EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests

[neech7]

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.

I don't think it's fair to compare the long end of a standard zoom to the wide end of a telephoto lens, especially since the 24-105 is known to be weak at the long end, possibly as a compromise to give the wide end better performance.

[RS2021]

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

I only listed IS as part of the "package deal" in the Canon line up (reach, L build, and constant f4 etc)...not to suggest the Tamron lacks it.

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

24-105L is my go-to lens for travel, though I could choose from key primes/tele zooms. It is by no means a "small" lens but I usually fall back on it when I carry just a single lens. It is a versatile, reliable performer.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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

I only listed IS as part of the "package deal" in the Canon line up (reach, L build, and constant f4 etc)...not to suggest the Tamron lacks it.

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

24-105L is my go-to lens for travel, though I could choose from key primes/tele zooms. It is by no means a "small" lens but I usually fall back on it when I carry just a single lens. It is a versatile, reliable performer.

+1 for that.  I now find the shorty forty a very easy addition to throw in there, too, giving a nice option for lower light work.

[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.

24-105 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.

I guess. I just figure that if I care enough to take a DSLR then I want better than the 24-105 delivers on FF (or wider and better (and for less) on APS-C). And walking around and travel and such are often when I come upon the best scenes where I'd want the most quality if anything.

I never, ever, ever got the whole leave the good stuff home when you are traveling (or even walking about)! That is when you are in interesting places! Why leave the good stuff home when you are around all these amazing and unique opportunities and then bring it out when you are back in the same old whatever? But to each their own. But for me, travel is when I'd most of all want the tops. I sooner use the convenient lower stuff for someones cat wandering through my backyard and the good stuff for the Seychelles or Paris or the Big Sur or what not.

Obviously many love the 24-105 though. It often comes up the tops in most favorite lens posts. (Then again it also comes up most often of any lens in least favorite lens posts too  ). I tried to like it three times and quickly returned or solid it all three times. But obviously while many agree with me, very many also disagree.

[RS2021]

24-105L is my go-to lens for travel, though I could choose from key primes/tele zooms. It is by no means a "small" lens but I usually fall back on it when I carry just a single lens. It is a versatile, reliable performer.

+1 for that.  I now find the shorty forty a very easy addition to throw in there, too, giving a nice option for lower light work.

+1
I don't own the 40mm yet, but the thought has crossed my mind...but I am holding off to see if this new 35L II pans out in the next two weeks or so The 40mm might still be a good travel choice if size is key as my old 35L is not *that* small compared to the 24-105L...and one has to expect the new 35L II (if it ever materializes) will also be a significant size. 40mm seems to be a feather-weight and by all accounts performs well for its price.

Oh I guess I may have to find that extra $150 for the shorty forty after all. 

[dstppy]

Hrm, looks like it's soft as all get out @ f/2.8

*ducks*

[Sporgon]

24-105L is my go-to lens for travel, though I could choose from key primes/tele zooms. It is by no means a "small" lens but I usually fall back on it when I carry just a single lens. It is a versatile, reliable performer.
[/quote]

+1 for that.  I now find the shorty forty a very easy addition to throw in there, too, giving a nice option for lower light work.
[/quote

+1 - that's exactly what I'm doing
 when I'm out on the off chance. 24-105 on camera, 40 in pocket.

With regard to the 24-70 f4, it must be intended to have significantly higher IQ than the 24-105 otherwise I cannot see any logical reason for it. Time will tell.

[robbymack]

And the winner is............Tamron

Honestly there is no real reason to chose the 24-70 f4 IS unless you really (and i mean really) care about saving a little weight.  Seems to me the 24-105 now has to go the way of the dinosaurs for canon to move this lens in bulk.

[infared]

Roger gives us the BEST info!!!!  Thanks Roger...I always feel informed after reading anything that he posts.

[transpo1]

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.

+1 Absolutely.

[rbr]

I guess. I just figure that if I care enough to take a DSLR then I want better than the 24-105 delivers on FF (or wider and better (and for less) on APS-C). And walking around and travel and such are often when I come upon the best scenes where I'd want the most quality if anything.

I never, ever, ever got the whole leave the good stuff home when you are traveling (or even walking about)! That is when you are in interesting places! Why leave the good stuff home when you are around all these amazing and unique opportunities and then bring it out when you are back in the same old whatever? But to each their own. But for me, travel is when I'd most of all want the tops. I sooner use the convenient lower stuff for someones cat wandering through my backyard and the good stuff for the Seychelles or Paris or the Big Sur or what not.

Obviously many love the 24-105 though. It often comes up the tops in most favorite lens posts. (Then again it also comes up most often of any lens in least favorite lens posts too  ). I tried to like it three times and quickly returned or solid it all three times. But obviously while many agree with me, very many also disagree.

I agree 100% with this. I have tried 3 copies of the 24-105 and owned one for about 6 months, but was never happy with it at the wide end where I would use it most. The corners never looked good for serious landscape work on full frame or even on a 1D4 at 24mm. While overpriced at the moment, it could possibly be a great landscape lens. Unfortunately these tests don't tell us much about that. Corner sharpness at 24mm stopped down a bit to maybe f8 is what I'm most interested in. Comparing this new lens wide open to f2.8 lenses stopped down just isn't a reasonable comparison IMO. According to the charts in the article, this lens is sharper wide open at 24mm than any of those f2.8 lenses wide open including the L II.  With its small size I think it really has potential to be the lens I have been waiting for for travel and hiking. Yeah, it really should come down in price a few hundred dollars. I expect that this lens will have a similar fate to the 70-300L that a few years ago many felt was an unneeded and overpriced lens for Canon to come out with. The 70-300L has since become generally well liked and the price has also come down with frequent rebates, etc.

[Plato the Wise]

I'm really disappointed with the price-point of this lens.

While I like the 24-105 - the barrel distortion at 24mm is really annoying. If this lens were under $1K - I would definitely be in the market for it and trade in my 24-105.

From the tests it seems reasonably sharp. It is weather sealed, has IS, is small, and has a lot less distortion. It would be perfect to carry as a companion to a couple of primes.

[kobeson]

From the tests it seems reasonably sharp. It is weather sealed, has IS, is small, and has a lot less distortion. It would be perfect to carry as a companion to a couple of primes.

Exactly what I hoped this lens would be! I agree, overpriced still but hoping to add it to my 35/85/100 kit (along with a 70-200).

Just hope it has corner sharpness stopped down and I am sold!

[dilbert]

So how can Canon continue to bundle the 24-105 as the kit lens?

Oh wait, for years it sold DSLR bundles with the 28-135 so they just care about moving kit, not quality.

Time for the 24-105 to go the way of dinosaurs - agreed.

[eyeland]

Would be nice with some measure of build quality and IS, but I guess that mileage varies to such a degree depending on particular use that it'd be of little use anyways...
Would be nice with some improved quality testing from canon at these price points though.
The way it looks, my vote goes to the Tamron as well if I should decide to start using zoom glass at all