Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2015 · So I took the plunge! 24-70mm f/2.8L II

  
 
diverhank
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · So I took the plunge! 24-70mm f/2.8L II


When I replaced my 24-105 with 24-70ii, I got the same impression as yours. Wow. IS was never an issue.


Jun 03, 2015 at 01:33 PM
jeremy_clay
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · So I took the plunge! 24-70mm f/2.8L II


Where it doesn't shine? The damned focus ring rubber. Mine was exposed to just lightly humid weather last year, and the glue loosened and the rubber ring came off. So frustrating for such an expensive lense. The optics are top notch though.


Jun 04, 2015 at 02:49 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · So I took the plunge! 24-70mm f/2.8L II


jeremy_clay wrote:
Where it doesn't shine? The damned focus ring rubber. Mine was exposed to just lightly humid weather last year, and the glue loosened and the rubber ring came off. So frustrating for such an expensive lense. The optics are top notch though.


That's weird. Mine is often exposed to lightly humid weather. That's when it's not really humid.

I'd suspect exposure to high temperature, like in a sealed car, would be a more likely culprit.



Jun 04, 2015 at 04:09 PM
Schlotkins
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · So I took the plunge! 24-70mm f/2.8L II


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



Jun 04, 2015 at 04:36 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · So I took the plunge! 24-70mm f/2.8L II


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.



Jun 04, 2015 at 05:11 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.