 10K don't make you "king of the night".

With an IS wide I might dial in 1/60sec and fire away at moderate apertures for a bit of DOF and enjoy reasonably low ISO. - With a conventional lens I'd pick 1/250 and pay the price for that choice.

Again: Do your own testing with IS on and of to see where the (print size) limits of your hand holding might be. - If you try 1/60 at 50mm you'll probably get a bearable 4x6" out. If you need every pixel sharp a shorter shutter speed or IS will most likely provide better results.

Take what you have and analyze your true handholding skills in a series of shots. - I'd expect 1/250sec at 70mm to look better with IS on, at least when you are pixel peeping.

Thanks, Jochen. I did try this as James already suggested above. What I discovered is that its much too difficult to analyze the results on the 3" monitor on the back of the camera while in the field. I don't want to spend $1,800 on a lens and have to worry about whether I got the shot while in the field. I started this thread looking for advice between buying the 24-70mm f/2.8L without IS or the 24-70mm f/4L with IS. There is $1,000 price difference between the two lenses. There were two people on this thread that mentioned that they had the 24-70mm f/2.8, (William and TriggerHappy) and neither one really mentioned anything about the issue of no IS or shake with the lens. I was particularly interested to learn from folks that had the lens whether on not it was an issue for them because every single review I have read brought up the lack of IS as a negative for the lens, even though the rest of the review raved about the image quality. Thanks

Mitch

 

There are many tricks from the pre IS days that you can use; brace yourself against anything you can, use a tripod, monopod or rope-pod, shoot using target shooting techniques, etc. I have to use these techniques with my non-IS lenses.

HI, Gary, I think that I am an "old man", too! My first SLR was the Canon AE-1 Program back in 1977. I certainly do appreciate all the "tricks". I am just trying to decide of its really worth it to spend an additional $1,000 for this f/2.8 lens, only to have to worry about carrying around a tripod to accommodate the faster speed? The whole idea for me is to get a smaller, practical lens with great quality. Although I didn't get a specific answer about the lens itself, all the discussions helped me come to the conclusion that the f/4 is good enough for me!! Thanks to everyone!!

Mitch

Mitch,

I beat you. Mamiya/Sekor 1000DTL in 1970.

Man I hated that screw thread lens mount. With only primes back then, I changed lenses rather often, and that screw mount was a PiA. Even my fathers 1950s Exakta was faster to change lenses. That was the single biggest reason that I sold the Mamiya, to get a Nikkormat, with its quick change bayonet lens mount.

As I have gotten older, the "good enough" and "compromise" has come into use more often than in the past.

I can't haul that heavy f/2.8 lens around for hours, so I compromised on the f/4.

Nor would I want to carry a heavy kit (body + 4 lenses) on a 2 week vacation, like I did in college. That bag must have weighted close to 15 pounds. The old body can't do it anymore, things have broken down.

I was going to use my D7200 + 18-140 as my travel kit, but I recently got an even smaller and lighter kit, Olympus E-M1 + Panasonic 12-60 f/3.5-5.6. 43% lighter than the D7200 kit !!! I would have loved a FASTER lens, but then the weight starts going up to where I came from. The stabilized system makes up some for the slower lens.

Initially I did not like the idea of going down to the smaller m4/3 sensor. But as I thought about the problem, I knew that as the trip went on, if I got too tired with the weight of the camera, the camera won't get used. Then I have no pix at all. So another compromise.

To me, a travel kit involves a lot of compromises, because just as you said, you can't bring your full kit with you, that is just too much stuff to haul.

Camera + 1 or 2 lenses, no more heavy 4 lens kits, and no bringing a long lens that I hardly used.

Good for you that you can still carry a FF kit on vacation, I'm jealous of you.

James, your advice was brilliant and I did exactly what you suggested. What I realized was that I could not necessarily detect the small blur from any shake on such small screen, especially if it’s dark, until it’s too late. But the time I might see such error on my computer, it will be too late!! That did it for me!

 

Mitch

I have a love/hate relationship with the display on the back of the camera. It can make a pig wearing lipstick look like Miss America. There's not much worse feeling than when you open that awesome shot up on the big screen and your heart drops when you see that it has shake, motion blur, or is not in focus.

I have a love/hate relationship with the display on the back of the camera. It can make a pig wearing lipstick look like Miss America. There's not much worse feeling than when you open that awesome shot up on the big screen and your heart drops when you see that it has shake, motion blur, or is not in focus.

On my camera I can magnify/zoom into the shot to check focus/blur, but that only works if you have the time to do it, like shooting formal portraits, still life, scenery, or similar. Because if the subject is not dead center, I have to use the pad to move the magnify/zoom to the subject, taking more time.

Most of the time when things are moving, I resort to the old saying of "know and trust your gear."

I look at the screen to check and adjust the initial exposure, or to make sure that I got a particular shot to see if I have to reshoot. And for exposure issues in tricky theater lighting, primarily blown highlights, cuz you really don't want a blown out white face (been there, done that, was not happy with the salvage). But other than that, I tend to shoot like I did with film, and not spend a lot of time looking at the pix on the small screen.

By the way,

Another thing nobody mentioned, AF performance with 2.8 lenses way better when compared with slower lenses. . .

I subsequently wrote "Regarding speed of AF - I have not found that a problem when using my 24 to 105 F/4 lens, especially for Landscapes, Architecture and the like, when travelling on holiday, if fact I haven't found it a problem shooting action, either."

That comment was meant in the context of this conversation, i.e. pertaining to the tasks that the OP outlined and my stated uses of my 24 to 105/4L IS, the 'action' meant people moving about kids playing and the like.

As general comment - I concur that F/2.8 lenses are better for AF functionality.

WW

Gary, thanks. You force me to face my own demon - my tendency to shoot in a hurry. Most of my shooting is of the landscape/portrait/still type where I do have time to chimp. So I don't have much of an excuse when I get back to my computer and hate the work I did. I need to slow down and take the time to zoom in on the LCD and check my shots in detail rather than just the overall image. The same goes for checking settings before shooting. I have to admit that on more than one occasion I have ruined shots by getting in a hurry and not pausing to check my settings.

Been there, done that.

Even when I have time, I rarely zoom in to check the image.

I think in the back of my head, I don't want to fall into the habit of chimping, which would slow me down when I do have to shoot fast.

Forgetting to check the camera setting has bit me many times. I know the problem so I usually check before the shoot, but things slip by.

Once I forgot to switch the camera from JPG to RAW. That HURT. The lighting in the theater was difficult, and I usually shoot RAW to give me an extra buffer to deal with the difficult lighting. And I had trouble that night, and did not have the RAW buffer to help.

When I get back home, I try to remember to reset the camera to my standard, so that it is ready to go.

At school it is worse, because some of the students will change the camera settings, and I cannot rely on the camera being "as it should be."

Once the white balance was set to flourescent, grrrrr. All images came out with a slightly odd coloration.

So the next day I brought MY camera, so I knew what the WB was, and left troubleshooting that camera for later.

This is a problem with pool gear. I have to go through the cameras every week or so, to check that the configuration is not out of wack.