« on: May 12, 2014, 02:55:52 PM »
Or it could be that the 24-70F4 and the 70-200F4 are targeted towards outdoors shooters who have to carry their gear a long way. Realistically, there is no IQ difference between the F4s and the F2.8s, the trade-off is weight for speed.Well, those 2 lenses are targeted at different markets.
The 24-70 f/4 is targeted at the lower end of the market where IS (shooting at slow shutter speeds or have shaky hands) and wants closeup/short 'macro' operation with fairly good image quality, but not top end.
You may be interested to know that I have a friend and colleague who must be one of the most financially successful photographers in recent times - we're talking $400,000 yachts here, all genuinely from photography - and he now uses a 24-70 f4 IS.
It's inaccurate to say it's not aimed at 'top end'.
I'm tempted to say the 24-70 f2.8 II is aimed as much at very wealthy hobbyists as much as professionals who want the best possible IQ straight off the camera but I don't have any hard evidence for this, so I'd better not
Sadly, in my experience that's only the case with the 70-200s (the 4 and 2.8 are both spectacular and you just pay for speed) . However, the 24-70 f/4 just isn't on the same level as the 2.8 version...sorry to say. Other than IS, I find it to be optically inferior (at least the ones I've tried) in almost every aspect (except maybe at 24mm). In particular it is quite underwhelming around 50mm. Maybe that's an optical compromise Canon had to make in order to fit the Macro feature in...otherwise I am sure they could have made it every bit as good as the 2.8, perhaps even better. This is not to say it is a bad lens...but I do think it is overpriced (I expect better at $1.5K price point - if it were $800, it would be an excellent alternative to the 24-105) and other lenses offer much better price/performance ratios.