EF 24-70 2.8L MK1 v 24-70 F4 IS Image quality

I'd always favour an IS lens if available (the Mk II was too good to resist though). But... it strikes me that the 5Ds is probably more intended for landscape (tripod) and studio (flash) shooters.

I wouldn't be surprised to see more and more IS lenses though, as you note.

There is always the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC (IS in Tamron speak)

It was the compromise I went with.
Sharpness getting close to the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L MkII, better than the MkI (which i still own, will be selling soon) f/2.8 and IS.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17690185
There is always the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC (IS in Tamron speak)

It was the compromise I went with.
Sharpness getting close to the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L MkII, better than the MkI (which i still own, will be selling soon) f/2.8 and IS.

The tamron may be a good option, I've heard some good reports about it....thanks..

I've just been agonising over this for the last week. I've had the 24-105 f/4L IS for years and it's been great but I've been increasingly noticing the softer edges on landscapes and wanted to upgrade to a higher quality mid-range zoom. Also, I found that I don't use focal lengths over 70mm that often. I sold a bunch of gear and was about the splurge on the 24-70 f/2.8L II but the lack of IS really bothered me, so I'm about to pick up a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC in the next day or so, and with the saving I'm also getting a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art!

The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS has a macro mode which is interesting but it seems the quality isn't a huge step up from the 24-105 f/4 and it's more expensive than the Tamron, although a bit lighter.

The weight of the Tamron is an issue, however it's performance (from reviews) is great at f/4 and above, and good in the centre at f/2.8, with good stabilization. I don't like the Tamron's bokeh at f2.8 on highlights, it's can display some onion rings, but I think I can emotionally handle it thanks to the 35 f/1.4 Art... I'll be testing it out this weekend.

malcolmp wrote in post #17690930
I've just been agonising over this for the last week. I've had the 24-105 f/4L IS for years and it's been great but I've been increasingly noticing the softer edges on landscapes and wanted to upgrade to a higher quality mid-range zoom. Also, I found that I don't use focal lengths over 70mm that often. I sold a bunch of gear and was about the splurge on the 24-70 f/2.8L II but the lack of IS really bothered me, so I'm about to pick up a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC in the next day or so, and with the saving I'm also getting a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art!

The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS has a macro mode which is interesting but it seems the quality isn't a huge step up from the 24-105 f/4 and it's more expensive than the Tamron, although a bit lighter.

The weight of the Tamron is an issue, however it's performance (from reviews) is great at f/4 and above, and good in the centre at f/2.8, with good stabilization. I don't like the Tamron's bokeh at f2.8 on highlights, it's can display some onion rings, but I think I can emotionally handle it thanks to the 35 f/1.4 Art... I'll be testing it out this weekend.

If you have your shots in Lightroom you can look at the metadata to see if you really need IS.

When I looked at my shots in the 24-70 FF range (I was moving from a 7D to a 5D3) I realised that almost all my shots were above the 1/focal length "rule" - despite owning an IS lens for the 7D.

Shots that were slower were generally landscape or night images - all tripod mounted. Hence I felt the 24-70II would be OK; and it has been.

The Tamron and 35A is a good compromise package though: Tamron for general purpose use, will be good stopped down for landscapes at 24mm, shallow DOF possible at longer focal lengths, is stabilised. 35A for shallow DOF wide angle portraits.

malcolmp wrote in post #17690930
I've just been agonising over this for the last week. I've had the 24-105 f/4L IS for years and it's been great but I've been increasingly noticing the softer edges on landscapes and wanted to upgrade to a higher quality mid-range zoom. Also, I found that I don't use focal lengths over 70mm that often. I sold a bunch of gear and was about the splurge on the 24-70 f/2.8L II but the lack of IS really bothered me.

Malcom.
Like you, having used the 24-105 f/4 L IS for several years, I am looking to add a 24-70 to my arsenal. While I do love the extended reach of the 24-105, the distortion on the short is apparent on a full frame 5D Mark III etc.
For my old 7D, the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 L IS was the clear choice for a top end Standard Zoom for crop sensor bodies. Sharp images, f/2.8 and Image Stabilization. A no brainier.
Now that Nikon has released their own 24-70 f/2.8 with Vibration Reduction, (IS) Canon is now the only major manufacturer not to have a 24-70 Standard Zoom with f/2.8 AND Image Stabilization.
This is why I still go back and forth on the 24-70 addition. There is no clear choice for me.
Maybe, just maybe Canon will introduce a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS.........

malcolmp wrote in post #17690930
I've just been agonising over this for the last week. I've had the 24-105 f/4L IS for years and it's been great but I've been increasingly noticing the softer edges on landscapes and wanted to upgrade to a higher quality mid-range zoom. Also, I found that I don't use focal lengths over 70mm that often. I sold a bunch of gear and was about the splurge on the 24-70 f/2.8L II but the lack of IS really bothered me, so I'm about to pick up a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC in the next day or so, and with the saving I'm also getting a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art!

The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS has a macro mode which is interesting but it seems the quality isn't a huge step up from the 24-105 f/4 and it's more expensive than the Tamron, although a bit lighter.

The weight of the Tamron is an issue, however it's performance (from reviews) is great at f/4 and above, and good in the centre at f/2.8, with good stabilization. I don't like the Tamron's bokeh at f2.8 on highlights, it's can display some onion rings, but I think I can emotionally handle it thanks to the 35 f/1.4 Art... I'll be testing it out this weekend.

Let us know the results you get from the Tamron, I am leaning toward that lens myself now....

I did a bit more than look at Lightroom, I geeked out and exported the exif data from my latest holiday snaps using exiftools and then imported them into Tableau , which I usually use for work. The holiday was in Europe with a mix of street photography, Alps and indoor palaces/churches etc. I basically had the 5D Mark III on Av mode and just snapped away not worrying about shutter speed because of the IS.

Nick5 wrote in post #17691120
Malcom.
Now that Nikon has released their own 24-70 f/2.8 with Vibration Reduction, (IS) Canon is now the only major manufacturer not to have a 24-70 Standard Zoom with f/2.8 AND Image Stabilization.
This is why I still go back and forth on the 24-70 addition. There is no clear choice for me.
Maybe, just maybe Canon will introduce a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS.........

I really loved the 17-55 f/2.8 IS as well. It's been tricky to get that quality back on full frame in the mid-range with IS. I assume Canon will come out with a 24-70 f/2.8L IS, but it will be more expensive than the current non-IS one, and it will be heavier. The Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR is on pre-order in Australia for $3000 and it weights over 1kg!

While I do sometimes use my gear for work it's not a primary income source, so the cost of the hypothetical 24-70 f/2.8 IS at around AU$3000 would be pretty steep for me to justify. If the Tamron doesn't work out I will probably go for the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS ($1000, 600g) which is at least sharp across the frame and close to the f/2.8L stopped down (except at 50mm apparently). I am trying to control this addiction — at least until Canon release the 50mm f/1.2L II, then I'm going to be in trouble...

malcolmp wrote in post #17692145
I did a bit more than look at Lightroom, I geeked out and exported the exif data from my latest holiday snaps using exiftools and then imported them into Tableau , which I usually use for work. The holiday was in Europe with a mix of street photography, Alps and indoor palaces/churches etc. I basically had the 5D Mark III on Av mode and just snapped away not worrying about shutter speed because of the IS.

Hosted photo: posted by malcolmp in
./showthread.php?p=176​92145&i=i260220765
forum: Canon Lenses

The image attached is a chart of the focal lengths of about 1000 shots, against the log of the shutter speed (just to spread them out). I've put back some of the shutter speed labels just so you don't have to back calculate. I then added an indicator 'IS Required' to highlight in orange if the shutter speed was < 1/(focal length * 2).

The summary is that about 35% of my shots fell into the 'IS required' category, and only about 7% were over 70mm. If I use 1/focal length then it's about 10% of the shots. I find the hit rate with 1/focal length a bit low when I'm on holiday and not trying to steady each shot. As much I enjoy the convenience of the 24-105 I am frustrated by its soft edges. So the evidence is pretty clear that I should get something with IS!

Interestingly I discovered using this kind of analysis as a basis for updating my lenses is not as compelling to my wife as I thought it would be...

What about ISO?......if ISO had been on auto or in a range that would have affected the shutter speeds used then the stats used for making a lens with IS vs Non IS buying decison may not be correct .. ......An example...If you had iso fixed at 100 and it was low light and aperture was fixed then meter will force shutter speed down lower than it should have gone becuse of low ISO used .....And if ISO had been set in a band of say 100-400 Set by way of in camera menu setting) then same thing happens except shutter doesnt go as low as if it was on a fixed 100. but still moves 2 stops when it may have not had to move lower given 1200ISO may have been ok to use... ....And then what about influence the Auto ISO setting has? Surely that will also affect shutter speeds finally chosen for scene?... Im not sure if SHutter speed takes priority over auto ISO in correctly metering for the scene however that will influence shutter speeds because ISO and shutter in Aperture Priority mode are the values that change .......So Im not sure whether any stats are meaningfull if the ISO /Shutter configurations were not taken into consideration for determining that the shutter speed used was necessarily the best available for ISvsNon IS range comparison

Having said the above one could argue the stats are meaningful given they show how how the user is operating the camera accoring to his/her style ....In this instance it would appear users decision to choose a new lens is based piurely on a final shutter speed/lens focal point used with out regard for theISO used....If it was me I would want to know that I had exhausted all reasonable ISO settings before adjusting to a lower shutter speed and then when I had that info I would know the final shutter speeds used were ok to use to make a lens purchase decision


Clipper

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #17692177
What about ISO?......if ISO had been on auto or in a range that would have affected the shutter speeds used then the stats used for making a lens with IS vs Non IS buying decison may not be correct ...

Having said the above one could argue the stats are meaningful given they show how how the user is operating the camera accoring to his/her style ....In this instance it would appear users decision to choose a new lens is based piurely on a final shutter speed/lens focal point used with out regard for theISO used....If it was me I would want to know that I had exhausted all reasonable ISO settings before adjusting to a lower shutter speed and then when I had that info I would know the final shutter speeds used were ok to use to make a lens purchase decision

Clipper

That is a good point. I did another graph (ok, I like playing with data...) Below splits the data by 'IS Required' which is true when 1/(focal length*2) < shutter speed. The top bar graph shows where the shutter speed was fine for the focal length, the lower shows the pictures at risk without IS. The ISO is represented by colors, where the orange color starts at ISO 1250 as shown by the tooltip. The dark red is ISO 12800, the dark green is ISO 100.

malcolmp wrote in post #17692300
That is a good point. I did another graph (ok, I like playing with data...) Below splits the data by 'IS Required' which is true when 1/(focal length*2) < shutter speed. The top bar graph shows where the shutter speed was fine for the focal length, the lower shows the pictures at risk without IS. The ISO is represented by colors, where the orange color starts at ISO 1250 as shown by the tooltip. The dark red is ISO 12800, the dark green is ISO 100.

Hosted photo: posted by malcolmp in
./showthread.php?p=176​92300&i=i34520878
forum: Canon Lenses

The auto ISO moves up to the configurable max, which I have left at 12,800. So the ISO wasn't set at 100. However, the following graph shows I could do more to reduce the need for IS:

Hosted photo: posted by malcolmp in
./showthread.php?p=176​92300&i=i250575788
forum: Canon Lenses

This shows the subset of data for 'IS Required', and shows that I could have opened up the lens more, however I wasn't really considering it at the time and I would set the aperture by the photo I was trying to get. I could also set the minimum shutter speed in the auto ISO settings of course.

Basically, when travelling 90% of the shots I don't want to have to think too hard about about the settings. I don't use video very often on the 5D Mark III but the IS obviously helps for those occasions. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get the Canon, in fact the Tamron and Sigma will be the first non-Canon glass I've purchased for about 5 years, but if the Tamron lives up to it's claims then it's a good deal. I'll be playing with the Tamron tomorrow!

Malcolm

Interesting analysis!

Clipper

So I've owned a 2006 Vintage 24-70 2.8 for a few years now and just recently got a 24-70 F4.

I wanted something lighter and smaller to replace the 2.8 I brought for podium shots at races where I typically used f5-f7.1.

My only disappointment with the 24-70 f4 are shots at 70mm but about 1' from the front element. They are soft. This does not fall under my use case so its a non issue for me so I will keep it. (keeping the 2.8 as well).