24-70 / 4L IS II

Why do you assume that the current 24-70/4 IS is that much worse compared to the 24-70/2.8 II? As I see it differences are marginal and mostly copy relevant.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Hard to believe, Doc, since, as you know, the 24-70II gets even better stopped down. PZ and DPReview tests are in disagreement with your assertion.

Not to mention TDP which shows that 50mm is the worst FL for the f/4 and much softer than the 24-70II. It manages to stay softer even at f/8 and that is true for all copies tested there (but the second one is very close). I considered this lens but saw no reason to get it.

timotale wrote:

halfwaythere wrote:

Why do you assume that the current 24-70/4 IS is that much worse compared to the 24-70/2.8 II? As I see it differences are marginal and mostly copy relevant.

have a look here.

2.8II

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

4IS

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1

That's one copy of each lens which hardly relevant and compelling.

The-digital-picture.com has tested 4 copies of the 2.8 II and 3 copies of the 4 IS and except for a slight difference in corner sharpness there's very little in it:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

halfwaythere wrote:

timotale wrote:

halfwaythere wrote:

Why do you assume that the current 24-70/4 IS is that much worse compared to the 24-70/2.8 II? As I see it differences are marginal and mostly copy relevant.

have a look here.

2.8II

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

4IS

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1

That's one copy of each lens which hardly relevant and compelling.

The-digital-picture.com has tested 4 copies of the 2.8 II and 3 copies of the 4 IS and except for a slight difference in corner sharpness there's very little in it:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Switch to 50mm now, which is the reason this is discussed here. The compare the vignetting even to the 24-105.

J A C S wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Hard to believe, Doc, since, as you know, the 24-70II gets even better stopped down. PZ and DPReview tests are in disagreement with your assertion.

Not to mention TDP which shows that 50mm is the worst FL for the f/4 and much softer than the 24-70II. It manages to stay softer even at f/8 and that is true for all copies tested there (but the second one is very close). I considered this lens but saw no reason to get it.

The biggest competition for the 24-70/4 IS is the 24-104/4 IS not the 24-70/2.8 II. As far as I can see it the pseudo-macro capability is the only reason to get one over the 24-105/4.

In the end I think it all boils down to copy variance and photographic needs. No amount of IS is ever going to compensate the difference between F/2.8 and F/4 when your subjects are moving and the light gets really low.

The jury is still out on the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 VR but it doesn't look very good so far and I'm not sure why would someone buy an optically compromised 24-70/2.8 II IS for stills only. However I can see the benefits for video work.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

The case against a 24-105mm lens

The problem from my own narrow personal perspective, buster, is that 105mm is not long enough for travel, the only reason I would lug around a 24-105/4 lens. This raises the issue of what telephoto zoom to couple it with at the long end, and unfortunately all L options are too large and/or heavy for travel, or offer too much overlap as in the case of the 70-200/4 zooms.

The case against a 24-70/4 lens

This one is simple. The 24-70II is just too good at f/2.8, and even better at f/4.

There is a good case for a stellar 24-70/4 IS, which was the OP's question but the existing one is not that.

halfwaythere wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Hard to believe, Doc, since, as you know, the 24-70II gets even better stopped down. PZ and DPReview tests are in disagreement with your assertion.

Not to mention TDP which shows that 50mm is the worst FL for the f/4 and much softer than the 24-70II. It manages to stay softer even at f/8 and that is true for all copies tested there (but the second one is very close). I considered this lens but saw no reason to get it.

The biggest competition for the 24-70/4 IS is the 24-104/4 IS not the 24-70/2.8 II. As far as I can see it the pseudo-macro capability is the only reason to get one over the 24-105/4.

Yes.  That 0.7x (1:1.4) max magnification is pretty cool!

In the end I think it all boils down to copy variance and photographic needs. No amount of IS is ever going to compensate the difference between F/2.8 and F/4 when your subjects are moving and the light gets really low.

I don't think anyone denies the value of an extra stop, either in terms of shallow DOF or noise for dynamic scenes in low light.  But size, weight, price, IS, and magnification can all trump one extra stop.

The jury is still out on the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 VR but it doesn't look very good so far and I'm not sure why would someone buy an optically compromised 24-70/2.8 II IS for stills only. However I can see the benefits for video work.

Another possibility is a 24-70 / 2.8-4L IS to complement the 70-300 / 4-5.6L IS.

J A C S wrote:

halfwaythere wrote:

timotale wrote:

halfwaythere wrote:

Why do you assume that the current 24-70/4 IS is that much worse compared to the 24-70/2.8 II? As I see it differences are marginal and mostly copy relevant.

have a look here.

2.8II

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

4IS

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1

That's one copy of each lens which hardly relevant and compelling.

The-digital-picture.com has tested 4 copies of the 2.8 II and 3 copies of the 4 IS and except for a slight difference in corner sharpness there's very little in it:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Switch to 50mm now, which is the reason this is discussed here. The compare the vignetting even to the 24-105.

...from the 24-70 / 4L IS at 50mm f/4 for all three copies tested.  Even the 24-105 / 4L IS fared better.  Thus the point of this poll:  would anyone be interested in a 24-70 / 4L IS II that performed at least as well as the 24-70 / 2.8L II stop for stop if the size, weight, and price were closer to the current version than the 2.8L II?

Great Bustard wrote:

J A C S wrote:

halfwaythere wrote:

timotale wrote:

halfwaythere wrote:

Why do you assume that the current 24-70/4 IS is that much worse compared to the 24-70/2.8 II? As I see it differences are marginal and mostly copy relevant.

have a look here.

2.8II

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

4IS

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1

That's one copy of each lens which hardly relevant and compelling.

The-digital-picture.com has tested 4 copies of the 2.8 II and 3 copies of the 4 IS and except for a slight difference in corner sharpness there's very little in it:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Switch to 50mm now, which is the reason this is discussed here. The compare the vignetting even to the 24-105.

...from the 24-70 / 4L IS at 50mm f/4 for all three copies tested. Even the 24-105 / 4L IS fared better. Thus the point of this poll: would anyone be interested in a 24-70 / 4L IS II that performed at least as well as the 24-70 / 2.8L II stop for stop if the size, weight, and price were closer to the current version than the 2.8L II?

No. Instead I'd probably be interested in a sharper and more consistent copy to copy 24-105/4 IS II. 70mm is just too short to be a true all-round solution while F/4 is too slow for event work.

I don't see who would buy a 24-70/4 IS II at F/2.8 weight and money even if the sharpness is there.

halfwaythere wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

J A C S wrote:

halfwaythere wrote:

timotale wrote:

halfwaythere wrote:

Why do you assume that the current 24-70/4 IS is that much worse compared to the 24-70/2.8 II? As I see it differences are marginal and mostly copy relevant.

have a look here.

2.8II

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

4IS

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1

That's one copy of each lens which hardly relevant and compelling.

The-digital-picture.com has tested 4 copies of the 2.8 II and 3 copies of the 4 IS and except for a slight difference in corner sharpness there's very little in it:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Switch to 50mm now, which is the reason this is discussed here. The compare the vignetting even to the 24-105.

...from the 24-70 / 4L IS at 50mm f/4 for all three copies tested. Even the 24-105 / 4L IS fared better. Thus the point of this poll: would anyone be interested in a 24-70 / 4L IS II that performed at least as well as the 24-70 / 2.8L II stop for stop if the size, weight, and price were closer to the current version than the 2.8L II?

No. Instead I'd probably be interested in a sharper and more consistent copy to copy 24-105/4 IS II. 70mm is just too short to be a true all-round solution while F/4 is too slow for event work.

OK.

I don't see who would buy a 24-70/4 IS II at F/2.8 weight and money even if the sharpness is there.

That wasn't the premise, though, was it?  In fact, I *specifically stated* that the size, weight, and cost of the proposed 24-70 / 4L IS II would be closer to the current lens than the 24-70 / 2.8L II.

I voted "yes" and I see that so far, the majority voted that way. I would gladly trade the extra reach of the 24-105 for a more efficient IS with the IQ of the 16-35/4, for example, and better 24mm. The current one does have better 24mm and IS but disappoints overall.