Just to make it really interesting, I’ll also add our sharpest 24mm lens, the Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II (but remember, we’re comparing it at f/3.5 to the 24-70 at f/2.8). We also checked distortion at both ends. The Mk II has 2.45% barrel distortion at the wide end, 1.34% pincushion at the long end.
However the tilt in my copy @ 50mm makes it actually worse than the f/4 for the left edges. The f/2.8's left-edge @ 50mm remains noticeably softer than its right edge up to and including f/8 (not shown). Presenting both 100% crops and 200% crops (resized in PS using Preserve Details 2.0) Nikon Z 24-70 f/2.8 vs f/4, 100% Crops. Nikon Z 24-70 f/2
The 2.8 is the better lens, but in real life if you don't often shoot in the f/2.8-f/4.5 range the f/4 is the better choice. Here is a LightRoom A/B comparison between the 24-70/2.8 S (left) and 24-70/4 S (right), at 35mm (sorry, I set the f4 lens to 33.5mm so that there is a slight difference). I bought the 40 and 24 refurbished off of Canon Direct several years ago for $100 USD each. I got the 22 at B&H photo for $99 in 2014. It's not as sharp as the 24-70/f2.8 ii at f4, but sharp
I plan on getting the 24-70 f2.8, but 105mm at f4 gets you a smaller depth of field than 70mm at f2.8, so I'd say it's a more useful lens as far as why kind of photography you can do. 24-70 f2.8 lenses will be 1 stop better at low light, and as a general rule be sharper (assuming you keep the same focal length and f stop for both), as a bright

The handling of the RF f/4 is nicer as it has a smaller diameter than the RF f/2.8 version. The zoom ring is the smoothest I've ever tried on an external zooming lens. It focuses very fast even at the minimum focusing distance (0.6m, which is impressive). But I'm still eager to try the RF f/2.8. I have the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM.

The Canon RF 70-200mm F4L IS USM is a full 26mm shorter and nearly 400g lighter than the F2.8 version, and as someone who has either owned or spent extensive time with all the EF F4 variants, I found the resulting package shockingly compact. It is only 14mm longer than my Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II prime, and is actually 65g lighter than the 35mm

It has the IS of the 24-105 and the 24-70 f/4 lenses and the f/2.8 aperture of the 24-70 len in one package, and its focal length range is ideal for many cropped sensor shooters, extending from what might be termed “normal wide” to “portrait length” short telephoto. The lenses in this article are available from site sponsor B&H Photo:
At 24mm, the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS performs very well. At f/4, the Canon was noticeably sharper at 100%, though I wouldn’t call the differences drastic. However, at 50mm the tables were turned and the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC was the clear winner here. Chromatic Aberration was more noticeable in the Tamron but it was not distracting at all to my eye.
However, in fairness, the performance of 24-105mm f/4 tails off more noticeably past the 70mm limit of the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. If we compare the same focal range (as we should), the new lens outperforms the 24-105mm between the crucial f/4 and f/8 range but it also performs very well at f/2.8. Map Sharpness at 50mm f/4 focal length:
After those two lenses, in terms of sharpness at their respective WOAs, in third place we have the Canon 50mm 1.8, and in last place we have the Canon 50mm 1.4. The 50mm 1.2 does have a bit more vignetting than the 24-70mm when wide open, but that is also part of the visual appeal. Canon 50mm f/1.2L at f/1.2. Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 at f/2.8.

I think that 24-70 is a little short for head and shoulder portraits. 85mm is a bare minimum on FF. 70-200 is a better zoom option and there is an abundance of decent primes above 100mm. 100/2.0 could be a good starting point. IQ-wise is the same as 85/1.8. Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain.

Today we look at the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 IS for the Canon EOS R. Does this lens beat out the legendary EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II? Does this lens beat out the legendary EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II? SUBSCRIBE to The primary reason is price. However, rebate can affect the price comparison significantly. With the current instant rebates in place, the 17-40mm f/4L is only $250.00 less expensive than its 16-35 f/4L IS counterpart. Many will appreciate the 16-35 f/4L IS's benefits for the difference in price. But again, if money is really tight, the 17-40mm Z2T3.
  • orvsxvy895.pages.dev/109
  • orvsxvy895.pages.dev/497
  • orvsxvy895.pages.dev/119
  • orvsxvy895.pages.dev/383
  • orvsxvy895.pages.dev/158
  • orvsxvy895.pages.dev/169
  • orvsxvy895.pages.dev/209
  • orvsxvy895.pages.dev/442

    • canon 24 70 f4 vs f2 8