Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 24-70/4 - love it or leave it?  (Read 1748 times)
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« on: March 17, 2013, 02:19:11 AM »
ReplyReply

The photozone.de review about this lens is a mixed bag.

On one side they write that the lens is almost equal, sometimes even better than the 24-70/2.8.

And then they downgrade it for that focus issue that when you focus on a certain spot and then change the focal length, you have to refocus (focus shift).

It also mentions that the bookeh isn't the greatest.

And the price is sky high.

I'm still considering it (just in case I stay with Canon), as the 24-105/4 doesn't seem to be sharp enough for me.

The 24-70/2.8 doesn't have IS - a bummer if you also shoot landscape (not to forget the extra $ 600).

Do you own this lens?

How do you like it?

Is the bookeh really so meh-meh?

Do you think the focus shift is a problem (I wouldn't think so, as I always focus after a change in focal lenght).

Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1826



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2013, 01:06:13 PM »
ReplyReply

"The 24-70/2.8 doesn't have IS - a bummer if you also shoot landscape (not to forget the extra $ 600)."

If you are shooting landscapes , you are far better off relying on a tripod than on IS to make sharp pictures.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2013, 07:48:09 PM by Ellis Vener » Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2013, 01:25:16 PM »
ReplyReply

"he 24-70/2.8 doesn't have IS - a bummer if you also shoot landscape (not to forget the extra $ 600)."

If you are shooting landscapes , you are far better off relying on a tripod than on IS to make sharp pictures.

There are many instances where IS helps. There are many instances where a tripod is a problem.

Both are useful.

I'm guessing the choice of a zoom for landscape is in large part due to keeping the kit simple for long hikes or climbing trees etc...
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2013, 02:32:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Take a look at this test also http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4L-IS-USM-The-ideal-standard-zoom

My experience is that it is always a good idea to refocus when you zoom a zoom lens. Focus shift is a different issue of change of focus when the lens is stopped down compared to fully open. A DSLR like the Canon will focus with the lens fully open so if you shoot at e.g. f/8 on a f/2.8 lens the focal plane may have shifted slightly on some lenses. That's focus shift.

For landscape shooting I wouldn't both about IS although nice to have. You will experience that not every shot is pixel sharp if you shoot e.g. 3-4 stops under a shutter speed that you could hand hold without IS. A tripod is needed in any case also for precise composition.
Logged

Ellis Vener
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1826



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2013, 07:50:44 PM »
ReplyReply

"A tripod is needed in any case also for precise composition."

There are two other things a tripod is excellent for:
- getting your hands free

- let your body relax so you can think about what and whaty and how you ar doing it more clearly without the physical strain of being a camera support.
Logged

Ellis Vener
http://www.ellisvener.com
Creating photographs for advertising, corporate and industrial clients since 1984.
Clyde RF
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2013, 09:55:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I realize that I lack the professional experience of most of the folks using this very knowledgeable web sight, and am little tuned in on certain other aspects of photography, with their relevant requirements, but while doing landscape, I am always a bit boggled by the frequent emphasis upon a necessity for having image stabilization. I would never consider shooting without a tripod for a number of reasons, (mostly already mentioned above), and personally perceive image stabilization to be a nuisance to be avoided whenever possible.

In my view, it adds totally unnecessary extra weight, complexity, and cost. Additionally, I find it difficult to believe that the constant movement of internal lens elements will not be a factor causing sooner degradation of the increasingly demanding specs of modern digital lenses.

I was delighted to find out that the Canon 24-70 2.8 ll was not stabilized; this is a factor which causes me to seriously consider it as a future purchase. If I were ever to need a fast 85, I would prefer the unstabilized Nikon 1.4 to the stabilized Canon 1.2., even though I would need an adapter for use on Canon cameras.

The Canon T/S 24 ll would appear to be an incredible lens, which I would prefer over any 24-70. I am fine being perceived as a Luddite, and very fine with the fact that the 24 T/S is not auto-focus. Medium format digital and large format are hardly suffering from any lack of bells and whistles, (excepting mf's need for cmos live view). Please!!--no forthcoming re-enactment of the small format vs medium format discussion.       




       
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2013, 10:07:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Take a look at this test also http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4L-IS-USM-The-ideal-standard-zoom

My experience is that it is always a good idea to refocus when you zoom a zoom lens. Focus shift is a different issue of change of focus when the lens is stopped down compared to fully open. A DSLR like the Canon will focus with the lens fully open so if you shoot at e.g. f/8 on a f/2.8 lens the focal plane may have shifted slightly on some lenses. That's focus shift.

For landscape shooting I wouldn't both about IS although nice to have. You will experience that not every shot is pixel sharp if you shoot e.g. 3-4 stops under a shutter speed that you could hand hold without IS. A tripod is needed in any case also for precise composition.

I'm not sure if their clinical approach to test lens quality has any merit.

They basically count lines and the more lines they count, the sharper is the lens.

There are things like microcontrast that is very important, and, more so, subjective/human considerations.

I have seen DxO mark rate cheap, 3rd party lenses higher than Zeiss lenses.

Photozone.de may also pixelpeepers, but they seem to include subjective impressions into their ratings.

The way the human eye sees and how to get a lens to see like that is an art in itself, and there's a reason why Zeiss can ask for these incredible prices.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Clyde RF
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2013, 10:32:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry folks. I called it wrong on the Canon 85 1.2 L ll. It is not image stabilized. I erroneously assumed it was, because of it's considerably greater 1.2 weight and cost over the Nikon 1.4 G. While I apologize for any irrelevancies to the post, I don't want to knowingly put forth any incorrect information.     
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad