The initial lens reviews included a section on "CR's take" speaking about the lens from a rental company's perspective. I did find this section quite helpful as it gave some insight about durability and copy-to-copy variation. If would be great if this section could be added to the newer reviews as well.
On the review itself: I did not grasp what is so awkward about the semi-macro function (except for the close focusing distance, which does not come as a surpise given the focal length). The fact that the lens has semi-macro functionality makes it an interesting travel lens as it allows you to capture an occasional butterfly or flower while only carrying 1 compact lens. Justin, would it be possible to include one or a few macro shots in the review? I would be interested to learn how it compares to a 24-70 II or 24-105 with an extension tube attached. A general comparison to the 24-105 would also be nice to include. In my view the 24-70 f4 is much more of a competitor/alternative to the 24-105 f4 than to the 24-70 f2.8 II (in terms of price range, speed and presence of IS); both f/4's are interesting travel lenses.
The lens-cap image *is* a macro photo, I'll see what else I have, though it was winter which is not my favourite macro season.
And I agree with you that having the feature/option is better than not, I just found I was *so* close to my subjects that I blocked out the light, which made macro a fairly awkward achievement (I've used both Canon 60mm and 100mm macro's and own the 100mm f/2.8 L IS). I just don't want anyone buying this lens thinking they're going to be going around with a great macro lens because, really, it's not, it's just a good utilitarian lens which, like you mentioned, is great for going around and travelling with.
Sadly I've never used the 24-105 f/4 L IS, and we don't know what it's fate will be, but surely someone here will bring it up soon enough