Canon 24-70 f/4 IS Review

[bholliman]

Notice, however, that with all 3 copies of the 24-70, it is weakest at 50mm? The 24-105 beats it handily at 50mm (as does the 24-70 2.8 ), and distortion aside, the performance of the 24-70 at 50 ~ 24-105 at 24.

Interesting... I didn't notice that. As you said it's particularly interesting to note the performance of the 24-70 f/4 IS  at 50 compared to the 24-105 at 24.

I wonder what the reason is for the fall off in performance at 50mm?

I think the 24-105 looks a little better at 35mm also.  Definately sharper at 50mm.  I'd say sharpness is close to a wash when you consider all focal lengths.

[x-vision]

Notice, however, that with all 3 copies of the 24-70, it is weakest at 50mm?

Very interesting indeed.

Sample 2 seems slightly better than samples 1 and 3 - but all three are worse than the 24-105L.
So, not a copy variation issue; likely a design characteristics of the lens.

[Act444]

So, not a copy variation issue; likely a design characteristics of the lens.

That's the first thing that came to my mind...but then again, it depends on where the three samples came from. Were they taken from the same "batch"? Or different ones? When there's a defect, it usually manifests itself in a particular batch, rather than being "randomly spread out".

I'd like to see him test a 4th one a month or so from now. Still, you'd probably have to (randomly) test 50 or 100 of these lenses to make such a determination...

[dswatson83]

So, this is not what I expected at all and I actually had to do these sharpness tests 3 times to confirm the results. I'm a bit worried on the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS now. I've got a comparison coming with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and as of now, Canon is no longer my top choice.

Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Fight!	Small | Large

[J.R.]

This basically confirms my first impressions of the new 24-70 (sharpness issue aside). The new 24-70 offers pretty much nothing when compared to the 24-105 except a macro mode with 0.7 magnification and is not an upgrade from the 24-105.

I doubt anyone who got the 24-105 will "upgrade" to the f/4 24-70. The inbuilt macro of the 24-70 is a non-issue because you could get the excellent 100L macro and also save some $$$.

I guess Canon might phase out the 24-105 but then Canon's marketing strategy is impossible to comprehend.

Looking forward to the Tamron review.

Cheers ... JR
 

[jdramirez]

I have a 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro and a 24-105... and while it would be nice to have the functionality in one lens... it's not worth the price tag.  I know the price of the 24-70 will come down... but I really really like my 100mm L and I don't mind having multiple lenses. 

Honestly, I don't have any big issues with my 24-105... and I'm glad it will stay in my bag... because the 24-70 f/2.8L mkii is just way out of my price range and I just refuse to buy Tamron or Sigma.

[M.ST]

If you look on the lens market today the most versions with IS (VC) can´t reach the non IS (VC) versions in image quality.

That´s why I prefer the EF 24-70 2.8 II.

[Grummbeerbauer]

I' also a happy owner of both the 100L and the 24-105L, and I, too, was thinking "What the ..." when Canon announced the new 24-70 f4 L IS. Way too expensive for little gain.
lensrentals.com has an interesting comparison of 24-70 2.8 I, 24-70 2.8 II, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, 24-70 f4 IS, and 24-105 f4 IS, and that averaged over many samples. Here the new 24-70 f4 IS beats the 24-105 by a small margin in sharpness (and by a large margin in distortion ), and the Tamron lies in between the Canon 2.8s.

See for yourself:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

Still, not only based on that numbers, I don't think that I would ever "upgrade" to the 24-70 f4. I would rather spent that money on the Tamron, which seems to be excellent, given the price.

[beansauce]

This basically confirms my first impressions of the new 24-70 (sharpness issue aside). The new 24-70 offers pretty much nothing when compared to the 24-105 except a macro mode with 0.7 magnification and is not an upgrade from the 24-105.

I doubt anyone who got the 24-105 will "upgrade" to the f/4 24-70. The inbuilt macro of the 24-70 is a non-issue because you could get the excellent 100L macro and also save some $$$.

I guess Canon might phase out the 24-105 but then Canon's marketing strategy is impossible to comprehend.

Looking forward to the Tamron review.

Cheers ... JR

I really, really hope Canon doesn't phase out the 24/105L. It is such a fabulous lens.... and for what? A crappy 24-70 F4! No thanks...

If they do and my 24-105 ever fails and is unserviceable, ill spring for the 24-70 f/2.8 II

[J.R.]

I really, really hope Canon doesn't phase out the 24/105L. It is such a fabulous lens.... and for what? A crappy 24-70 F4! No thanks...

If they do and my 24-105 ever fails and is unserviceable, ill spring for the 24-70 f/2.8 II

I doubt whether the 24-70 f/4 is crappy. It is only that the 24-105L has been bought by most users as a kit lens that the 24-70 appears to be a waste of space. However, someone not having the 24-105 has an option of getting a decent 24-70 f/4L which can do reasonable close up work in a single lens. I see many prosumers opting for this lens (as a first L lens) primarily for this reason.

BTW, I agree with you that if the 24-105 fails, even I would upgrade to the 24-70 f/2.8 II - actually I might upgrade sooner without waiting for the 24-105 to fail .

[spinworkxroy]

I'm more interested to see his comparison with the Tamron really.
I never considered this lens the day it was announced
I already have the 24-105 and i just bought the 24-70II.
When i want the sharpness, i'll go to the 24-70.
When i need the IS and reach, i go to the 24-105..This 24-70f4….is just average for everything..and to not even match the old 24-105 in sharpness is really not acceptable in my opinion..

[Viggo]

Thanks for posting. I'm a bit surprised, checked the results over at TDP also, and looks like it is like this. Dissapointing.

[dilbert]

i have posted a review a few days ago or so, who came to the same conclusion.
resolution worse then the 24-105mm.

strange that lensrental came to such a completely different conclusion.
there must be a great sample variation.

Did you check to make sure that your lens was properly tuned to the body with AFMA fine tuning?

[Act444]

The lack of sharpness on the 24-70 at 50mm (compared to the 24-105) jumped out at me when I looked at the TDP resolution charts...so it wasn't just my imagination then- something is going on there.

Perhaps that's the compromise they had to make optically in order to squeeze in the macro function- who knows. Still would have expected more at that price point.

[oscaroo]

Thanks for the warning!
I'll stop eagerly awaiting for the 24-70 IS and instead gloat with my 24-105.