EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

Via Lens Rentals
Roger Cicala from LensRentals.com has posted his first resolution tests of the Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS.

He has compared it with the EF 24-70 f/2.8L version 1 and 2, the EF 24-105 f/4L IS as well as the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8VC. All of which will probably get your consideration in a very crowded focal range.

At 24mm, the EF 24-70 f/4L IS is the second best performing lens behind the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. Mind you, the results are all pretty close. It does look like Canon’s MTF chart of the lens holds up against the others.

EF 24-70 f/4L IS at 24mm Resolution Comparison Chart

At 70mm, none of the lenses are as sharp as they are at 24mm. However, the EF 24-70 f/4L IS is again the 2nd best performing lens by a small amount.

EF 24-70 f/4L IS at 70mm Resolution Comparison Chart

Part of Roger’s Conclusion
“Obviously this hasn’t told us a thing about autofocus accuracy, bokeh, or a dozen other things that have to be considered when choosing a lens. Just like you, I’ll be waiting for more complete reviews to tell us about that.

On the basis of this information, though, I’m . . . well, I don’t know what I am. This is a good lens, but I at the price point I’d probably prefer the f/2.8 of the Tamron VC to the new Canon’s f/4. The macro feature is nice and will certainly pull some people towards the Canon.”

Roger also notes that there was quite a bit of variation at 70mm between the 22 copies they tested.

Read the entire article | Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS at B&H Photo $1499

cr

[bchernicoff]

So, when it drops to $999-ish it would be a good alternative to 24-105. Smaller and lighter with macro and better optics and improved IS.

[transpo1]

Thanks and no thanks, Canon- I'm glad you're creating and improving products, but I'll stick with my 24-105L lens. I can live with 5% barrel distortion at the wide end in exchange for the increased telephoto reach. It's the best overall travel lens I've ever used. For my next purchase, I'll await a 14-24 2.8L

[RS2021]

You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands

[LukieLauXD]

Would've been better if they did a 24-105 refresh T_T

[preppyak]

Since I'm probably moving to full-frame in the next year or two, I like the potential this lens has. Much less barrel distortion can matter for landscapes, as will corner sharpness. Seeing as I've got a 70-200, I'm not too worried about the lack of range. And even doing 1:2 macro is good enough for me, as it's rare I want to do more than that anyway.

It makes it a more versatile walk-around for backpacking trips (being smaller and lighter). And I'm sure the price will have settled into the $1100 or so range by the time I'm ready to consider it. Then again, a 24-105 may well be $600 by then, so it'll be hard to say

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands

Why? The tamron and 24-70 IS clearly test better, especially at 24mm.

[bchernicoff]

Actually, it's looking like I am going to sell my 24-105 and get the Tamron. I'll be trading reach and filter compatibility for improved IQ and one stop of light.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Sounds pretty good although it doesn't match the 24-70 II (as expected from the MTF charts), at least not at f/4 (although it's very close wide open to wide open). I'd really be curious how it does f/8 though or even f/5.6 too. It's hard to say much more without knowing that. This sort of lens, in particular, may be used stopped down a lot.

Better than the 24-105 IS (or 24-70 I if you don't need f/2. though. I suppose it is possible that the 24-105 catches up as you stop down and then the 24-70 IS would not look so good though. OTOH if the 24-70 IS becomes like the 24-70 II stopped down then it would be a much better lens than the 24-105 by miles.

If the Tamron didn't exist I guess it might make sense at the price it was launched at, although it really depends how well it compares to the 24-70 II stopped down. Considering the Tamron though it seems a bit pricey (although, again, it's hard to say without seeing how it does stopped down, maybe it does better for 24mm landscapes?). It only tested a tiny bit better across the range and lacks f/2.8, but again what about stopped down? We only get to see the 24-70 II wide open vs Tamron stopped down in this test.

It appears to deserve to cost more than the 24-105 IS but the Tamron does make the price seem a little rough, depending (on whether it is a trade of for getting access to f/2.8 vs. better stopped down landscape performance or something).

Of course large scale contrast and AF and such remain to be seen.

And the stopped down performance needs to be tested. Does it perform like the 24-105 or the 24-70 II?

[kubelik]

it's always easy to look at design decisions when you're not involved in them ... but I wonder what Canon could have done with a 24-85mm design instead of 24-70mm.  I use the 24-70 f/2.8 L a lot, even when traveling, but I do have to admit there are times when an extra 15mm of reach would be fantastic.  that being said, I'm actually pretty impressed with the lens, in particular regarding the size.  if it weren't such a silly waste of money to have both a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 24-70 f/4, I think I actually would get one as a travel walkaround.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

It seems to me that (like the new 35mm f/2 IS) that Canon has produced a lens that compares well to its internal competition (exceeds the 24-105L 24-70L and MK1, is sufficiently short of the 24-70 MKII for fair value), but neglects to consider the competition (in this case, the Tamron).  The Tamron comes out looking the greatest in terms of the combination of optics, features, and price.

The same thing is happening to the 35mm f/2 IS.  It compares nicely to its predecessor and even the 35L, but the Sigma (and a fairly high price) make it seem a step behind and less of a value as it should be.  At the 600-700 range, it would be a great alternative.  At the current price, however, the Sigma looks like a far greater value (particularly when you consider that the Sigma comes with both a hood and a NICE case).  Likewise, as someone has already pointed out, the 24-70 f/4L would be a great alternative at $1000.  As it stands, however, it only reinforces the value of the Tamron and makes those of us who own the 24-105L want to hang onto it.

[RS2021]

You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands

Why? The tamron and 24-70 IS clearly test better, especially at 24mm.

As always, everything is a package deal....lets not discount the added reach the 24-105L offers with IS and decent IQ and contrast.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands

Why? The tamron and 24-70 IS clearly test better, especially at 24mm.

As always, everything is a package deal....lets not discount the added reach the 24-105L offers with IS and decent IQ and contrast.

24-70 f/4 also has IS

24-105 has added reach, but also added distortion and a 70-200/300 lens delivers much better 70-105mm quality plus a LOT more reach.

But I guess it depends how you shoot and what your aims and goals are.

I will give you that the 24-70 IS can currently be had for nothing less than $1500 and the 24-105 LNIB split from a kit for like $700ish.

[Scott911]

just an embarrassing note - maybe add " bigger number is better / worse" type text to future graphs. 

[Scott911]

You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands

Why? The tamron and 24-70 IS clearly test better, especially at 24mm.

As always, everything is a package deal....lets not discount the added reach the 24-105L offers with IS and decent IQ and contrast.

24-105 has added reach, but also added distortion and a 70-200/300 lens delivers much better 70-105mm quality plus a LOT more reach.

Thing is, 24-105 covers a lot of range as a quality walk around lens.  No doubt a pair of lens (like a 24-70 & 70-200) give you more in multiple metrics, namely quality & reach, but one len / one body has it's benefits for casual trips where you don't even take a bag...  That's why I like my 24-105.