jcolwell Online Upload & Sell: On
|
jcolwell wrote:
I replaced my 24-70/2.8L II with the 24-70/4L IS, and I'm very happy with the decision.
pshyvers wrote:
In brief, can you share why?
Mostly, for the IS. I often shoot handheld in low light, and even with the excellent high ISO performance of my 6D cameras (and previously, 1DX), I find the three- or four-stop IS on the f/4 lens to give better results than the one-stop faster f/2.8 lens without IS. The same reasoning led me to sell my 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses, and to go from the 16-35/2.8L II to 16-35/4L IS.
I sold the 24-70/2.8L II before getting the f/4L IS, and so I haven't done head-to-head comparisons, but comparative tests with common lenses show I'm not losing anything at f/8 and infinity, where I really can't say the 24-70/4L IS (on tripod, no IS, etc.) is much different from my Zeiss ZE lenses, at 25mm, 35mm, and 50mm. I expect there will be some more obvious differences at 50 MP or 60 MP, where I hope to soon be, and so the ZE's are staying with me, for now, at least. I'm definitely keeping my 70-200/2.8L IS II, because I value the subject isolation that it provides, but often don't need that for wider angle lenses, and when I do, I use prime lenses.
Of course, another important reason for going from the 24-70/2.8L II to 24-70/4L IS was the reduction in size and weight.
|