EF 24-70 f/4L IS in Stock at B&H Photo

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

Preorder at B&H Photo

The Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS is in stock at B&H Photo.

Buy the Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS for $1499 at B&H Photo

cr

[RLPhoto]

Who will be buying this? 

[HoneyBadger]

I feel that I have too many uses for a 24-70mm to limit myself to f/4.

[heptagon]

How does this stand up to the Tamron 24-70?

[BL]

this lens is a solution looking for a problem

[Dianoda]

Who will be buying this? 

I'm definitely interested.  Waiting for reviews first, but I like the size/weight/flexibility for travel, walkaround, and it would probably be close to ideal as a single lens solution for my backpacking trips, too.  The buying decision for me will depend mostly on the optics.

I do find this lens way more interesting than the 24-105mm f/4 IS; it should hopefully offer better IQ, smaller size/less weight, and the macro mode is appealing as well.  So (potentially) the only significant trade-offs are aperture and less zoom range than some might prefer (although personally I'd rather have a smaller zoom range and better optical performance).

[neuroanatomist]

i just read a review that said it´s less sharp then the 24-105mm.

Given previous statements along these lines, I have to ask...where do you read these reviews/tests?  I'm highly skeptical of whatever review you're referring to - can you provide a link or reference?

The MTF charts tell a very different story...

24-105mm f/4L IS


24-70mm f/4L IS

[willhuff.net]

I will buy this as a landscape lens if it's as sharp as the 24-70L mkII. I don't shoot many landscapes at 2.8 and the f4 translates into weight savings.

[RLPhoto]

The wide end appears to have slightly better IQ on the F/4 24-70L than the 24-105L.

The tele end can't really be a fair comparison because its at different focal lengths. At tele, they're still pretty similiar.

still can't justify the 750$ premium on the new lens but it would be nicer to backpack with.

[pdirestajr]

Perhaps this lens will eventually become the standard "kit" lens for high(er)-end cameras for the next 8+ years.

It actually isn't that much more expensive than the 24-105 MSRP of $1,149.00 USD, and that lens has been around for a while.

And you have to assume it will eventually get reduced a few hundo, then get slapped with an instant rebate every other week, then get bundled with the next camera we'll all complain about.... before you know it, they'll be flooding Craigslist and you can scoop one up for  < $800USD.

[AndersBorg]

I am very much looking foward to the reviews of this lens.

If it shows to be a solid improvement over the 24-105mm in terms of sharpness and AF, I will probably purchase it as a standard zoom for my 6D.

[raptor3x]

Given previous statements along these lines, I have to ask...where do you read these reviews/tests?

because im not a fanboy who makes general (false) statements like "canon lenses are better then nikons".... without any differentiation?

there are a few german sites who have tested the lens... for example:

http://www.traumflieger.de/reports/Videos/Traumflieger-DSLR-Woche/das-neue-Canon-24-70mm-4-0-im-Test-Teil-1-DSLR-Wo-14-1::386.html

they did retests because they could not believe the bad result either.

Wow, that looks awful.  Do you know if they used multiple copies or if they just retested the same lens?

[neech7]

It actually isn't that much more expensive than the 24-105 MSRP of $1,149.00 USD

Comparing MSRP to MSRP, the new lens is 30% more expensive than the 24-105.

Comparing current street prices, it is 100% more expensive ($1500 compared to $750).

[neuroanatomist]

there are a few german sites who have tested the lens... for example:

http://www.traumflieger.de/reports/Videos/Traumflieger-DSLR-Woche/das-neue-Canon-24-70mm-4-0-im-Test-Teil-1-DSLR-Wo-14-1::386.html

Thanks for the link. They are only looking at the resolution in center of the lens (my subjects usually aren't right there, are yours?).  Also, I don't understand the rationale for summarizing the results as an average of the wide and tele ends or an average of the values from wide open (which varies by lens) to f/16.   

Moreover, looking over the tests on that site, I see several results that disagree with many other testing sites (e.g. the 300mm f/4L IS scoring much higher than the 70-200mm f/4L IS, which is quite the opposite of data on TDP, PZ, etc., even when only looking at center sharpness). 

So, they're reporting just one measure among many that are important to lens performance, and calling that one measurement a 'review' is an understatement, IMO.  Add in the questionable accuracy of their methods based on other lens tests (and in this case, a direct contradiction of Canon's MTF charts), and I'm certainly going to defer judgment on the lens until we see some real reviews (although it's an academic issue for me, since like you, I have no real interest in the lens for my needs).  Those reviews may turn out negative, too, time will tell.  But the MTF charts for the 24-70/2.8 II were also impressive, and the performance tests were consistent with that.  But then again, there were bad copies of the 24-70/2.8 II (TDP tested 4 of them to get a good one), and if the same problems are plaguing the 24-70/4 IS, that may be a factor in poor reviews as well.

[raptor3x]

Thanks for the link. They are only looking at the resolution in center of the lens (my subjects usually aren't right there, are yours?).  Also, I don't understand the rationale for summarizing the results as an average of the wide and tele ends or an average of the values from wide open (which varies by lens) to f/16.   

Moreover, looking over the tests on that site, I see several results that disagree with many other testing sites (e.g. the 300mm f/4L IS scoring much higher than the 70-200mm f/4L IS, which is quite the opposite of data on TDP, PZ, etc., even when only looking at center sharpness). 

So, they're reporting just one measure among many that are important to lens performance, and calling that one measurement a 'review' is an understatement, IMO.  Add in the questionable accuracy of their methods based on other lens tests (and in this case, a direct contradiction of Canon's MTF charts), and I'm certainly going to defer judgment on the lens until we see some real reviews (although it's an academic issue for me, since like you, I have no real interest in the lens for my needs).  Those reviews may turn out negative, too, time will tell.  But the MTF charts for the 24-70/2.8 II were also impressive, and the performance tests were consistent with that.  But then again, there were bad copies of the 24-70/2.8 II (TDP tested 4 of them to get a good one), and if the same problems are plaguing the 24-70/4 IS, that may be a factor in poor reviews as well.

They also provide a TDP style chart showing image quality at different points in the frame.    While the sharpness at 70mm isn't terrible, the quality at 24mm really does look quite bad.  That said, given the variation shown with the 24-70ii on TDP, we'll probably have to wait for a few more reviews to come in before getting any idea of what the lens is really like.