jcolwell Online Upload & Sell: On
|
Schlotkins wrote:
I always think about getting this lens. It's not that much heavier than the 24-70 f4 IS, but I feel like as a more landscape than portrait guy I'd miss the IS more than I'd miss 2.8.
Chris
It's hard to say...
I guess it depends at least partly on where a tripod fits into your landscape photography.
I tend to use my L zooms for both landscape and portrait (well, and event/people) photography. I replaced the 16-35/2.8L II with a 16-35/4L IS because I often stopped down the f/2.8 (even in low light) to get deeper DOF (i.e. whole room), and often used it handheld in low light. In this case, the benefit of f/4 IS outweighed that of f/2.8. Plus, (for both lenses on a tripod) the f/4L IS has better IQ at the edges and corners, at common apertures.
At longer focal lengths, I intend to keep both the 70-200/2.8L IS II and 70-200/4L IS until Canon produces something better (which might not happen). In this case, the size and weight of the lenses is the big difference, as both have excellent IQ. For any particular situation, my choice between these two lenses is usually based on weight and size. While keeping in mind that the f/2.8 does make a nice difference for 'portraits', as it has more isolation, and it has better bokeh at common apertures. Also, it works better with extenders.
In between, where the 24-70mm zooms lie, I'm not so sure. I currently use the 24-70/2.8L II. For 'landscape' photos (using a tripod) this lens is most excellent. I haven't tried the 24-70/4L IS because in situations where I want IS, I often use the 16-35/4L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS II (on two cameras). I haul out the 24-70/2.8L to replace the 16-35/4L IS when I'm shooting events/people in close quarters, like after "the event" has finished.
After getting a 1DX a few years ago, I sold my 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L because I didn't use them for shallow DOF; I used them to keep shutter speeds up without boosting ISO too high. The 1DX high ISO performance is so good (as is the 6D), that I was happy with the results from my 16-35/2.8L II (at that time) and 24-70/2.8L II, as compared to the wide, fast primes. Since then, I've replaced the 16-35/2.8L II with the 16-35/4L IS for the reasons mentioned earlier, and also enabled by the better high ISO performance of the 1DX and 6D. Coming from f/1.4 wide primes, I just can't see myself giving up the f/2.8 at 24-70mm.
OTOH, when I want the ultimate landscape IQ performance from a wide to short telephoto zoom lens (on a tripod), f/3.4 will do.
|