MAC 217S and 224S Eyeshadow Brushes (Review)

If you follow MAC Cosmetics, then you may already know that several years back they made the switch to synthetic makeup brushes. Most people are not happy about that switch and the reviews of the synthetic brushes have been terrible. The only good reviews I’ve seen have come from Makeup artists and people that I assume had never tried MAC’s natural hair versions. I got the synthetic 239 brush for free in an order that I placed and I actually liked it, which led me to try these two brushes as well. I won’t be reviewing the 239S at the moment. It has been so long since I have used it, I don’t feel like I can give a good review of it right now. So I’ll have to circle back to that brush in the future.

MAC 217S Brush Review vs MAC 217 Natural Goat Hair Brush
MAC 217 Natural Hair (left) and MAC 217S Brush (right)
Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush vs MAC 224S Brush and Review
Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush (left) and MAC 224S Brush (right)

This blog uses affiliate links (marked with **).  When you purchase through links on my site, I may earn a small commission.  Learn more here.

Keep in mind when reading through my thoughts that my natural hair MAC 217 brushes (I have 2) are about 6 years old. So some of the variations could be due to age. Also, I no longer own the natural hair version of the 224 so I’m working from memory on that comparison. I will also be comparing the 224S to my Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush** because it is the closest shape I currently own.

MAC 217S Brush Review vs MAC 217 Natural Goat Hair Brush
MAC 217 Natural Hair (left) and MAC 217S Brush (right)

MAC 217 Synthetic Blending Brush, $28.00**

The 217S deposits more color than the natural hair version but still blends smoothly and easily. I have to admit, I like it. In fairness, they should have numbered the brush something totally different. In my opinion, it just isn’t cut similar enough to ever have performed even close to the original 217. The natural hair version is softer (as it should be) but the synthetic version isn’t rough or scratchy.

MAC 217S Brush Review vs MAC 217 Natural Goat Hair Brush
MAC 217 Natural Hair (left) and MAC 217S Brush (right)

The 217 Synthetic brush is thicker and denser than the natural hair 217. The ferrule of the original 217 is also more pinched. As you can see in the above picture, the 217S (right) has more density and is more rounded. In the picture below, you can see the slimmer and more pinched ferrule of the original 217 brush (left). Please forgive the dirty brush, life happens. But that does remind me, this brush doesn’t stain, it returns to the original shape and color after washing.

MAC 217S Brush Review vs MAC 217 Natural Goat Hair Brush
Side view: MAC 217 Natural Hair (left) and MAC 217S Brush (right)

The 217S also performs just a little differently than other targeted crease brushes that I would reach for. For example, the Sonia G Classic Crease Brush ($34) gives more definition right in the crease but softens the edges at the same time. The 217S deposits more color than the Sonia G Classic Crease and then more blending is necessary to soften the edges.

Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush vs MAC 224S Brush and Review
Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush (left) and MAC 224S Brush (right)

MAC 224 Synthetic Tapered Blending Brush, $33.00**

I purchased and decluttered two different 224 brushes in the past because I always found them to be scratchy. On the other hand, I don’t find the new 224S to be scratchy at all. The synthetic 224 keeps a tighter shape during use, so it doesn’t spread color too far like the natural hair did for me. The natural hair 224 really gave a blown-out effect and the stiffness of this version just doesn’t move eyeshadow very much. If you are looking for precise placement in the crease, this could be a good thing, but I can see the stiff movement being a turn-off for some.

MAC 224S Brush Review and Compared to Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush
Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush (left) and MAC 224S Brush (right)

I like the Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush** (left in the above picture) better aesthetically and the cut of the brush is smoother resulting in a softer feel on the skin and a smoother blend. Again, I don’t think the MAC brush is scratchy, but it is stiff and not as soft as the Smashbox brush. In fact, even my Sonia Kashuk blending crease brush is softer and that is only $6 at Target. I’ve been a fan of the Smashbox brushes for years now and posted a full review last year. For more information, you can check that review out by clicking here.

Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush vs MAC 224S Brush and Review
Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush (left) and MAC 224S Brush (right)

As you can see in the picture above, the MAC 224S is more tapered than the Smashbox brush, so it is better for more detailed crease work. It may also be nice if you just happen to have less crease space. It is functional, but for $33.00 I feel like it should be softer and less stiff.

Final Thoughts

These brushes are decent enough, but to me, they aren’t worth the money. They both wash well and I haven’t experienced any shedding. They are sturdy brushes with nice construction. The problem is that I can say the same thing about cheaper synthetic brushes on the market.

I would pay for another 217S** if I found it for half off at a CCO, and I would maybe consider it if there was a 40% off sale. I think that if you are comparing it to the old 217 and expecting the same results, it will disappoint you. If you are judging it as a new stand-alone brush, then you might actually like it. As for the 224S**, I like my Smashbox Shadow Blending Brush better, and in comparison, it is $24 (vs $32 for the 224S). If you are patient, both Smashbox** and Macy’s** have frequent sales on the Smashbox brushes, making it an even better value.

If you enjoyed this post, please give it a like down below.  If you’d like to check out more of my content, click here for the best place to start

Disclaimer:  I purchased all products featured with my own money.  This site receives a minimal commission from participating in the WordAds program and using affiliate links.  For my full disclosure policy, click here.

4 thoughts on “MAC 217S and 224S Eyeshadow Brushes (Review)

  1. Quite a few years ago (around the time I started getting into fude and wanting to invest in higher quality brushes) I was researching what the best brush brands were and I heard nothing but amazing things about MAC brushes. So I went to the nearest MAC store which was 45 mins away and went to feel them for myself because I couldn’t decide which ones I wanted. I was so disappointed at how scratchy they felt. Then when I went back home and did even more research, that’s when I found out they switched to synthetic and that the quality wasn’t the same. I wish I was into MAC before the switch so I could know what the quality used to be like! So reading your comparison between the originals and newer ones is fascinating to me.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s so disappointing to drive all that way for that. Honestly, what I’ve tried from Sonia G is way better than any of the natural hair brushes that I had from MAC. Even if they had continued to make natural hair brushes, I’m not sure they would have done well against what is available these days. From a business perspective, I absolutely get why they didn’t drop the prices when they switched to synthetic. But I still wish they had started fresh with new shapes, new numbers, and dropped the price down.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I agree. And they may end up having to drop the price in a few years if they want to continue selling brushes considering the growing competition. MAC is quite lucky though that they have so many brand-loyal customers who have grown accustomed to their products and haven’t dabbled into other brands.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.