24-70 / 4L IS II

Let's say Canon were to release a 24-70 / 4L IS II that was every bit as good as (or better than0 the 24-70 / 2.8L II stop for stop at all focal lengths, had a maximum magnification of 1:2, and was roughly the same size, weight, and build as the current 24-70 / 4L IS.

Assuming you have a desire for a zoom in this range, would you buy this lens if it cost the same as the 24-70 / 2.8L II?

I have the 24-70mm f4.0L IS and like it very much.  But 70mm is often not long enough, so I'll eventually either get the Sigma 24-105 Art lens or the Canon 24-105mm f4.0L IS II. I'm waiting for the Canon lens release in August and a few reviews to flow in before deciding on one or the other.

For the same price? No way.  Actually I wouldn't ever bother with a 24-70 unless I was getting 2.8 or better.  If I am going with f4 then the range of a 24-105 or better yet like Nikon 24-135 sounds better.

I gave up long back on the 24-105! and got the 24-70. 2.8II  and later the 24-70 f4.  I have used them extensivly on assignments and stock-photography. The 24-70 f4 is way better then the 2.8 version at the wider ends like 24, 28, 35.

The new 24-105 II, nope not for me. There is just something about wide-normal zoom lenses, the more focal lengths incorporated the less quality. Dont trust it!

If a 24-70/4L IS II cost the same as a 24-70/2.8L II, I would take twice the light all day and all night long. IS is only useful for non-moving subjects, and long focal lengths.

JackM wrote:

If a 24-70/4L IS II cost the same as a 24-70/2.8L II, I would take twice the light all day and all night long. IS is only useful for non-moving subjects, and long focal lengths.

Only if I needed the extra light/ night. If not then whats the point?

clager wrote:

JackM wrote:

If a 24-70/4L IS II cost the same as a 24-70/2.8L II, I would take twice the light all day and all night long. IS is only useful for non-moving subjects, and long focal lengths.

Only if I needed the extra light/ night. If not then whats the point?

More DOF control and AF works better with f/2.8.

J A C S wrote:

clager wrote:

JackM wrote:

If a 24-70/4L IS II cost the same as a 24-70/2.8L II, I would take twice the light all day and all night long. IS is only useful for non-moving subjects, and long focal lengths.

Only if I needed the extra light/ night. If not then whats the point?

BTW, what is wrong with non-moving subjects?

Nothing depending on your type of photography while another person might prefer a type of photography with moving subjects.  I mostly fall into the latter but also into the former.  As a result I would rather have the aperture over the stabilization in most applications for me.  YMMV...

I have the 24-70 2.8 ii and I'm not exactly the most stable person. However I tested myself using it vs the 24-105 with IS at low shutter speeds, not supper low. But stuff like 1/50 1/30. And I couldn't see any difference. I wouldn't ever shoot at a shutter speed lower than that except for my Landscapes which are HDR so it's on a tripod. It seems to only make a difference on longer lenses for me.

This will change with the more megapixels we get but as of now I'd keep the one I have.

Plus, if Canon does it, hopefully they wait until they can do it right. Nikon put out their 24-70 2.8 with VR and it's not as sharp, not that the one they had was that sharp anyway. But now its even less sharp and heavier and in the 24-70 range most people aren't benefitting from IS unless it's video or if you really do go around shooting non moving subjects at 1/15 a second.

I'm a pixel peeper too. I want sharpness at 1:1 and it just never benefits me.

With higher megapixel cameras it does. Because I noticed it on the A7R when I owned it. The original one without IBIS. I had to use faster shutter speeds to hand hold it. Or else if I made a crop or a large print you could see it.

Some people completely deny that the issue exist. One time I said that on a YouTube video and a guy said, "Just stop... You heard that online and that rumor is not true." However, at the time I noticed it with my own eyes I had heard nothing about it online. Didn't even cross my mind when buying a 36 megapixel camera.

So, as we go up in megapixels, either Canon will have to introduce more IS lenses that can resolve even more detail than the ones now, or they will have to come up with something, like IBIS, maybe an even better version of it.

Especially when it gets to the 75 megapixel range.

Technology is moving so fast we'll probably be shooting 250 megapixels 6 or 7 years from now.

Lenses might not be as big of an investment as they used to be. Because I don't know how our current lenses are going to work with 75 megapixel cameras. And I'm sure the next 5DSR mark ii will probably be 60 or 70 megapixels.

I kinda wish technology would slow down and 50 megapixels could be perfected. It'd be nice if we could have 50 megapixel cameras that had the ISO performance of an A7S with 6K video and still more power to go.

But of course we never get anything perfected because it has to keep moving on.