Options
Canon 24-70 f2.8L ii or Canon 24-70 f4.0 IS?
I am looking to purchase either the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L vii or the Canon 24-70mm f4.0L IS to go with my new Canon 5DMarkIII. I plan on using this lens for landscapes and group shots. I like both lenses, however, I'm trying to decide if the 24-70mm f2.8L vii is worth the extra money.
0
Comments
That is not to say that the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4.0L IS USM is anything less than stellar. I would greatly prefer the 24-70mm, f4L-IS over the 24-105mm, f4L-IS, for instance. For travel, it would be preferable to the 24-70mm, f2.8L, just by virtue of the weight savings and IS.
They are both great choices, so just decide if the high-precision AF and additional DOF control are important to your photographic goals. If they are important, then go for the f2.8.
Reviews:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Image quality comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=823&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
All that said, it's a tough choice. The f/4 would be so much better for general use in decent light due to the weight and size, but I'd be wishing for f/2.8 any time indoors. ISO 1600 is still cleaner than 3200, etc. So I guess if you need the zoom I would suggest the 24-70/4 paired with a 35/2 (IS or not). Just a 35 can cover indoor events surprisingly well. But if you need the reach and zoom and speed, the 24-70/2.8 it is!
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC $1299 w/ 6 yr warranty...
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff
It's really up to you what your general needs are, though. For example for weddings (my day job) I can't live without a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8, (and the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is fun to rent!) ...yet I LOATHE lugging those bricks out into the wilderness. That is what f/4 zooms are for, if I'm carrying these things on my back for many miles.
The question is, how many different sets of gear can you afford? If you can only buy ONE mid-range zoom, get the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. If you have a huge budget, though, consider a multi-lens solution that better covers your different "bases" such as one or two wide angle primes for low light, and an f/4 zoom for everything else...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
If it's anything like it's big brother, the 70-200 2.8 VC, in terms of sharpness, contrast and af speed, you will not be disappointed
I suppose the decision rests on how often you think you will need the large aperture. Personally I think I would use the 2.8 more
Have a good afternoon
Jim...
Okay in all seriousness, have you given any thought to what I said earlier about how it depends what you shoot? If you shoot regular landscapes, at f/11 and f/16 all day long, and if you lug these lenses around on your back for miles to get to an outdoor landscape, then you'll absolutely want the f/4 zoom, heck I'd prefer the 24-105 even maybe.
The reasons to get f/2.8, and to lug around so much more extra weight and spend so much more extra cash, are simply to be able to shoot more action in low light, action that you can't just shoot with a prime. And in my opinion, unless you're a full-time pro with extremely demanding shooting conditions, the primes win me over every time for comfort and creativity...
For the price of the 24-70 2.8 L mk2, you could get what, a 24-105 f/4 L, a 28 1.8, and/or a 50 1.4 and/or the 85 1.8, and probably still come out ahead if you only get one of those primes instead of two...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
My previous statements about improved AF performance with an f2.8 aperture lens and more DOF control are still pertinent.
Other reasons for choosing a Canon "L" lens would be for resale value and durability.
The Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD likewise has very high barrel distortion at 24mm. It would not be a bad choice for a budget-conscious photographer, but it's not in the same league as the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L II, IMO.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I rarely use my 24-70L anymore for the reasons Matt describes. It's just so damn big and heavy and conspicuous. Most of the time a small prime or two will do the job, and do it more discretely. Seriously, if you're not shooting weddings or indoor events, consider another lens or combination of lenses.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Starting with "landscape photography", a landscape image may be captured with virtually any lens, from a fisheye, through wide-angle, standard/normal, and telephoto (including super-telephoto). There is no single lens which can capture all forms of landscape photography.
Often people refer to scenic and vista landscapes when they think of "landscapes".
For scenic and vista landscapes I suggest using anything from wide-angle through super-wide-angle and ultra-wide-angle lenses and zooms. For Canon full-frame bodies (like your 5D MKIII) that would include the EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM and EF 17-40mm, f4L USM zooms, and the EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM, EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM and EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM primes.
For group portraits I greatly prefer to use a standard zoom lens, like the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, for the majority of small to medium groups in typical settings. For really large groups, and/or smaller environments/less working space, I prefer to use a super-wide zoom like the EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM and EF 17-40mm, f4L USM zooms.
The reason to use zooms is simple; you never know what to expect.
To distill all of this down into a recommendation, I suggest purchasing the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM first. That should cover the majority of your needs for a standard zoom, including some/many scenic landscape and group portrait applications. When you need wider still (i.e. vista landscape and large group), I suggest purchasing either the EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM or EF 17-40mm, f4L USM zooms. You may wish to rent before purchase.
For my purposes, I have a standard zoom (the very old EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM) plus the EF 17-40mm, f4L USM. I very much "enjoy" this combination and it serves my needs nicely.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I assume you're talking about the 24mm f/1.4 L? In which case I cannot recommend it for most applications other than, well, stars at night or extremely low-light photojournalism. For any other use, it is overkill and a waste of money. Heck, even then if you're into stars you should buy the Rokinon / Bower / Samyang 24 1.4 instead, as it is way sharper than the Canon especially with respect to coma which is very important for star photography.
I would consider instead a more affordable compliment to your f/4 zoom consideration, such as the 28 1.8...
Personally, I hate photographing large groups of people any wider than 28mm anyways; even if your lens has zero barrel distortion you are still going to make the people on the edge look fat; it's much better to back up and zoom in.
But I digress. Everybody's shooting style is different, and everybody's willingness to drag around heavy lenses is different. You REALLY should get these lenses in your hands to test out before you plunk down for one of them; especially for these types of general shooting applications there is a VERY good chance that you'll miss one factor or another, and will end up unhappy with a purchase or at least simply wishing you had an additional lens for whatever purpose...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
It is?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=821&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
You do have to be careful with people at the edges of the frame, since placed badly they can look weird out there.
The 24-70 II 2.8 is really amazing and basically performs about the same as the 24 1.4 II (I assume that is what you meant by 24 f/1.2?) although with more distortion (less than the Tamron 24-70 VC and a lot less than the 24-105L and vastly sharper than the latter and somewhat sharper than the former) and actually less longitudinal CA (the sort that produces stuff like purple fringing nasties). It's basically optically the best 24-70 type lens ever made (other than FF edges at 70mm).
The 24-70 f/4 IS is pretty good. A lot better than the 24-105L at 24mm, sharper and the edges and corners and with less longitudinal CA, less distortion there too and the IS is a bit more effective there. OTOH, it isn't quite as sharp as the 24-70 2.8 II though and has a bit more purple fringing and a touch of halation. The difference between it and 24-70 2.8 II is more pronounced at f/4, but still there a bit at f/8. That said the 24-70 f/4 IS performs pretty well across the board even on 22MP FF cameras for the picky shooter, something I can't say about the old 24-105L. If you are in marginal lighting and the subject isn't moving and can't/don't want to use a tripod/flash then the 24-70 f/4 IS with it's IS makes better images than even the mighty 24-70 II. It is nice for run and gun shooting on hikes if you don't have time to set up a tripod for everything, etc. and it's getting to be very late or if you are in a deep dark forest and it's later in the day. The 24-70 f/4 IS is actually sharper at the edges at 70mm than the 24-70 2.8 II (although less sharp in the center there and the center and edges at other focal lengths, but still very good across the range).
The 24-70 II has super accurate AF especially when paired with a 5D3/1DX since they can read the high precision AF braking slippage info. The 24-105 definitely does not have that. Nor the Tamron.
I'd say that any of the following are good for the picky landscape shooter on FF (there are surely some more):
Canon 24-70 2.8 II
Canon 24-70 f/4 IS
Canon 24 1.4 II (but I don't see how it is worth it when zoom does as well now)
Zeiss 21mm
Canon 24mm T&S II
Canon 17mm T&S
Bower/Samyang/Rokinon 14mm (mind the major distortion though, CA and sharpness are amazing though, sharper over much of the frame than most L lenses even and decent in the corners) plus it is relatively cheap which is nice for such a crazy ultra-wide focal length that might not get used quite as much
Canon 70-300L (don't forget that many a landscape photo is taken at 70-300mm, for some it may be more than 50%)
Canon 70-200 f/4 IS
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II (2.8 IS and 2.8 non-IS are good but can be a little dicey at FF edges and corners)
probably some of the third party 70-200s
Canon 24 2.8 IS
Canon 28 2.8 IS
and basically any of the 35mm and up primes for the most part from Canon and many of those such from third party
24-70 2.8 II + 70-300L + 24mm T&S II + 14mm Bower makes an amazing landscape set, just to mention one possible set
I'd say that these, among others, don't quite cut it:
Canon 24-105L
Canon 16-35/16-35 II/17-40 (then again at this width there aren't much choices at this point so if you want UWA zoom you as well get one anyway unless you want to wait for the rumored 16-50 IS or get a 17mm T&S prime or 14mm prime, so they don't quite cut for the pick landscape shooter but what else is there, they are the best of a lot that don't cut it so buy these anyway)
Sigma 24-70
Sigma 28-70
Canon 24 2.8
Canon 28 1.8
Canon 20-30L or whatever that weird one is
Canon 28-70
Canon 28-135
Canon 24-70 2.8
Tamron 28-75 (close, but not quite, not too bad though)
Canon 24 1.4
Canon 24mm T&S
I havne't compared those myself. Never tried the Samyang. The 24 1.4 II does have a LOT of coma at f/1.4 or near there. Quite a few astro sites have said the Samyang has less coma and is better for astro. I trust them a LOT than TDP for that stuff.
that about sums it up, personally I'd go with the 2.8 but I don't shoot a lot of landscapes