# The 24-105 and/or the 24-70 II ...



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

I've had the 24-105 for about a year and a half now. It came as the kit lens for my 5D Mk III. My copy is a very good one, tack sharp and quite fast, as far as I seem to notice. 3 months ago I bought the 24-70 II. It is an outstanding lens, as far as AF response and sharpness are concerned. I think it's better than the 24-105. That being said, is it possible that the 24-105 can still be useful? If I keep it, and don't sell it, to what uses, if any, can the 24-105 be put? Is there anything that I can do with the 24-105 that I can't do with the 24-70 II?!


----------



## Eldar (Nov 9, 2013)

I did the same and had the same dilemma, but ended up selling the 24-105. The 24-70 has significantly better IQ and I do not miss the IS. I thought I would miss the 70-105mm zoom range, but I haven´t. 

Considering what you can expect to get for the 24-105, it may well be worth keeping. As a versatile walk-around lens, with good zoom range, good IQ and IS, it is very good. But if you are thinking of buying something else, it can help you with the financing.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 9, 2013)

I had both of these lenses also for use on my 6D. I ended up selling my 24-105 as it was not getting used much. My 24-105 was also a good copy, but I just didn't need two zooms in the same focal range. I was able to use the money to buy a 100 L Macro lens.

The possible advantages of keeping both would be if you shoot much video (I don't), the IS of the 24-105 will be useful. Also the 24-105's greater focal range make it a more useful single lens solution for general purposes. For example, I recently attended a outdoor festival with my family. If I still owned the 24-105, I would have used it. But it was gone, so I took my 24-70 2.8 II and 135L, so I had more to carry. The advantage with this two lens combo is better IQ and subject isolation capability.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I did the same and had the same dilemma, but ended up selling the 24-105. The 24-70 has significantly better IQ and I do not miss the IS. I thought I would miss the 70-105mm zoom range, but I haven´t.
> 
> Considering what you can expect to get for the 24-105, it may well be worth keeping. As a versatile walk-around lens, with good zoom range, good IQ and IS, it is very good. But if you are thinking of buying something else, it can help you with the financing.



+1



bholliman said:


> I had both of these lenses also for use on my 6D. I ended up selling my 24-105 as it was not getting used much. My 24-105 was also a good copy, but I just didn't need two zooms in the same focal range. I was able to use the money to buy a 100 L Macro lens.
> 
> The possible advantages of keeping both would be if you shoot much video (I don't), the IS of the 24-105 will be useful. Also the 24-105's greater focal range make it a more useful single lens solution for general purposes. For example, I recently attended a outdoor festival with my family. If I still owned the 24-105, I would have used it. But it was gone, so I took my 24-70 2.8 II and 135L, so I had more to carry. The advantage with this two lens combo is better IQ and subject isolation capability.



: I'm thinking the same thing now.


----------



## RC (Nov 9, 2013)

Also have both after getting in on the $1699 deal at B&H for the 24-70. At this point I don't see myself selling my 24-105 for such a low price. I much rather keep it than "give" it away. I expect to use it as more or a travel/vacation lens. If things change where the resale value is $800 or higher (which will never happen), I'd probably sell it.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 9, 2013)

I am just boarding the same boat. I just bought the 24-70 II and own a copy of the 24-105 that I think is good. If the 24-105 used price was back around $800, I would probably sell my copy if I am happy with the 24-70 II after a few months. However, with the used price being about 65% of that (~$500-$550), I am considering holding onto the 24-105. I can think of a couple potential uses (as long as the 24-70 II checks out and is as impressive as described/reviewed) for the 24-105, including as a single event lens (may want the reach), and travel/times when I may not want a $2,300 lens with me.

That said, my preference would be to sell it, if the used price comes back up. I have a problem seeing it go lower than $500-$550, so I figure I hold onto it, try to use it and wait for the price to come back up.

Of course, if I have to sell it to fund another lens...that could change the dynamic here. ;D

EDIT---what RC said....


----------



## bholliman (Nov 9, 2013)

docsmith said:


> with the used price being about 65% of that (~$500-$550), I am considering holding onto the 24-105.



I got lucky and sold my 24-105 just before the big discounts started on new lenses this fall. I was able to sell for $700 via CR. I thought that was too cheap at the time, but feel pretty good about it now.

If I still had it, I wouldn't sell for $500-550, I would hang onto it.


----------



## hermichut (Nov 9, 2013)

I got my 24-105 as part of a 5DIII kit, not long after I bought the 24-70mk2. My initial plan was to sell the 24-105 to post-finance the 24-70 but while I was preparing the ebay auction i realised i had a good copy and couldn't go through with it... 

Now I use the 24-105 as a travel lens for those holdiay destinations where I would be overly nervous having both the 5d and the 24-70, my stuff is insured but I'm a risk averse kind of guy... 

I don't know if that really xounts as a reason to keep the 24-105 , but it's the one I'm using at the moment..

H.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

Well, I think you guys are right. If I could sell the 24-105 for a reasonable sum, then, maybe, I might be tempted to do so, but, for now, since this is not the case, since my copy is a very good one and since I don't feel like parting with it, I'll just keep it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2013)

Had 24-105, bought 24-70 II, soon sold 24-105 (that was before the price drop, not sure I'd have sold it for under $600).


----------



## Robert Welch (Nov 9, 2013)

I wonder if they will discontinue the 24-105L. It seems they are replacing it with the 24-70/4 IS in the kits, which I expected. Does that mean they will phase out the 24-105L? If so, that would affect the value of the copies out there on the used market, though probably not greatly as the market got flooded. Also, it's possible they will replace it with a mkII version, upgrade the optics & IS, which would keep the used value of the current model flat.

Over all, it's a great walk-around lens, as others have said. I still use mine for weddings, though I've taken to using my 24-70L also, which I'd like to upgrade to the mkII but have rediscovered my version as being quite good on the 5DmkIII, after having used it exclusively on a 1DmkIII for many years it's become a 'born again' lens on the better camera. I missed the $1,695 sale on the mkII and maybe I'll catch it when it comes around again, but for now I'm happy with the original version on my 5D3 and the 24-105L on my 6D. It gives me one camera with great flexibility for focus, and another that is light weight and versatile with the longer reach and IS. I agree with the others, for $500, you might as well keep that lens.


----------



## RC (Nov 9, 2013)

docsmith said:


> ...and travel/times when I may not want a $2,300 lens with me.





hermichut said:


> Now I use the 24-105 as a travel lens for those holdiay destinations where I would be overly nervous having both the 5d and the 24-70, my stuff is insured but I'm a risk averse kind of guy...



Agree. Good reason to justify keeping the 24-105.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 9, 2013)

I like the 24-70 II better for the below reasons. However, if you have a second body, and you don't need the money, it is nice to have the extra reach. Both are very nice walk around lenses. On the other hand, if you don't have a second body, and you can zoom with your feet, the 24-70 II will soon make you forget the 24-105. So tough to have to choose between two great lenses.

sek



DaveMiko said:


> I've had the 24-105 for about a year and a half now. It came as the kit lens for my 5D Mk III. My copy is a very good one, tack sharp and quite fast, as far as I seem to notice. 3 months ago I bought the 24-70 II. It is an outstanding lens, as far as AF response and sharpness are concerned. I think it's better than the 24-105. That being said, is it possible that the 24-105 can still be useful? If I keep it, and don't sell it, to what uses, if any, can the 24-105 be put? Is there anything that I can do with the 24-105 that I can't do with the 24-70 II?!


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

scottkinfw said:


> I like the 24-70 II better for the below reasons. However, if you have a second body, and you don't need the money, it is nice to have the extra reach. Both are very nice walk around lenses. On the other hand, if you don't have a second body, and you can zoom with your feet, the 24-70 II will soon make you forget the 24-105. So tough to have to choose between two great lenses.
> 
> sek
> 
> ...



Currently, I have a 7D and a 5D Mark III. Next week, I'll get the 1-DX and I'll get rid of the 7D. I guess, I'll put the 24-105 on the 5D Mark III and the 24-70 II on the 1-DX.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 9, 2013)

The 24-105s trump card over the 24-70II is of course IS. Its usefulness depends upon your technique, but if you're hand holding shots where you want to hold small fine detail, I find IS incredibly useful. 

I've actually tested this for my own benefit, and I've found that without IS I can get camera shake at random with shutter speeds up to about 1/320 with 50mm focal length. I'm not that shaky, but I do drink a lot of coffee, and tend to arrive late and be in a rush. However for myself the 24-70 II, despite it's superlative optical performance, could result in softer images than the 24-105 when off the tripod. So I stick to a 'general purpose' lens with IS.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 9, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> The 24-105s trump card over the 24-70II is of course IS. Its usefulness depends upon your technique, but if you're hand holding shots where you want to hold small fine detail, I find IS incredibly useful.
> 
> I've actually tested this for my own benefit, and I've found that without IS I can get camera shake at random with shutter speeds up to about 1/320 with 50mm focal length. I'm not that shaky, but I do drink a lot of coffee, and tend to arrive late and be in a rush. However for myself the 24-70 II, despite it's superlative optical performance, could result in softer images than the 24-105 when off the tripod. So I stick to a 'general purpose' lens with IS.



+1


----------



## deleteme (Nov 9, 2013)

Another vote for the 24-105.

I am often at the 105 length. I am also often in low light situations shooting candid groups. 
I used to think that f4 was a real drawback but I found that even at f4 the DOF was insufficient for good images of multiple subjects.

F 2.8 would help with focus and image isolation but as that is not the goal of my work I can pass on it.
Available darkness needs high ISO and a still camera.

I do a lot hand held but I also use it on a tripod where I get extremely sharp results.
I am happy about the price drops as it allows me to get a great price on a backup of this critical tool.


----------



## Pi (Nov 9, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105s trump card over the 24-70II is of course IS. Its usefulness depends upon your technique, but if you're hand holding shots where you want to hold small fine detail, I find IS incredibly useful.
> ...



+1

I have no doubt that the 24-70 II is better optically in every respect, and it is faster, of course. But I often find myself in situations where IS is more useful than fast apertures. I always carry with me fast primes, and use them often in low light. But when I want more DOF and motion is not a problem, I use the zoom. For me, f/2.8 is not fast enough to replace the IS, and when I need faster apertures, I will use primes anyway. On the other hand, the extra 70-105 range is not a big deal, IMO.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 9, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> I've had the 24-105 for about a year and a half now. It came as the kit lens for my 5D Mk III. My copy is a very good one, tack sharp and quite fast, as far as I seem to notice. 3 months ago I bought the 24-70 II. It is an outstanding lens, as far as AF response and sharpness are concerned. I think it's better than the 24-105. That being said, is it possible that the 24-105 can still be useful? If I keep it, and don't sell it, to what uses, if any, can the 24-105 be put? Is there anything that I can do with the 24-105 that I can't do with the 24-70 II?!



If you are not wanting to be slowed down and bother with/can't use a tripod then it could deliver better results than the 24-70 II when light is low and subjects are static and don't work with f/2.8 DOF (the 24-70 f/4 IS could do that too, even more effectively, although that's a $$$ combo compared to 24-105+24-70II). Maybe like hikinh through dark woods and not wanting to slow stuff down too much with tripod shot after tripod shot, trying to quickly get a ton of shots before light fades, etc.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 12, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> The 24-105s trump card over the 24-70II is of course IS. Its usefulness depends upon your technique, but if you're hand holding shots where you want to hold small fine detail, I find IS incredibly useful.
> 
> I've actually tested this for my own benefit, and I've found that without IS I can get camera shake at random with shutter speeds up to about 1/320 with 50mm focal length. I'm not that shaky, but I do drink a lot of coffee, and tend to arrive late and be in a rush. However for myself the 24-70 II, despite it's superlative optical performance, could result in softer images than the 24-105 when off the tripod. So I stick to a 'general purpose' lens with IS.



In your case you might want to look at the 24-70 f/4 IS. It has the sharpness of the 24-70 II, with better IS than the 24-105. But, it is overpriced at the moment for sure as its now a 5diii kit lens. Probably will be in the $1000 range in 3-6 months.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 12, 2013)

Ruined said:


> In your case you might want to look at the 24-70 f/4 IS. It has the sharpness of the 24-70 II, with better IS than the 24-105. But, it is overpriced at the moment for sure as its now a 5diii kit lens. Probably will be in the $1000 range in 3-6 months.



The 24-70 f/4 IS, is not as sharp as the 24-70 f/2.8 II. Similar sharpness to the 24-105L according to the TDP comparisons (link below). The 24-70 f/4 is sharper with less distortion at 24mm and 70mm, but the 24-105 is better at 35mm and 50mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

I believe some other CR members have had better luck with their copies of the 24-70 f/4.0 however.

The 24-70 f/4 IS does have the advantage of being somewhat smaller than the 24-105 and has near macro capability, but until its street price comes down considerably, I can't see it being worth the money compared with the 24-105L. If the prices does drop to $1K, it would probably be a decent value.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 13, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-105s trump card over the 24-70II is of course IS. Its usefulness depends upon your technique, but if you're hand holding shots where you want to hold small fine detail, I find IS incredibly useful.
> ...



Already have ! In fact we've now two copies at Building Panoramics, but one is with our man in the States. Changed a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VS GTi for it.

A fine lens, much better than the reviews give it credit for. However I do like the 70-105 range but may eventually give it up for the better qualities of the 24-70 IS and its more compact, handy size.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 13, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > In your case you might want to look at the 24-70 f/4 IS. It has the sharpness of the 24-70 II, with better IS than the 24-105. But, it is overpriced at the moment for sure as its now a 5diii kit lens. Probably will be in the $1000 range in 3-6 months.
> ...



I dunno, I've been looking at a lot of real-world A/B comparisons of photos and while the 24-105 is just as sharp in the center, it seems to be less sharp in the corners with increased CA. Just what I have observed. And technically the IS is inferior to the IS in the 24-70 f/4...

I think the extra range of the 24-105 is pretty cool to have though, especially if you have an a crop in addition to your FF. Ideally, if you were to have two it might be neat to have a 24-70 f/2.8 II and a 24-105 IS. But if you just picked one and wanted the best IQ in the smallest package, I'd say to go for the 24-70 f/4 IS.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Nov 13, 2013)

I shoot with both, but find that I rarely use the 24-105. The contrast and detail on the 24-70 is amazing.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 13, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> I've had the 24-105 for about a year and a half now. It came as the kit lens for my 5D Mk III. My copy is a very good one, tack sharp and quite fast, as far as I seem to notice. 3 months ago I bought the 24-70 II. It is an outstanding lens, as far as AF response and sharpness are concerned. I think it's better than the 24-105. That being said, is it possible that the 24-105 can still be useful? If I keep it, and don't sell it, to what uses, if any, can the 24-105 be put? Is there anything that I can do with the 24-105 that I can't do with the 24-70 II?!



Tack sharp @ at what f-stop? 8 or 11?

sell it and save bag space for other lenses.


----------



## sawsedge (Nov 13, 2013)

Of the two, I only have the 24-70 II, yet I often wish I had a little more reach. The range of the 24-105 seems ideal to me. In my film days, my trio was a 24, 50, and 100mm. But, the AF speed, accuracy, contrast and resolution of the of the 24-70 II are outstanding and I'm unlikely to give that up. About my only complaint with it is the size. It's just fat with the 82mm filter. 

All that said, I still think about picking up the 24-105 for certain occasions. But I'd prefer one with a 67mm filter to match the 70-200 f/4L IS.

Perhaps someday Canon will make a 24-105 f/2.8L IS, match the current IQ, and then we'll all know what to do.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 13, 2013)

I think the troubling conflict starts once you own both. 

I got the 24-70 II a few months ago and kept the 24-105 for the IS and the additional focal length. Despite having that intention, I found that I was rarely using it. I kept convincing myself that I would be using the 24-105 when the need for IS arose but that rarely happened because the 24-70 II would invariably be the lens mounted on one of my bodies and it made no sense to carry a lens with overlapping focal length out in the field. 

After getting the 70-200 II, I realized that the 24-105 would not being seeing any action at all because for the corresponding focal lengths (above 70-105mm), the IS and the IQ of the 70-200 leaves the 24-105 in the dust. 

I finally sold the 24-105 yesterday for close to $750 - this goes straight to the fund for the 300mm f/2.8 L II. 

If you have both the 24-70 II and the 24-105, the 24-105 will be sold, it's only a question of time ... 

Cheers ... J.R.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I think the troubling conflict starts once you own both



I think this issue was addressed a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away….

[quote author=Darth Vader]
There *is* no conflict.
[/quote]



(I also sold my 24-105L…)


----------



## bholliman (Nov 13, 2013)

J.R. said:


> If you have both the 24-70 II and the 24-105, the 24-105 will be sold, it's only a question of time ...



+1 Same situation for me. With the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II in my bag, the 24-105 was gathering dust. $750 is a really good sales price in the current market!

The 24-70 2.8 II is an incredible lens!


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 13, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I think the troubling conflict starts once you own both
> ...





(I also sold my 24-105L…)

[/quote]

I would expect a Neurosurgeon to have hands as steady as a rock. A Neuroanatomist must be a close relation. 

Me, I shake like a leaf. And that's before the morning coffees.


----------



## freitz (Nov 14, 2013)

Great Thread. I just purchased the 24-70II and I have the 24-105, I was wondering the same question.

I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?


----------



## Pi (Nov 14, 2013)

freitz said:


> I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?



A few people already did, and they find IS useful. IS also helps wit using ISO 100 more often, for better IQ and, well, DR, than say, ISO 400. I had cases where my 24-105 was better in landscapes than my 35L, handheld, because I could shoot at ISO 100 with the zoom, and I _thought_ that my SS was enough with the prime (ISO 100) to reduce shake but it was not. Which is not to say that the 24-105 is better than the 24-70II for all uses, of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2013)

freitz said:


> Great Thread. I just purchased the 24-70II and I have the 24-105, I was wondering the same question.
> 
> I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?



It depends a lot on what you shoot. If you frequently shoot landscapes and other static scenes handheld, IS can be useful (but a tripod would be even more useful). If your subjects include people, you'll almost always need a shutter speed fast enough to mitigate subject motion, and that will mitigate camera shake as well.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 14, 2013)

As I mentioned when I started this thread, I've used my 24-70 f2.8 II for a few months now. It has replaced my 24-105 as my walk around lens, practically all of the time. Only once when I took a few dozen pics at a friend's wedding did I find a few (quite a few) images soft. I guess, it was because the light available was fairly dim. ... That said, I don't really miss my 24-105.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 14, 2013)

freitz said:


> Great Thread. I just purchased the 24-70II and I have the 24-105, I was wondering the same question.
> 
> I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?



If you read form the beginning of the thread you'll find some interesting comments and observations.

The 24-70II is a superlative lens; the best there is optically, and I can well understand people who have purchased it ditching the 24-105. But the former doesn't have IS and it depend on how much you value this. Over the years I have come to realise that I _need_ IS. 

Here's a shot that has made me a fair bit of dosh. I was shooting at the school, thought the evening light was a wash out, then literally five minutes before sun set the sun began to break through. I ran down the hill with the 5D and 24-105, waited briefly to get my breath back and then began shooting the sequence at 1/30s because I needed through DoF and low ISO (100 ). There was no time to take or set up the tripod. I've included a 100% crop which is straight of camera, converted and un sharp mask of 100% 0.3 pixel as I have sharpening set to zero for these shots. The final image is sharp enough to be blown up to 3 metres across and is on display at the school. We sell smaller ones 1 metre across the the 'old' boys and girls of the school. 

Without IS this shot would not exist.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 14, 2013)

Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature. And that is fine.

But lets be real, IS is highly desirable. There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS. Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.

The advantages with IS are plentiful. Less shots needing tripod, less blurred shots, and even if you have a steady hand your shots will be slightly sharper with IS due to its nature as no one has the hands of a tripod. If we were all as steady as a tripod, tripods would not exist. More possibilities for photos are unlocked. And it helps video, too, if you are into it.

There is no effective argument against IS. Canon is just playing marketing games getting people to buy the same lens over and over again, because they can. That is why it is not in the 24-70 II, no other reason. When the 24-70 IS comes out, the 24-70 II will drop like a rock in value. Take a look at how much less resale the 70-200 non-IS versions have versus the 70-200 IS versions. 

So, while people can say they might not need it, that is probably true. But you also don't need L lenses or a full frame camera. IS is another tool in the toolbox that is HIGHLY DESIRABLE. Let's just hope we don't have to wait too long for Canon to milk the non-IS version before the inevitable 24-70 IS release.

Yes, the 24-70 II is sharper than the 24-105. But that has nothing to do with IS, it simply uses better glass. Once the 24-70 f/2.8 IS comes out, the 24-70 f/2.8 will be soundly outclassed and lessened in value IMO.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 14, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature. And that is fine.
> 
> But lets be real, IS is highly desirable. There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS. Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.
> 
> ...



The problem is that the optical formula with IS is different than the one without it. Are the 70-200 f/2.8 IS versus non IS the same optical design? According to the rumors circulating before the 24-70 II came out, both the 24-70 II and a 24-70 IS variant were being field tested. They were different lenses. The testers preferred what became the 24-70 II. If that is true, then it is harder to design something that is as good as the 24-70 II and has IS.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 14, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature. And that is fine.
> 
> But lets be real, IS is highly desirable. There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase, and lets be frank when you are spending $2200 on a lens you can't really argue costs. The 17-55 has IS, the 70-200 has IS, the 24, 28, 35mm consumer primes all have IS. Obviously it is very doable both financially and engineering wise.
> 
> ...



Have you actually compared for yourself the output from the 24-105 vs the one from the 24-70 f2.8 II?!


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 14, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > freitz said:
> ...



Errr.... not quite sure I understand what you mean. I took the shot and I can't hand hold 1/30th without IS to save my life at a focal length of 67mm, which is what this is. It's a commercial picture and had to be sharp. If it had been blurred it would have been in bin.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 14, 2013)

Ruined said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



The lens performance of the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens whips the living crap out of the 24-105L. If you've ever shot with both you'd see what we all mean. I quickly sold my 24-105L after buying the new 24-70 and haven't looked back. There's nothing like "under the basket" shots for basketball than with the 24-70 f/2.8L II lens!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature. And that is fine.
> 
> But lets be real, IS is highly desirable. There is no disadvantage with IS except a *slight* cost increase...



All else being equal, I would take a lens with IS over an equivalent lens without it. But let's be real, all else is NOT equal. Look at the 70-200/2.8 - the first IS version came out after the non-IS, and has worse IQ. In the case of the 24-70/2.8, there's nothing to even rationalize – there's just no other option. Image stabilization isn't magic, it's optical physics and engineering, and there are always trade-offs to be made – cost is not the only one.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 14, 2013)

I find part of this discussion a bit weird. I think we can agree that non of the 24-70 2.8L II users, myself included, would protest if it had come with IS. And I also believe we all accept that in certain cases, the IS provide the 24-105 f4L IS with a benefit, ref. the school photo posted earlier. But what we are saying is that we don´t miss IS, because we normally use it at shutter speeds were it´s OK not to have it and the fact that its IQ is far superior.

I had the 24-105 and I used it a lot, until I got the 24-70. From that day, until I sold it, it just collected dust.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 14, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > In your case you might want to look at the 24-70 f/4 IS. It has the sharpness of the 24-70 II, with better IS than the 24-105. But, it is overpriced at the moment for sure as its now a 5diii kit lens. Probably will be in the $1000 range in 3-6 months.
> ...



Yes and I am one who has had better luck. It's way sharper than any of the number of 24-105s I tried (even the first 24-70 f/4 IS that I tried was even though it was definitely not as sharp as the second 24-70 f/4 IS, I returned the first one, the difference was easily clear enough to bother with a return, but even that first one did better than the best 24-105 I've seen). Now I certainly did give a special focus on near 24mm performance that is true since that was always the tricky thing to pull off on FF with a zoom. And not just for edge sharpness but for resistance to nasties like purple fringing it was better too.

The 24-70 f/4 IS is weakest right around 50mm, the farther above that and the farther below that you go the better it seems to get, it's possible it's no better than the 24-105 at 50mm, but a sharp edge to edge 50mm was never a challenge on a FF anyway, a $100 50 1.8 will do that for you with ease. And the 70-200/300Ls deliver 70mm+ in spades. Now a sharp 24mm edge to edge, now that was always the FF trick. No zoom used to deliver that. Now we have the 24-70 II and the 24-70 f/4 IS (maybe the tamron 24-70 vc to some extent???? that is just about the only standard zoom I've never tried). For primes the 24 1.4 II, 24 T&S II, and I'd assume the 24 2.8 IS and 28 2.8 IS although I've never tried those two.

Anyway, all that said, the 24-70 II is generally sharper and a little more APO than the 24-70 f/4 IS (the 24-70 f/4 IS is easily more APO than the 24-105 though).

(I definitely did see copy variation with the 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS though, enough to be noticeable. The 24-70 II were all very sharp wide open, so it's not like they seem bad compared to anything else and actually mostly seem better, but some copies were just a whole new level of wide open sharp. Perhaps more, it seems hard to produce the 24-70 II with all corners set to the exact same flat across field focal plane as every copy seemed to tilt the focal plane a bit this way or that (that said, just about any copy still manages to noticeably outdo the 24-105, although the copy variation is kind of larger than you'd think at that price). The first 24-70 f/4 IS was a bit less sharp overall wide open, although not bad, the entire away from very central field was definitely softer and it was extra extra hard to avoid strong FC at 50mm, that said even that one still seemed to give better results at 24mm than 24-105, but the second copy was definitely better, no doubt whatsoever, and for $1000 f/4 you definitely don't want to accept other than that. In terms of having the focal plane evenly aligned it seems the 24-70 f/4 IS is probably less prone to that, although a test of 2 doesn't say much, but both copies seemed to be very similar in that regard unlike with the 24-70 II where every single copy I have seen has place the alignment of the plane of focus a bit differently, in some cases quite noticeably so.)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 14, 2013)

bholliman said:


> If the prices does drop to $1K, it would probably be a decent value.



Actually it has quite a few times, some of the big stores have had them on sale for $1000-$1050 a number of times. When I was looking at them it was easy to nab at $1025 shipped. I agree the full list seems a bit much and I'd definitely hold out for a $1000 sale if anyone wants to give the lens a look.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 14, 2013)

freitz said:


> Great Thread. I just purchased the 24-70II and I have the 24-105, I was wondering the same question.
> 
> I don't think I would need IS for general walk around use and still be able to produce sharp images. Anyone care to shed light on this?



Not if you run around outside during the daytime, even with cloud cover it should be perfectly fine.

In museums and no flash buildings where tripods usually are not allowed either then it could certainly help.

Otherwise perhaps if walking in the woods, which can be quite dark in some case and providing you don't want to get constantly get bogged down by tripod work, which granted is the ideal way to go (but sometimes you need to move along faster or want to get off a bunch of shots before the sun changes) or if you are doing some late evening shots and find yourself without a tripod or don't want to use one for one reason or another (too much of a pain to carry around walking around as a tourist, don't want to be so slowed down, etc.).

Of course the 24-70 II can produce reasonable FF edges on the wide end much closer to wide open than the 24-105 (which IMO actually still doesn't even at f/10) so that can make up for some lack of IS at times, depending, sometimes you need the full DOF front to back to a huge degree though and since the 24-70 II makes crisper images overall there is the fact that you can go to a bit higher ISO and still end up with same detail as from the 24-105 too (at the loss of some DR of course though, although in some cases where you'd need IS the light is flat and the DR low, although not always).

Anwyay I never found the 24-105 satisfying. The two new ones I do. The 24-70 II is most used, but if I don't want to bog down and want to run and gun shoot while walking in dark forests and such the 24-70 is better or if are hitting a park late and have limited time and such or going to museum type scenarios and such. And I use it at the ocean, especially on the east coast where the salt is often heavy in the air and coating everything it makes me too paranoid it will eat into my 24-70 II hah. It is a bit pricey to own in addition though so it might get sold though, although it has been useful.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 15, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who is arguing against or dismissing IS, is IMO, simply rationalizing the purchase of a lens for thousands that lacks said feature. And that is fine.
> ...



How is that relevant to what I posted?!


----------



## Ruined (Nov 15, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > bholliman said:
> ...



The poster I replied to originally had a 24-70 f/2.8L II and also a 24-105L IS, and he stated he got a lot of camera shake with his shots using the f/2.8L II compared to the 24-105L IS. Thus my suggestion was to try the 24-70 F/4L as it appears in benchmarks to optically outperform the 24-105L IS and have better IS as well. So for that poster, since he already had tried the 24-70/2.8L II and didn't like it, that would not have been a useful recommendation


----------



## Ruined (Nov 15, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I find part of this discussion a bit weird. I think we can agree that non of the 24-70 2.8L II users, myself included, would protest if it had come with IS. And I also believe we all accept that in certain cases, the IS provide the 24-105 f4L IS with a benefit, ref. the school photo posted earlier. But what we are saying is that we don´t miss IS, because we normally use it at shutter speeds were it´s OK not to have it and the fact that its IQ is far superior.
> 
> I had the 24-105 and I used it a lot, until I got the 24-70. From that day, until I sold it, it just collected dust.





neuroanatomist said:


> All else being equal, I would take a lens with IS over an equivalent lens without it. But let's be real, all else is NOT equal. Look at the 70-200/2.8 - the first IS version came out after the non-IS, and has worse IQ. In the case of the 24-70/2.8, there's nothing to even rationalize – there's just no other option. Image stabilization isn't magic, it's optical physics and engineering, and there are always trade-offs to be made – cost is not the only one.



Both points taken, but given the 24-70 IS II is $2200 which is not a drop in the bucket for most financially while the 24-105 is kit or an affordable $699, I would think looking ahead to the future might be wise when debating these lenses. And, my point is, I can't forsee anyone clutching onto their 24-70 f/2.8 II when IS version inevitably comes out - even if the IS version is slightly less sharp due to the difference in optics (which usually isn't the case, even if it happened once in the past). Reason, because I think pretty much everyone would like the *option* of IS if it is there. It is useful even at normal focal lengths, not just tele.

Thus, if we are looking at financials and discussing whether to sell 24-105 for a 24-70 f/2.8 II, one must look at the future value of the f/2.8 II if you think you might want to upgrade to that IS version in the future. And my thought is, the value will drop dramatically when an IS version is announced because people will be climbing over each other to get the IS version - look at all the recurrent threads and posts building demand for the IS version! The only way this won't happen is if Canon keeps the f/2.8 II where it is and makes the 24-70 f/2.8 IS significantly more money, though that would be unprecedented cost wise for the focal length compared to past offerings. All of those people upgrading will then dump their f/2.8 II on the used market which will greatly lower used value.

So, while you could say f/2.8 II is the only option NOW, it might also be worth considering waiting for 2014's big lens announcements as many were disappointed that the II did not have IS. I'm sure Canon would love to resell an IS version to those who bought the II, and it might be worth holding out with a lesser lens just a bit longer.

Of course if you need f/2.8 24-70 today, you need it today. But then there really isn't much to debate


----------



## Grumbaki (Nov 15, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> I've actually tested this for my own benefit, and I've found that without IS I can get camera shake at random with shutter speeds up to about 1/320 with 50mm focal length.



Time to take some beta blockers! ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 15, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I've actually tested this for my own benefit, and I've found that without IS I can get camera shake at random with shutter speeds up to about 1/320 with 50mm focal length.
> ...



;D

Try it for yourself; take a hand held shot with 50mm focal length of something with lots of fine detail that's far away from the camera. Take the same shot five times at 1/250 and then see if they are all as sharp as each other.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> DaveMiko said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



How is that relevant?! ... How do you pretend to be taken seriously if you talk about something you haven't got a clue about! ... If you don't know what you're talking about, then you'd better keep quiet.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 15, 2013)

DaveMiko said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > DaveMiko said:
> ...



Lol. Read the post next time, there was no point in which the IQ of the two were even debated, aside from the last line which I state the 24-70 II is sharper (fact) and that was not the subject of rest of the post.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Thus, if we are looking at financials and discussing whether to sell 24-105 for a 24-70 f/2.8 II, one must look at the future value of the f/2.8 II if you think you might want to upgrade to that IS version in the future. And my thought is, the value will drop dramatically when an IS version is announced because people will be climbing over each other to get the IS version - look at all the recurrent threads and posts building demand for the IS version! The only way this won't happen is if Canon keeps the f/2.8 II where it is and makes the 24-70 f/2.8 IS significantly more money, though that would be unprecedented cost wise for the focal length compared to past offerings. All of those people upgrading will then dump their f/2.8 II on the used market which will greatly lower used value.
> 
> So, while you could say f/2.8 II is the only option NOW, it might also be worth considering waiting for 2014's big lens announcements as many were disappointed that the II did not have IS. I'm sure Canon would love to resell an IS version to those who bought the II, and it might be worth holding out with a lesser lens just a bit longer.
> 
> Of course if you need f/2.8 24-70 today, you need it today. But then there really isn't much to debate



Guessing Canon's next move is next to impossible, unless one has any inside information of course. 

In my limited usage of Canon's products, I've come to notice that Canon is loathe to release an update that doesn't make sense to them despite their customers clamoring for it. See the people wanting more MP, more DR, an update to the 100-400L, 135L, 800L, etc. 

With Canon, it's water off a duck's back. It will only be released if it makes economical sense to Canon, not because folks like you and me want it.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> my point is, I can't foresee anyone clutching onto their 24-70 f/2.8 II when IS version inevitably comes out - even if the IS version is slightly less sharp due to the difference in optics (which usually isn't the case, even if it happened once in the past). Reason, because I think pretty much everyone would like the *option* of IS if it is there. It is useful even at normal focal lengths, not just tele.



Valid point. I suppose it all depends on the quality of the IS variant when/if its released.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 15, 2013)

When Canon released the 24-70 II they did state that it is IS less in order to have uncompromised optical quality, and it does indeed have uncompromised optical quality. If you take Canon at their word rather than being sceptical there may be practical truth in it. The new 24-70 IS is very good; nearly as good as the 24-70 II and better than the 24-105 ( I have both ). 

The original question was once you are the owner of a 24-70 II will you use the 24-105 anymore ? In theory you might say keep the IS lens for when you need it, but in practice you'll probably never have it with you when you need it.


----------



## Pi (Nov 15, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> The original question was once you are the owner of a 24-70 II will you use the 24-105 anymore ? In theory you might say keep the IS lens for when you need it, but in practice you'll probably never have it with you when you need it.



Never have with you which lens?


----------



## J.R. (Nov 15, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> In theory you might say keep the IS lens for when you need it, but in practice you'll probably never have it with you when you need it.



Yes ... with overlapping focal lengths, invariably the 24-105 is left at home (who needs to carry additional weight?) . 

That said, I've had more than one occasion where the light was fading and I ended up cursing "why didn't I bring a tripod!" but I don't remember complaining that I didn't have my 24-105! 

BTW, I carry a tripod more often than not, being the old-school type shooter


----------



## Ruined (Nov 15, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> When Canon released the 24-70 II they did state that it is IS less in order to have uncompromised optical quality, and it does indeed have uncompromised optical quality. If you take Canon at their word rather than being sceptical there may be practical truth in it. The new 24-70 IS is very good; nearly as good as the 24-70 II and better than the 24-105 ( I have both ).



I would love to take Canon at their word if not for their incremental upgrade history, and examples of what is already out:
17-55mm f/2.8 IS - great lens, though not as good as the below lenses.
24-70mm f/4 IS - great lens, just about as sharp as 24-70 II.
70-200mm f/2.8 IS II - ultra sharp w/ IS, sharper than any lens in this class released ever.
100mm f/2.8 Macro IS - incredibly razor sharp, yet it also has the most complex IS system Canon makes.

I dunno, looking at those examples collectively I find it logically hard to believe that Canon just can't make an optically superior 24-70 f/2.8 IS happen, especially when the patents for the 24-70 f/2.8 IS _already exist and were made public in July 2012_. IMO, it's just a matter of 'when,' not 'if.'  Granted, that is the big question and we may be in for a wait, but when it does happen the 24-70 II is going to drop in value greatly.



> The original question was once you are the owner of a 24-70 II will you use the 24-105 anymore ? In theory you might say keep the IS lens for when you need it, but in practice you'll probably never have it with you when you need it.



If financials are not a concern I think both are cool to have because of the latter's better reach and IS; stick the 24-105 on a secondary crop body and you have quite a nice compact telephoto zoom. But, it is true that it will likely sit in the bag unused most of the time, as you always want to bring your best and generally do not want to lug around stuff you don't need - plus realistically you could get $700 for the 24-105.

On the other hand, if you only have the 24-105 it might be worth hanging onto to see what 2014 lenses bring re: 24-70 especially with the 24-105's low resale.


----------



## Pi (Nov 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - great lens, though not as good as the below lenses.
> 24-70mm f/4 IS - great lens, just about as sharp as 24-70 II.



The 17-55 is noticeably sharper than the the 24-70/4 on the same body. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0


----------



## Ruined (Nov 15, 2013)

Pi said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - great lens, though not as good as the below lenses.
> ...



Yeah, but if you mount them on the respective body/sensor types they were primarily designed for, the 24-70 offers better performance:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Also, I previously owned the 17-55 and there was just something I did not like about the lens' output, although it is hard to quantify what that was. I am not sure if it was the color or sharpness, but it did not appear to match up to cheaper primes or more expensive zooms I had. It is far superior to kit aps-c zooms, though.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 15, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > In theory you might say keep the IS lens for when you need it, but in practice you'll probably never have it with you when you need it.
> ...



Again, for me, it comes down to theory and practice. I suppose the answer is to always carry a small lightweight tripod and a net to put something handy in to weight it down. At Building Panoramics we have a carbon fibre Gitzo and an old studio Manfrotto. The Gitzo always needs anchoring with something, normally a camera bag as without this it is just too light to be stable, a demonstration of which is in the attached photo of my partner in BP. ( Don't ask why the camera is pointing up - we'd had quite a few whiskies in the hotel the night before). 

If I were to be seduced into buying the 24-70 II I think that despite my best intentions many of my pictures would be _fractionally _ better in 'IQ', but equally many would be much worse due to camera shake and my failed resolution in always having a tripod with me ;D

So you could say Canon made the 24-70 f4 IS for me...........


----------



## Ruined (Nov 15, 2013)

Yeah, I like the 24-70 f/4 IS because it offers approx the sharpness and image quality of the 24-70 II, but also gives you IS and a lower pricetag. Still, I think it is overpriced currently. Hopefully price will go down when it pops up in more 5DIII kits.


----------



## Pi (Nov 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Yeah, but if you mount them on the respective body/sensor types they were primarily designed for, the 24-70 offers better performance:



But then you are talking about format differences, not only lens differences. Your point how IS might or might not affect IQ looks very weak when you start messing up with formats.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2013)

J.R. said:


> In my limited usage of Canon's products, I've come to notice that Canon is loathe to release an update that doesn't make sense to them despite their customers clamoring for it. See the people wanting more MP, more DR, an update to the 100-400L, 135L, 800L, etc.
> 
> With Canon, it's water off a duck's back. It will only be released if it makes economical sense to Canon, not because folks like you and me want it.



If Canon consistently failed to deliver what their customers were clamoring for, they would have been out of business already. Canon certainly does listen to their customers, for example, the key complaint about the 5DII was the AF system, and the 5DIII got the 1-series AF. I think your mistake is assuming that "folks like you and me" represent the majority of Canon's customer base...we don't. "We" (on this and other Internet forums) are clamoring for more MP and DR, meanwhile Canon is selling more cameras than their competitors that offer more MP and DR, at all levels of the lineup. Despite "our" clamoring for an updated 100-400, the current one is a very popular lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Yeah, I like the 24-70 f/4 IS because it offers approx the sharpness and image quality of the 24-70 II, but also gives you IS and a lower pricetag.



That makes sense, as long as you can live with half as much light and reduced capability for subject isolation.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Despite "our" clamoring for an updated 100-400, the current one is a very popular lens.



I believe some statistics were published here on CR that showed in Canada the 100-400L currently outsells the 70-300L by a ratio of 3:1, something that I find _astonishing_ when one considers the quality of the latter.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 15, 2013)

Pi said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but if you mount them on the respective body/sensor types they were primarily designed for, the 24-70 offers better performance:
> ...



I am not sure why you would make a cross format comparison to begin with. You are essentially taking the center of the 24-70 and blowing it up compared to a lens that was designed for the crop factor from the start.

My point was, for each respective format there are a series of Canon zooms that both have IS and are sharp across the focal spectrum, many of which are f/2.8 - with the exception of 24-70 f/2.8 which is not available (yet). I am sure the 24-70 f/2.8 IS does exist in testing, though, as the patent was filed for it a long time ago.


----------



## Pi (Nov 15, 2013)

Ruined said:


> I am not sure why you would make a cross format comparison to begin with.



You wanted to say: _I am not sure why you *I *would make a cross format comparison to begin with_, right?


----------



## Ruined (Nov 15, 2013)

Pi said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure why you would make a cross format comparison to begin with.
> ...



Point taken.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > In my limited usage of Canon's products, I've come to notice that Canon is loathe to release an update that doesn't make sense to them despite their customers clamoring for it. See the people wanting more MP, more DR, an update to the 100-400L, 135L, 800L, etc.
> ...



That exactly is my point. Like any other efficiently run business, Canon releases updates to its products only if it makes commercial sense, not because an upcoming feature is fancied by people. For the sake of the current post, they didn't release an IS version of the 24-70 2.8 despite the fact that people wanted it. 

Canon has access to more marketing research and data than what we at this forum can think of, so basically whatever is ranted here by most people doesn't affect Canon or its bottom line. I've seen some posters here who claim to be going the whole hog on the mirrorless offerings of Sony. They probably don't realise that what Sony was able to come up with in a year, Canon will be able to come up with someone similar if not better in an extremely short period of time if there was a big enough market for it. 

While I don't like the crippled products Canon sometimes pushes out, I'm glad that they don't listen to each and every demand made by people or else they would become the new Sony.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 15, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Canon has access to more marketing research and data than what we at this forum can think of,



Exactly. There will be valid reasons why the 24-70 II is not ~IS. Likewise there will be a reason for no update to the 100-400L. Possibly required retail price required to offer significant improvement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Try it for yourself; take a hand held shot with 50mm focal length of something with lots of fine detail that's far away from the camera. Take the same shot five times at 1/250 and then see if they are all as sharp as each other.



Ok, I get your suggestion a try, or rather something lose to your suggestion. I shot a sign with lettering of different sizes from a distance of ~60 yards, with a lens set to 70mm and a shutter speed of 1/320 s. I was at f/4…that means a DoF deep enough to safely ignore focus (everything from halfway to the sign to infinity was within the DoF). I took five shots handheld. There was, indeed, a small variation in the sharpness of the shots, with three of them very slightly sharper than the other two. 

But that's not the whole story. The lens I used was the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and for the above tests the IS was turned off. I then turned the IS on, and took five more handheld shots. In that series, there was also a slight variation in the sharpness of the shots, and the sharpest of the IS shots was no sharper than the non-IS shots.

I then mounted the lens on a tripod, and took five more shots. This time, there was no variation in the shots, and all of them were similar to the sharpest of the handheld sets with or without IS.

From that, I would suggest that when shooting at 1 / >4x the shutter speed, IS makes no difference, but *using a tripod* is likely to get you consistently sharp images.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Try it for yourself; take a hand held shot with 50mm focal length of something with lots of fine detail that's far away from the camera. Take the same shot five times at 1/250 and then see if they are all as sharp as each other.
> ...



The results you found when shooting from a good, rigid tripod don't surprise me. IS is good but it doesn't beat an actual stable platform for critical work, and that difference in quality can be seen in a print, even if it's not overly big. 

You didn't say if your softer ones without IS were worse than the IS softer ones. I've often felt IS isn't infallible, and the IS on your 70-200 II is as good as it gets at the present time. It's an interesting test because in the 'old days' we were led to believe that you didn't get _any_ shake if you were shooting with shutter speed over twice the focal length of the lens. Often you don't - but occasionally you do, and that could be an important shot. Given that we are not frame limited on digital it is probably a good idea to take multiple shots when in a critical situation without a tripod. 

In fact this conversation is making me think I really ought to get a small light weight 'walk about' tripod - and a sack for some rocks of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2013)

The softer non-IS shots were equivalent to the softer IS shots. I used good technique, stable handholding, allowing time for the IS to reach full stabilization (many people think it's instantaneous, and just mash down the shutter), etc. Also, the camera was in single shot mode. 

I think the 1/FL (and 1/2xFL) predate modern pixel densities. D800/a7R users need even faster shutter speeds. 

I notice in practice that when shooting with lower speeds (I often use a min shutter of 1/125 s with the 24-70), a burst helps. I almost always 'double tap' my shots - the speed of the 1D X makes that hard not to do - and if they're not identical, the second shot of the pair is the sharper one. 

Agree on the small/light tripod - that's why I had one with me, the RRS TQC-14 is quite portable.


----------

