Canon 24-70mm f2.8 II for landscapes and all-rounder (FF Canon body)

DaelpixPhotography

DaelpixPhotography

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,801
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
As from my other thread, am I making a good choice in an all-rounder + landscape lens in choosing the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 II ? Or should I go for the Canon 24-105mm f4 ?
The 24-70mm seems to be sharper from searching the internet, but what do you guys think?

I did settle on the 16-35mm but I think I'll save some money in buying an 'all-rounder' lens instead of having to shed out more money on a lens.

Thanks
 
You’ll be happy with either lens, but it really comes down to wether you want a faster lens, or one with more reach.

Both are very capable lenses, but with slightly different uses.
 
drb5 said:
You’ll be happy with either lens, but it really comes down to wether you want a faster lens, or one with more reach.

Both are very capable lenses, but with slightly different uses.
Click to expand...

^^^This pretty much, though the 24-105 also has IS and is a heck of a lot cheaper. Both are high quality lenses and in real world use unlikely to be much between them on image quality, though the 24-70-/2.8 L Mk2 is, by a knat's whisker from the Nikon VR, the sharpest standard range zoom on the market.
 
Haven't really used my 24-70 since getting a 24-105.. sharpness is pretty much equal but with the extra reach and lighter and is for less.
 
Last edited:
On what camera body? On APS-C that’s like 36-105 (for the 24-70) equivalent field of view for landscapes that might be restrictive?

This might be a case where a third party lens (Sigma or Tamron) might be far better option ...

Sorry you say “Canon FF” in the thread heading so scratch all that!
 
Last edited:
Have you considered weight? the f2.8's are quite heavy and weight can be an issue if hiking for landscapes, don't Canon do a 24-70 f4? It could be worth considering that too.
 
Dael_Pix said:
The 24-70mm seems to be sharper from searching the internet
Click to expand...
I often wonder if these reviews and opinions don't loose all sense of proportion? Is it really going to be noticeable by the time you have rendered it to JPEG and viewed it on your monitor or printed it out at 6x4? There are a load of other things that can affect image sharpness and hairsplitting over lens stats is probably bottom of the list with modern "L" lenses
 
Eloise
Planning on buying the Canon 5D MK IV once Wex have come back to me with a quote of some of my current gear.

rob-nikon
Yes Canon do an f4, but in all honesty I'm not bothered about the weight.
 
If I keep wondering which lens I want to buy I'll never decide on one, so I'm settling with the 2.8.
 
gerry s said:
Would you need a 2.8 for landscape?
Click to expand...

Yes - unless you just want to go boring and stick to everything in focus at f11

I shoot a lot of my landscapes at or below f2.8 and I'm currently putting together another talk on this very subject for camera clubs in my region

Of those two choices I'd go for the f2.8 for its ability to use less DoF at times, though I actually shoot primes only now and wider still, but if it has to be a zoom then f2.8 for me :)

Dave
 
IS and range of 24-105 II are very tempting, but it is not as cheap as inferior mk1. If you need f/2.8 then you obviously need that; and the shorter zoom has less distortion, but no IS which is annoying. I think there is no wrong choice, but there is a good and a better choice. I can't help any further.

gerry s said:
Would you need a 2.8 for landscape?
Click to expand...

In 10 year I probably used f/2.8 for landscapes twice. I couldn't be asked to hang around too much shooting under moonlight but I had f/1.4 prime which is a lot sharper at 2.8. Then there is the milky way. That is all unless you want to regret sharpness issues somewhere in the frame.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Yes - unless you just want to go boring and stick to everything in focus at f11

I shoot a lot of my landscapes at or below f2.8 and I'm currently putting together another talk on this very subject for camera clubs in my region

Of those two choices I'd go for the f2.8 for its ability to use less DoF at times, though I actually shoot primes only now and wider still, but if it has to be a zoom then f2.8 for me :)

Dave
Click to expand...
Who on earth mentioned everything at f11 (other stops are available)!That's all I was trying to say ..
 
Last edited:
I went from the original Canon 24-105 F4 L IS to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2. Did I need F2.8? No. I rarely shoot more open than F5.6, so why the F2.8 V2? Try one and see!

Whilst my 24-105 was a good lens the 24-70 F2.8 V2 just gives me better images - sharper, better colour, more depth etc etc. It almost makes it look like I know what I am doing! Coupled with a 16-35 F4 L IS these two make a great combination for me.

Naturally this is purely subjective but I am very happy with mine:)
 
Dael_Pix said:
rob-nikon
Yes Canon do an f4, but in all honesty I'm not bothered about the weight.
Click to expand...
Will wait with baited breath for the “Should I sell my Canon gear and buy Fuji / m43” thread :-)

(Just jesting a little)
 
As far as all rounder goes, the f/2.8 doesn’t do macro, so IMO the 24-70 f/4 is a better all round lens. Obviously you might not want to do macro, in which case I’d still recommend the f/4.

I have both, but I’ve hardly used my f/2.8 since getting the F/4. The f/4 is nicer to carry around as its much lighter and smaller. It’s nice having IS for stationary scenery, so maybe that might be an advantage if you don’t want to use a tripod.
For low light stuff that doesn’t involve people I also find the f/4 better. I can hand hold much slower with this lens. With the 5D4 I’ve found I need to up my shutter speed a bit more compared to the 5D3 I had. Something to do with pixel blurring I think. IS has helped with that. The Macro is nice to have as well. Didn’t think I’d use it much but its been very handy for close up stuff on the fly (not of the fly, I don’t have the patience for that).

Ultimately the f/2.8 does produce slightly better images, but I hoesntly cant tell what lens shot what image without looking at the Exif, or pixel peeping unless there is some narrow DOF going on.
 
Dael_Pix said:
I did settle on the 16-35mm but I think I'll save some money in buying an 'all-rounder' lens instead of having to shed out more money on a lens.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Make sure you choose the 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8 mkII, if you decide the f/2.8 mkIII is out of budget. The mkII is extremely soft in the edges.
 
dave_bass5 said:
As far as all rounder goes, the f/2.8 doesn’t do macro, so IMO the 24-70 f/4 is a better all round lens. Obviously you might not want to do macro, in which case I’d still recommend the f/4.

I have both, but I’ve hardly used my f/2.8 since getting the F/4. The f/4 is nicer to carry around as its much lighter and smaller. It’s nice having IS for stationary scenery, so maybe that might be an advantage if you don’t want to use a tripod.
For low light stuff that doesn’t involve people I also find the f/4 better. I can hand hold much slower with this lens. With the 5D4 I’ve found I need to up my shutter speed a bit more compared to the 5D3 I had. Something to do with pixel blurring I think. IS has helped with that. The Macro is nice to have as well. Didn’t think I’d use it much but its been very handy for close up stuff on the fly (not of the fly, I don’t have the patience for that).

Ultimately the f/2.8 does produce slightly better images, but I hoesntly cant tell what lens shot what image without looking at the Exif, or pixel peeping unless there is some narrow DOF going on.
Click to expand...

Got the 24-70 f2.8 today along with the 5D
 
Never mind lol.

It’s a great, classic combo. Ive never once thought anything negative about what the f/2.8 can produce. More than sharp enough and images have a lovely pop to them. I doubt I would ever sell mine, even though I cant see me using it much either. It’s been fantastic since I got it 5 years ago.
Thing is I feel the same about the f/4. Almost in the same league but you need to pixel peep or look at the edges at 100% to really see a difference. Since getting my 16-35 f/4 IS it made me realize I really don’t need the 24-70 f/2.8 most of the time, as I appreciate IS more than that extra stop of light. I never really missed IS on the f/2.8 (had two copies of the Tamron, and both were rubbish), but Ifor my style of shooting these days I’m happy with the f/4 lenses.

Good luck with the new gear, I’m sure you won’t regret it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top