🪅 Canon Ef 24 70 F2 8 Vs F4

What is the difference between Sony FE 24-70mm F/4 ZA OSS Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD? Find out which is better and their overall performance in the camera lens ranking. Let's test the new Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8 lens against the EF 24-70mm F2.8 Mark II on two sets of different images. We'll look at images produced using the C Very undecided between those 2 RF 24-105 F4 or RF 24-70 F2.8 I know the 24-70 has a excellent image quality and its better in low light, but for someone who uses the lens as walk around / travel and mostly landscape photography is a good to get the 24-70? not sure if will make a big difference in landscape photography. I've owned both at the same time previously. Image quality is hard to distinguish unless you pixel peep. The RF 24-105 is significantly better than the EF version, which made choosing the 24-70 easier betweenthe EF versions. But as others have mentioned, which one you choose depends on your needs. Crop the Tamron at 180mm a little and your image will be sharper and more detailed than the Sony at 200 mm. 180 vs 200mm is so minimal difference. There is good YouTube videos on Tammy 180mm vs Sony 200mm. I'd take a 70-180mm at f/2.8 all day over a 70-200mm at f4. Wow, never knew its a bad lens, let alone one of the worse. The Tammy it is! Another is that the latest EF version of the 24-70 f/2.8 (the Mk II) can be had for about half the price of the RF version (where I am at least), so there's probably a good $1000 to be saved at the outset if they go with the EF Mk II. My 70-200mm f/4 is a heck of a lot lighter. As for the optics, the 17-55mm does have very good optics, but the 24-70mm clearly outperforms it both wide open (f/2.8) and the sharpness covers more of the frame, with sharpness dropping off 15mm from the centre of the image, whereas the 17-55mm starts dropping sharpness immediately. Do I buy the EF 24-70 f/2.8 and use it on both bodies, or do I buy an EF-S 17-55 2.8 (Sigma 18-35 f/1.8) and the RF 24-105 f/4? I use the 70-200 (with EF to RF adapter) on my main body and a short lens for my second body when shooting sports. If I buy an EF lens, I can use it for both. The cost for the EF and RF lenses is the same as the 24-70 In fact, let’s look at two shots where one is taken with a Sigma 18-35 at f/2.8 and my Canon 24-70 at f/4, so you can see the depth of field difference. Both of these shots are at 24mm focal length. Tamron’s image stabilization (VC) works exceptionally good. The Tamron had serious vignetting issues at 2.8 (along the whole zoom range). At F4 and above vignetting was no longer an issue. In the center of the frame Canon’s lens is always slightly sharper and at 24mm the edges were significantly sharper than the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI wrote: "No doubt the two Tamron lenses will give you great results." Yes, this is a fact. They some are very good. As an example I don't know if I would choose the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens over my Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens but there is no doubt I would take it over my Nikon Also the Canon 24-70 2.8 II is way out of my budget. For the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 has not so good reviews (especially regarding sharpness at 2.8). So I would think that this can be left outside of the 3. What I'm most interested is the comparison between the Canon 24-70 F4 and the Sigma 24-105 F4. aYPWS.

canon ef 24 70 f2 8 vs f4