Canon 24-70 f/4 IS Review

[rs]

TDP have just published the ISO 12233 test chart shots. The 24-70/4 looks better at 24mm, but anything longer and the old 24-105 look better:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

[dswatson83]

I can't say I expected these results at all.

See the full written comparison of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS with samples
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/104-tamron-24-70-f28-vc-vs-canon-24-70-f4l-is

Or check out the video

Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!	Small | Large

[robbymack]

Thanks for the review, can't say I'm surprised though.  I almost waited to pull the trigger on the tamron after the canon was announced, but realized there was no way it was going to be so much better than the tamron to make up for the lost stop of light. I has just hoped the tamron would drop in price even maybe $100 in some pre holiday sale at BH or adorama. No such luck which tells me this lens is selling strong.

[Efka76]

Tamron is sharper than Canon, it is F/2.8 with image stabilisation  comparing to Canon F/4 (you can shoot with Tamron in much darker places), autofocus speed is almost the same, vignetting at F/4 is much better in Tamron, Tamron is less expensive.

My conclusion would be "Shame on you, Canon"! It seems that third party manufacturers started to produce much better quality production, which is much cheaper. This particular lens is better than Canon 24-70 L 2.8 Mark I and slightly worse than Mark II (which is much pricier). I would say that Canon should really revise its pricing strategy and focus more on quality in order to compete with Tamron and Sigma. 

I really like L class lenses, however, I hate to be screwed! I bought Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 instead of Canon 24-70 2.8 L II because of price and lack  of image stabilisation in Canon. I am very happy with Tamron!

[V8Beast]

Since the 24-70 f/2.8 Gen I lens has been phased out, perhaps Canon came out with the 24-70 f/4 as an alternative to the obscenely priced 24-70 f/2.8 II?

I'm one of the freaks who opted for the 24-105 over the old 24-70 f/2.8 for one simple reason: I need the extra reach.

[dswatson83]

You started so many threads to redirect audience to your reviews, it is virtually spamming...not to mention repeated link posting in any thread possible. Introducing your links in a discussion is one thing…starting several NEW clutter threads in a week with the sole purpose of promoting your site is an annoyance!
Instead of cluttering the forum with the same spam threads for EACH  of your reviews, each sometimes with a several new threads...why don’t you pay CR to include a link to your site?

Sorry, I started the threads in different relevant topics. The lens is brand new so there were not ongoing discussions already thus why I started a thread. I'm not sure how posting a review of the Canon lens in a canon lens forum is spamming...I just happened to have the lens, worked really hard the last few days making a review so that others can know how this lens performed before spending $1500. I'm not some big business or anything. I'm just a gear loving photographer and thought these reviews would help someone decide.

[mrmarks]

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.

Is this true for the 70-200 2.8 IS II vs the non-IS version?

[RLPhoto]

This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.

[marinien]

This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.

@RLPhoto: hey, no need to repeat that in every 20-70 f/4 IS review/comparison thread
DOA or not, let's wait for the sale figure.

[RLPhoto]

This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.

@RLPhoto: hey, no need to repeat that in every 20-70 f/4 IS review/comparison thread
DOA or not, let's wait for the sale figure.

There is no NEED to post the same topic over and over.

[beansauce]

Who cares anyhow... not many here will buy it anyway when the 24-70 II is a few hundred more and provides optical quality far superior than any other L zoom in Canons portfolio.

We will see the price elasticity of the 24/70 f4 adjust QUICKLY, which will eventually supplement the 6D and other lower tiered FF bodies as a kit lens and possibly kick the 24-105 out on its own as an option just like any other L lens. I also think we will see he price of the 24-105 increase when it is no longer packaged as a kit lens. There is no reason why an L zoom like the 24/70 f4, with its inferior optical quality, is priced more than the 24-105.

Maybe I'm wrong, but canon seems as of late to drop the ball on the price point of its products. The 5D3 is a good example with its price point $500 over the top. Canon responds with the 5D3 with a permanent rebate. At the very least, we have Nikon to thank for providing supplements and keeping canons greed in check (to some extent).

[MrCDE]

Truly amazin how many people pass comments on equipment they have never used or let alone seen.
Perhaps people want a lighter lens, want IS for a multitude of reasons, or like the smaller size...need i go on.
I use it and find the image quality to be excellent. all that matter right??

Happy shooting all.

[dswatson83]

Truly amazin how many people pass comments on equipment they have never used or let alone seen.
Perhaps people want a lighter lens, want IS for a multitude of reasons, or like the smaller size...need i go on.
I use it and find the image quality to be excellent. all that matter right??
Happy shooting all.

Do you notice the lens hood loose at all? Drove me nuts but I'm not sure if I had a bad hood or something. It was enough for me to feel movement in the hood and enough for it to make noise when I moved it around. Just wondering if my lens was the only one or this is how they are made.

[J.R.]

Who cares anyhow... not many here will buy it anyway when the 24-70 II is a few hundred more and provides optical quality far superior than any other L zoom in Canons portfolio.

The f/2.8 II costs $ 800 more than the f/4 - that the price for one 24-105!

We will see the price elasticity of the 24/70 f4 adjust QUICKLY, which will eventually supplement the 6D and other lower tiered FF bodies as a kit lens and possibly kick the 24-105 out on its own as an option just like any other L lens. I also think we will see he price of the 24-105 increase when it is no longer packaged as a kit lens. There is no reason why an L zoom like the 24/70 f4, with its inferior optical quality, is priced more than the 24-105.

I get the feeling that if the 24-70 f/4 lens comes as a kit Canon will probably retire the 24-105. After all, one is compelled to wonder where will the 24-105 f/4 fit in? OTOH, it is quite possible that Canon may give both lenses as alternate kit lens.

If the IQ ultimately turns out even equivalent (hope???), I guess people will go for the 24-70 for a good kit lens with the 0.71x magnification (supposed Macro mode). 

I agree though that I don't see why the 24-70 f/4 is priced so high as compared to the 24-105 f/4 with zero (probably negative) improvement in IQ.