24-70 f/2.8 II vs. f/4 IS

[YuengLinger]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

 

[Pookie]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

Yea, I'd go with Sporgon on this one +1000... I go handheld for panos about half the time. A tripod is nice but absolutely not necessary if you know what you're doing. Even with night shots you can do a pano if you're careful.

 

[J.R.]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

Handheld panoramas are quite easy. The only disadvantage as you quite rightly point out is the cropping because of alignment issues. Cranking up the ISO is a non-issue unless you really need a tripod for taking the shot anyway. For Bracketing / HDR, I'd agree with you that shooting handheld can get pretty shoddy with raising the ISO, but for panos, it really is a non-issue.

Nevertheless, given Sporgon's work as you can see on his website, I'm quite sure he knows what he is talking about.

 

[JonAustin]

A while back I tried the 24-70 F4 L IS against my (then) 24-105 F4 L IS and found it to be very good - possibly better than my example. however it wasn't much and certainly not enough to be worth trading lenses. More recently I tried the 24-70 F2.8 L V2 lens - oops! I shouldn't have done that! My 24-105 was promptly sold and the 24-70 F2.8 V2 bought!
Why did I go for the 24-70 L F2.8 V2 - simply because my images were better - significantly better IMO. As to the F2.8 aperture? Don't know and don't care as I rarely use lenses like this wider than F5.6. IS? - one of the attractions of this lens is that it doesn't have it. In other words I don't have an extra element in the focal path that impairs IQ and makes an already large lens (for it's range and aperture) even bigger. You might have noticed that I am not a fan of IS - even on the longest lenses it just gets in the way!
Personally I think it would be a mistake to sell the 24-70 F2.8 V2 for the F4 IS version - but that is only because I have used them and cannot see any use for IS at any focal length that I have available - 16mm to 1120mm.

Interesting point of view; thanks for sharing. I'm at the other end of the spectrum, in that only one of my seven lenses lacks IS. I've never considered it as "getting in the way," and I only rarely switch it off.

I'm on my 2nd 24-105/4L IS, and have considered replacing it with the 24-70/4L IS, but I've told myself I'm holding out for the 24-70/2.8L IS (you know it's coming!). The 24-70/4L IS refurb sale linked above is tempting, though ...

 

[Sporgon]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

OK, I was being a little abrupt, but I thought you liked straight talking and no gilding of the lily ? ( )

However I just can't see where you are coming from with the last sentence. Almost as soon as digital was created stitching programs followed, and even those early ones could cope well with rotational stitches as long as the subject wasn't too close, near nodal point, same exposure etc. Are you sure you're not printing out single frames and trying to join them together with tape ?

Lenses with the nodal point far out like the 24-70 group at short focal length were notorious for giving difficulties, but to day the good programs even deal with that, and in the case of mounting on a tripod it would only help if you had a sliding plate to get the nodal point back over the centre of rotation.

No, you certainly do not need a tripod for panos, in fact it is an area where you can use the stitching technique to produce a hand held image that's technical quality is equal to a single frame shot from a ridged tripod. In the case of a single frame the tripod does often make a difference, even at quite fast speeds, but by stitching you are getting the benefit of larger format but without the hand holding issues of a larger format. This is because the movement of each smaller frame in rotational terms is not as great as a larger format. This is then enlarged less when compared with a single frame and so any movement is not as magnified.

Also shooting freehand allows you to rotate much quicker, which can be a benefit if the light or subject is changing. Also a tripod can reduce creativity because you may miss shots from fiddling about setting up. Look at the difference in wedding photography to day. In the film days you had all those set up, formally posed shots because the tog was using a MF camera with 125 ISO film and needed a high f stop to get anything in focus and had to work on a tripod. Compare that with what we have to day and it's not all because of AF and limitless frame availability.

As a general rule of thumb I only shoot panos from a tripod if I'm limited in light for a fast speed at low(ish) ISO. If I've enough light I prefer to shoot them freehand, whereas a single frame landscape shot I would want to be from a steady tripod or platform always.

J.R. was kind enough to mention the images on my website; of all of them on there I would say about 20% are from a tripod, the others all freehand, and I think they are all pano stitches.

The situation is also changing with HDR. As many cameras now shoot so fast, and some programs are so good at 'auto align' you can produce very high quality HDR images hand held. The trick is to not allow the camera to rotate during the sequence.

 

[YuengLinger]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

Yea, I'd go with Sporgon on this one +1000... I go handheld for panos about half the time. A tripod is nice but absolutely not necessary if you know what you're doing. Even with night shots you can do a pano if you're careful.

I was trying to be helpful.

Yes, photography should be fun.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

A while back I tried the 24-70 F4 L IS against my (then) 24-105 F4 L IS and found it to be very good - possibly better than my example. however it wasn't much and certainly not enough to be worth trading lenses. More recently I tried the 24-70 F2.8 L V2 lens - oops! I shouldn't have done that! My 24-105 was promptly sold and the 24-70 F2.8 V2 bought!
Why did I go for the 24-70 L F2.8 V2 - simply because my images were better - significantly better IMO. As to the F2.8 aperture? Don't know and don't care as I rarely use lenses like this wider than F5.6. IS? - one of the attractions of this lens is that it doesn't have it. In other words I don't have an extra element in the focal path that impairs IQ and makes an already large lens (for it's range and aperture) even bigger. You might have noticed that I am not a fan of IS - even on the longest lenses it just gets in the way!
Personally I think it would be a mistake to sell the 24-70 F2.8 V2 for the F4 IS version - but that is only because I have used them and cannot see any use for IS at any focal length that I have available - 16mm to 1120mm.

Interesting point of view; thanks for sharing. I'm at the other end of the spectrum, in that only one of my seven lenses lacks IS. I've never considered it as "getting in the way," and I only rarely switch it off.

I'm on my 2nd 24-105/4L IS, and have considered replacing it with the 24-70/4L IS, but I've told myself I'm holding out for the 24-70/2.8L IS (you know it's coming!). The 24-70/4L IS refurb sale linked above is tempting, though ...

It is quite a rare point of view as well!
When I said "getting in the way" I should have qualified this as it is more important on long lenses rather than lenses like the 24-70. Basically I have found that IS slows AF acquisition and hinders tracking of moving subjects - this is probably not a major consideration with the 24-70 for most users. The other point is that there is an extra element in the focal path that does nothing for IQ. I haven't used IS for just over 2 years and my keeper rate has improved - especially with longer lenses, so I prefer just not to have IS.
Just my thoughts, use whichever works best for you.

 

[slclick]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

Yea, I'd go with Sporgon on this one +1000... I go handheld for panos about half the time. A tripod is nice but absolutely not necessary if you know what you're doing. Even with night shots you can do a pano if you're careful.

I was trying to be helpful.

Yes, photography should be fun.

Wait, what? Fun....? Now they tell me.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Hi, I'm someone who has owned both of these(currently have the f/4) and the Mark 1 24-70 as well. I can tell you that I do not miss the 2.8. The IS in the f/4L truly does compensate very well for those extra stops and if you are a macro shooter (my primary theme) than you'll love the on the go ability if you don't have your macro specific glass with you. I wouldn't get hung up on the IQ, it's not that big of a hit. The f/4L is certainly sharper than the Mark 1 24-70 2.8. Sure it's not like the Mark 2 or the 70-200 2.8 ll but it's a modern lens with great IS, good coatings and a solid, compact build. I haven't regretted it at all. Now if I wanted to do dedicated macro work on a rail and with a mt-ex24 and all, I'd shoot with the 100L not the 24-70 but with a ring light it has given me really good results.

I have the same experience. I have owned and sold all the Canon 24-70L's, the 24-105L and the 24-405 STM. Which one remains in my bag? The 24-70mm f/4L IS.... for the same reasons explained by slclick and you.
I don't feel I have lost much in image quality after selling my 24-70/2.8L II and gained IS, lighter weight and can also carry a single set of 77mm filters, not the 82mm filters for the 24-70/2.8L II.
The 24-70/2.8L II is the best standard zoom lens, period. If I really need it in future I'll evaluate purchasing again but now I'm very pleased with the 24-70mm f/4L IS.

 

[Pookie]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

Yea, I'd go with Sporgon on this one +1000... I go handheld for panos about half the time. A tripod is nice but absolutely not necessary if you know what you're doing. Even with night shots you can do a pano if you're careful.

I was trying to be helpful.

Yes, photography should be fun.

Trying to be helpful with poor, erroneous information... "helpful" advice like that isn't helpful at all and really doesn't add any "fun" to photography.

 

[Larsskv]

Hi, I'm someone who has owned both of these(currently have the f/4) and the Mark 1 24-70 as well. I can tell you that I do not miss the 2.8. The IS in the f/4L truly does compensate very well for those extra stops and if you are a macro shooter (my primary theme) than you'll love the on the go ability if you don't have your macro specific glass with you. I wouldn't get hung up on the IQ, it's not that big of a hit. The f/4L is certainly sharper than the Mark 1 24-70 2.8. Sure it's not like the Mark 2 or the 70-200 2.8 ll but it's a modern lens with great IS, good coatings and a solid, compact build. I haven't regretted it at all. Now if I wanted to do dedicated macro work on a rail and with a mt-ex24 and all, I'd shoot with the 100L not the 24-70 but with a ring light it has given me really good results.

I have the same experience. I have owned and sold all the Canon 24-70L's, the 24-105L and the 24-405 STM. Which one remains in my bag? The 24-70mm f/4L IS.... for the same reasons explained by slclick and you.
I don't feel I have lost much in image quality after selling my 24-70/2.8L II and gained IS, lighter weight and can also carry a single set of 77mm filters, not the 82mm filters for the 24-70/2.8L II.
The 24-70/2.8L II is the best standard zoom lens, period. If I really need it in future I'll evaluate purchasing again but now I'm very pleased with the 24-70mm f/4L IS.

+1. I agree completely. I'm about to sell the f/2.8LII and keep the f/4IS. I find it hard though. The f/2.8LII is the best one in terms of sharpness and contrast. I just don't use it enough.

 

[Chapman Baxter]

The f/4 IS seems good value now compared with its launch price and I've been tempted by it in the past for its close-focus and for when my Tamron f/2.8 VC feels too bulky for the occasion. But I've been put off by reports on Photozone of significant focus shift on the f/4 IS (to me, an aberration that I'd usually consider a deal-breaker). Lenstip also found significant spherical aberration. Have users found this to be an issue in practical use?

 

[Ladislav]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

OK, I was being a little abrupt, but I thought you liked straight talking and no gilding of the lily ? ( )

However I just can't see where you are coming from with the last sentence. Almost as soon as digital was created stitching programs followed, and even those early ones could cope well with rotational stitches as long as the subject wasn't too close, near nodal point, same exposure etc. Are you sure you're not printing out single frames and trying to join them together with tape ?

Lenses with the nodal point far out like the 24-70 group at short focal length were notorious for giving difficulties, but to day the good programs even deal with that, and in the case of mounting on a tripod it would only help if you had a sliding plate to get the nodal point back over the centre of rotation.

No, you certainly do not need a tripod for panos, in fact it is an area where you can use the stitching technique to produce a hand held image that's technical quality is equal to a single frame shot from a ridged tripod. In the case of a single frame the tripod does often make a difference, even at quite fast speeds, but by stitching you are getting the benefit of larger format but without the hand holding issues of a larger format. This is because the movement of each smaller frame in rotational terms is not as great as a larger format. This is then enlarged less when compared with a single frame and so any movement is not as magnified.

Also shooting freehand allows you to rotate much quicker, which can be a benefit if the light or subject is changing. Also a tripod can reduce creativity because you may miss shots from fiddling about setting up. Look at the difference in wedding photography to day. In the film days you had all those set up, formally posed shots because the tog was using a MF camera with 125 ISO film and needed a high f stop to get anything in focus and had to work on a tripod. Compare that with what we have to day and it's not all because of AF and limitless frame availability.

As a general rule of thumb I only shoot panos from a tripod if I'm limited in light for a fast speed at low(ish) ISO. If I've enough light I prefer to shoot them freehand, whereas a single frame landscape shot I would want to be from a steady tripod or platform always.

J.R. was kind enough to mention the images on my website; of all of them on there I would say about 20% are from a tripod, the others all freehand, and I think they are all pano stitches.

The situation is also changing with HDR. As many cameras now shoot so fast, and some programs are so good at 'auto align' you can produce very high quality HDR images hand held. The trick is to not allow the camera to rotate during the sequence.

+1 About 80% of my HDRs are handheld with exposure bracketing and sequential shooting on. Often I'm simply not allowed to use tripod and sometimes it just does not need to have exposure long enough to require tripod.

 

[YuengLinger]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

Yea, I'd go with Sporgon on this one +1000... I go handheld for panos about half the time. A tripod is nice but absolutely not necessary if you know what you're doing. Even with night shots you can do a pano if you're careful.

I was trying to be helpful.

Yes, photography should be fun.

Trying to be helpful with poor, erroneous information... "helpful" advice like that isn't helpful at all and really doesn't add any "fun" to photography.

And your attitude doesn't add fun to life. Chill, bra.

Nothing I said was erroneous--it just didn't jive with your opinion. I already admitted that "can't" was not the right word. I meant "shouldn't if best results are what you are after."

You can take a long exposure without a tripod, of course. You can take panorama elements without a tripod. Feel better? I meant a tripod is better to have for that type of photography.

You obviously hate tripods, so nothing I say will make you admit they are helpful.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

The f/4 IS seems good value now compared with its launch price and I've been tempted by it in the past for its close-focus and for when my Tamron f/2.8 VC feels too bulky for the occasion. But I've been put off by reports on Photozone of significant focus shift on the f/4 IS (to me, an aberration that I'd usually consider a deal-breaker). Lenstip also found significant spherical aberration. Have users found this to be an issue in practical use?

If so, it hasn't bothered me to the point that the lens would be unusable. I will say that there is a noticeable loss of sharpness/contrast at around 50mm compared to other zoom lenses I have that cover that range (including the 24-105).

However, distortion is VERY well controlled (but not absent)...which makes this lens a great "all-arounder" for landscapes, still life and travel/sightseeing/touring. For event shooting I still lean towards the 24-105 or the 24-70 II as both have more resolving power through the 35-60mm range.

 

[Pookie]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

Yea, I'd go with Sporgon on this one +1000... I go handheld for panos about half the time. A tripod is nice but absolutely not necessary if you know what you're doing. Even with night shots you can do a pano if you're careful.

I was trying to be helpful.

Yes, photography should be fun.

Trying to be helpful with poor, erroneous information... "helpful" advice like that isn't helpful at all and really doesn't add any "fun" to photography.

And your attitude doesn't add fun to life. Chill, bra.

Nothing I said was erroneous--it just didn't jive with your opinion. I already admitted that "can't" was not the right word. I meant "shouldn't if best results are what you are after."

You can take a long exposure without a tripod, of course. You can take panorama elements without a tripod. Feel better? I meant a tripod is better to have for that type of photography.

You obviously hate tripods, so nothing I say will make you admit they are helpful.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit... as I said about half the time I never use one, Brah. Your "absolutes" are pretty ridiculous even in your responses. Giving bunk advice is never "fun" for anyone involved.

Maybe we should have just stuck with the response from Sporgon to your original statement... Utter crap

 

[privatebydesign]

you can't do ....panoramas without a tripod.

What utter crap.

Ok, "can't" was an absolute indicating impossible. And your response indicates you "can" be impossible yourself.

If we are talking about snapshots, you can do panoramas with your cellphone. Not me. I'd rather remember the scene than mar it permanently in that way.

Without a tripod, again, very limited. Crank up the ISO, keep the aperture relatively wide, be prepared to crop out much more because of alignment issues...Sure, it can be done. They show 'em at the local camera club, quite proudly, from time to time!

Yea, I'd go with Sporgon on this one +1000... I go handheld for panos about half the time. A tripod is nice but absolutely not necessary if you know what you're doing. Even with night shots you can do a pano if you're careful.

I was trying to be helpful.

Yes, photography should be fun.

Trying to be helpful with poor, erroneous information... "helpful" advice like that isn't helpful at all and really doesn't add any "fun" to photography.

What, poor erroneous information like this "If you back up the light it will go softer." that is still not edited for correction? http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29011.msg576139#msg576139