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      
3
       4       5       end
  

Archive 2016 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?

  
 
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


Rajan Parrikar wrote:
I went through the entire thread and could not see the hyperbole you see. Where exactly did you see this hyperbole, a word you seem to bandy around?


In this thread, and in many other places in forum threads discussing such things, "bandying about" (what a fun expression!) the word hyperbole is not inappropriate at times. The thoughtful, rational, balanced, and objective approach seen in the two posts above mine provides a breath of fresh air. :-)

Dan

Edited on Jun 20, 2016 at 08:25 AM · View previous versions



Jun 20, 2016 at 08:14 AM
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


gdanmitchell wrote:
In this thread, and in many other places in forum threads discussing such things, bandying (what a lovely verb) about the word i][hyperbole is not inappropriate at times. The thoughtful, rational, balanced, and objective approach seen in the two posts above mine provides a breath of fresh air. :-)

Dan


Once again, where is the hyperbole in this thread that you claim?




Jun 20, 2016 at 08:23 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


Since the subject of this photography forum thread is the performance of lenses and not the use of the term "hyperbole" — I'm not going there, Rajan.

More to the point were the comments of those posters, one of which was mentioned by name earlier in the thread as an example of an authority who felt that the performance of the lens under discussion was poor. I welcomed his direct response and his more nuanced and positive description of the lens — which specifically agreed with the point I've been trying to make about this lens... while folks keep trying to drag the thread off to other subjects.

Dan

Edited on Jun 20, 2016 at 08:29 AM · View previous versions



Jun 20, 2016 at 08:23 AM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


Rajan Parrikar wrote:
I went through the entire thread and could not see the hyperbole you see. Where exactly did you see this hyperbole, a word you seem to bandy around?


Yes...the word gets thrown around whenever one disagrees with other opinions. Quite often it is used in an almost derogatory fashion.



Jun 20, 2016 at 08:24 AM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Since the subject of this photography forum thread is the performance of lenses and not the use of the term "hyperbole" — I'm not going there, Rajan.


Dan...YOU are the one that already went there and when called out on it...you hide.



Jun 20, 2016 at 08:25 AM
anscochrome
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


StillFingerz wrote:
Just a thought, Canon made the 24-70 f4L IS for their 'smaller' FF offering. It's perfect for the 6D much like the 24-105 was for bigger FF bodies. I think it was a smart move on their part and adding the 'macro' option (even with it's super close MFD) make it near perfect for a general purpose lens.

It's on my buy list and will probably replace my aging 24-85 (if it doesn't shine on a 6D or 6D2


Your old 24-85mm F 3.5-4.5 should work just fine on a 6D/6D2. It works fine on my 5DII-just leave some extra space to crop in a little when wide open, and you are good.



Jun 20, 2016 at 08:25 AM
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Since the subject of this photography forum thread is the performance of lenses and not the use of the term "hyperbole" — I'm not going there, Rajan.


But you have been charging that posters unnamed have indulged in hyperbole. You have even adduced some kind of chart to make your point. Now you can't tell us where exactly you saw this hyperbole in this thread?



Jun 20, 2016 at 08:25 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


Rajan Parrikar wrote:
But you have been charging that posters unnamed have indulged in hyperbole. You have even adduced some kind of chart to make your point. Now you can't tell us where exactly you saw this hyperbole in this thread?


Start a thread on hyperbole, Rajan, and perhaps I'll comment there. Like I wrote above, I'm not taking that bait in this thread.

Take care,

Dan



Jun 20, 2016 at 08:29 AM
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


gdanmitchell wrote:
Start a thread on hyperbole, Rajan, and perhaps I'll comment there. Like I wrote above, I'm not taking that bait in this thread.

Take care,

Dan


Why should I start a thread on hyperbole when you are the one making the charge? The onus is on you to provide evidence of this hyperbole in this thread.




Jun 20, 2016 at 08:35 AM
skid00skid00
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


Roger, just wanted you to know how much I appreciate the incredible amount of work you and crew have done to measure lenses. I visit the site every day (it's first in my list of sites), and get really cranky when it's been awhile since you've posted an article.

I recommend the site when people in forums ask about lens issues, performance, etc.

Thanks for sharing this oh-so-difficult to get info!



Jun 20, 2016 at 09:39 AM
claudefiddler
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


And another thing regarding the use of the Canon 24-70 f4. As a manual focus lens with the A7R11 I find it heavy and hard to handhold and hard to focus hand held using 12x magnification. It can be done of course, I just find it less than easy. I have zero experience using the lens with auto focus but if I wanted to make more hand held pictures I'd consider a lens with proven auto focus capability.

I shoot at f13 to achieve sharpness across the frame. Shooting at this aperture doesn't limit what I'm trying to do. But if I needed to work at 5.6 I'd also look into a different way to skin the cat.



Jun 20, 2016 at 09:42 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


skid00skid00 wrote:
Roger, just wanted you to know how much I appreciate the incredible amount of work you and crew have done to measure lenses...


+1! :-)

claudefiddler wrote:
And another thing regarding the use of the Canon 24-70 f4. As a manual focus lens with the A7R11 I find it heavy and hard to handhold and hard to focus hand held using 12x magnification.


Your point would be equally true (maybe more so?) with the alternatives such as the 24-105 and the f/2.8 24-70 lens. Or is your main point something about an issue you have using AF with the 24-70mm f/4 Canon lens on the Sony? (I'm afraid that I don't have any experience or other knowledge about that, though I'll bet that some others in this thread may.)

Take care,

Dan



Jun 20, 2016 at 09:59 AM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


While I agree with jcolwell rankings relatively, and I appreciate the work he put into them - I would point out that his scale is not linear and can be misleading.

Eg - is 24-105 really so much worse than 24-70v2 2.8 - I think not. The 24-105 is weak wide open everywhere and is especially weak at 24mm. But above 30mm at f8, most primes are just marginally better.

Eg. is 24-70v2 really much worse than zeiss 25/2. Not really. The 24-70v2 is very very good, approaching prime quality at 24mm af f8. Spend the extra money for zeiss if you want to shoot at f2, not at f8.

The nonlinearity of jcolwell' rankings is that a lens can just be a bit short and get number 4 everywhere, but they are not that much worse. In addition, the 24-105 can do 24-105. Zeiss 25/2 can only do 25.

The 24-70v2 is excellent in all mm ranges as long as you stay from f8-f11. It does have field curvature but if you know which way the field curvature works (concave vs convex) you pick the appropriate place to focus for the scene (edge or middle) and it will do a good jobs. The zeiss has higher micro contrast (more resolution for closer spaced items). At f8 used by someone that understands the field curvature, I doubt you could tell the difference.

My favourite tool was produced at infinity by lens rentals .com and is presented by the digital picture.com
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=787&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=780&APIComp=1&CT=AVG

So I am not disagreeing with jcolwell - just saying a zoom like 24-70 means you can avoid bring 3 lens and have near prime outcome at f8 - this does not show up in the numbers. And most qualitative statements you read here are misleading (soft in the corners applies to all lens but some only attribute to some lens = exaggerates differencs) Carrying 3 lens might make you miss the shot fussing with your gear. Its a personal choice that varies with situation.

The 24-70 v2 is a great lens if you need zoom at f8 and know how to use it. I use ts17 at f11, zeiss 25/2 at any f-stop, and 24-105 (at f8 above 30mm) and am happy with my corners even when they are printed large.



Jun 20, 2016 at 03:54 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


Scott Stoness wrote:
While I agree with jcolwell rankings relatively, ...


Hi Scott,

I agree with what you said about the scoring. Also, it's really not fair to post the numerical values for all of these lens tests, without also posting the comparison images, so readers can make up their own minds. I plan to post detailed results for each focal length (including longer than 70mm), but I haven't yet had time.

The thread that I posted last December for 24mm/25mm lens tests shows what I mean about the comparison images, and it's also the reference for the order-scoring method.

Comparison of Zeiss 25/2 ZE and Canon L lenses, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1403832

I've attached some example comparison images for a variety of focal lengths. In many cases, the difference between the 24-70/2.8L II and other lenses is more than just a little bit.

Cheers,
Jim



© jcolwell 2016


25mm, far right edge





© jcolwell 2016


35mm, left edge





© jcolwell 2016


50mm, right tower





© jcolwell 2016


70mm, centre




Jun 20, 2016 at 05:07 PM
rstoddard11
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


I bought a 24-70 f4 IS used from a friend who said similar things and bought the 24-70 II. I see no difference in our images unless we are talking the range between f2.8 and f4. Once Microadjusted, 0 on the short end and had to dial in a +7 on the long end, it shoots sharp at all focal lengths. I must say though, I'm often at 24 or 70 and my middle range shots are fewer and farther between. It is supposedly sharpest in the center at f5.6. I rarely shoot wide open but get great results at f4 at the short end. I think there are inevitable variations in all lenses. Microadjustment is an important step. I use a $5 wedge card I bought on Amazon for these purposes. I have had to microadjust every one of my lenses except the 40mm 2.8 pancake which was dead on from the factory.

That all being said, if you don't like it, you don't like it. Sometimes despite what everyone else is telling you, you just may not have the confidence in it. Go with your gut. If I was in the market for a lens, I would probably wait and see what Canon does with the rumored upgrade to the 24-105.



Jun 20, 2016 at 06:05 PM
chez
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


Thanks Jim. It's always nice to see images backing up data. Your tests reenforce why I'll use primes when shooting landscapes off a tripod.


Jun 20, 2016 at 06:44 PM
claudefiddler
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


Dan

Standing in the living room camera in hand trying to imagine keeping the composition framed the way I want then magnifying where I want the plane of focus, making sure I can handhold at the given speed, yada yada yada. I need three hands to make it all work with manual focus. But again this isn't something I do. I use a tripod. Hell I still use a viewing card.

What I was trying to say is that if I wanted (or it was important to my photography) to handhold the sony/canon I'd look at a lens and or lens camera combo that was designed to work together in autofocus. I'm ASSUMING that the adapted canon lens is not a stellar performer in autofocus mode on the sony.

I'm also such a simpleton, that I would not want to switch back and forth between AF and MF modes. Call me paranoid, but I had a friend go through A7R11 with GM 24-70 hell when his camera would not reset to manual.

I'm glad to have found a system and methodology that works and is very simple. For the most part that is!



Jun 20, 2016 at 07:30 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


That make sense to me. I can see why the ability to AF accurately and quickly on your preferred camera would be an important consideration. (That fits with my strong belief that decisions about lenses are personal, subjective, and should reflect a larger range of performance characteristics than just resolution.)

The one time I frequently have to move rapidly between AF fully automatic modes and MF fully manual modes is when I do bird photography. Quite often I have to move very quickly from a high ISO, AIServo, aV mode, handheld shooting mode to dropping the camera onto a tripod, lowering ISO, turning off AF, and more. I've practiced this and can now do it pretty quickly. (I have to do the opposite as well when I'm set up for landscape and a critter suddenly appears.)

About framing cards, I hang with some folks who rely on them a great deal. I've tried, but I get by with a combination of holding my squarishly contorted hands up and/or looking though a viewfinder. (I like the ability of the 5DsR to show me my favorite 4:3 aspect ratio on the rear screen.)

We joke that one of my friends should go into business selling his framing cards. Enough people know him by name that some might purchase his used Cramer Framer cards, and he goes through them quickly. The second part of the joke is that we propose selling two models, one for portrait orientation photographs and one for landscape orientation...

claudefiddler wrote:
Dan

Standing in the living room camera in hand trying to imagine keeping the composition framed the way I want then magnifying where I want the plane of focus, making sure I can handhold at the given speed, yada yada yada. I need three hands to make it all work with manual focus. But again this isn't something I do. I use a tripod. Hell I still use a viewing card.

What I was trying to say is that if I wanted (or it was important to my photography) to handhold the sony/canon I'd look at a lens and or lens camera
...Show more



Jun 20, 2016 at 09:18 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


claudefiddler wrote:
... Hell I still use a viewing card...


I use this.







Jun 21, 2016 at 05:31 AM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · For Landscape (f8-11) is 24-70 II really better than f4 IS?


jcolwell wrote:
Hi Scott,

I agree with what you said about the scoring. Also, it's really not fair to post the numerical values for all of these lens tests, without also posting the comparison images, so readers can make up their own minds. I plan to post detailed results for each focal length (including longer than 70mm), but I haven't yet had time.

The thread that I posted last December for 24mm/25mm lens tests shows what I mean about the comparison images, and it's also the reference for the order-scoring method.

Comparison of Zeiss 25/2 ZE and Canon L lenses, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1403832

I've attached some example
...Show more

I do not find the differences between these images at 100% (which is very high bar) dramatic. The most dramatic part is the clarity (lack of astigmatism). This is what I like about lenrentals data - it provides this on a math basis and is an average of 10 lens and shows the standard deviation of the range. But even lens rentals does not deal with where to focus optimally in the field for the curvature.

The thing to keep in mind in considering which lens is that all of these pictures were taken focussed at centre. Some lens have concave field curvature and some have a convex field curvature and some are fairly flat. If you have a concave or a convex field curvature the edges will be softer when focussed on centre. For shooting with concave or convex field curvature you either focus centre or edges to maximize sharpness across field. And sometimes concave is good because the objects on the side are closer in.

As I suggested in Jim's other post - to find the fairest image you should really focus edge and centre and pick the best that balances focus and remember which is best spot to focus. Of course we would prefer a lens that is flat but few of them are. In particular zoom's are harder to make flat because of the moving parts.

But as I said before - Jim's work was lots of work and I really appreciate it. But the answer is a bit more complicated than comparing 100% crops based on centre focus. e.g.. copy variation, field curvature, astigmatism, micro contrast, chroma.....



Jun 21, 2016 at 01:14 PM
1       2      
3
       4       5       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       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.