Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good

[J.R.]

.

Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I've used both these lenses but can't agree with your post. Can you post some pics that's supports your conclusion?

[sagittariansrock]

I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much.  I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting. 

I'm confused by how much some people lean on IS for low-light photography. Stabilizing only accounts for one problem of low-light photography. It compensates for camera movement. It's great at doing that, but it can never compensate for subject movement. For me, shooting slower than 1/60th is not an option for available light event shooting. (Of course, with flashes, who needs IS anyways?)

No need for confusion. What works for his particular case might not apply to you. All light event shooting is not exactly the same. It really annoys me how some pro-s diss standard or wide angle zooms with image stabilization (a review of the 16-35VR by Jared Polin comes to mind). This person has tried out the 2.8 II and chose the f/4 IS over it, so obviously it works better for him. Moreover, I cannot accept that Canon didn't do prior market research and just brought out a lens nobody cares for. There cannot be one standard answer for everything.

[Radiating]

I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much.  I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting.  But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon.  When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4.  All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.

Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal).  Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles.  (I have never been paid a penny for test shots).  Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).

I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points.  Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!

Every single person who has made a claim that this lens delivers poor results, except for lens rentals, has shot with it AND shot test charts. I think if you get excited about something you can get a sort of placebo effect where you think something is better than it is. My initial impression was that this lens was way better than my old lame outdated 24-105mm, but then I sat down, and shot test charts and was shocked to find out that it was worse, way worse at the focal lengths I use most and then I started to notice all the flaws in my photos from it and I realized I just bought into the hype. I know of at least 3 other reviewers who returned this lens and have similar stories of assuming it's better because it's newer or buying into the hype only to later relealize that the lens wasn't really so great.

Test charts aren't some mythical thing that's far removed from reality, it's just taking a regular photo of a subject that is designed to make it easier to judge the flaws of a lens. You can do both a visual and computer analysis, but the visual analysis doesn't lie. If the lens makes bad photos of a brick wall, or black and white flat pattern, it's going to make bad photos of a building, or the grey and purple sweater your subject is wearing.

Granted in your situation slightly newer IS will be better as you have a second lens I'm assuming you're carrying for the focal range past 70mm, but likley you will experience identical image quality overall, unless you favor the extremes of the zoom range over the middle.

Look I wanted to like this lens, I really did. I love my 24-70mm f/2.8 II and wanted an f/4.0 Hybrid IS version of it, but this lens just doesn't deliver. It's just a different flavor of 24-105mm that has a huge markup.

[meli]

I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much.  I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting.  But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon.  When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4.  All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.

Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal).  Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles.  (I have never been paid a penny for test shots).  Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).

I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points.  Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!

I just like how anyone that doesn't share your opinion is either deluded or a troll 

Plus, i assume you compared the f4 with the tamron too and the f4 came out on top despite having the same price, a stop less and the disadvantage of not using 2.8AF. The last two are rather important for your low light event shooting needs, so you must have found a crucial advantage of the F4, do share it with us please.

[christianronnel]

...
Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles....

I like how people as dissing something new without actually trying it.  I agree with you, either post comparison shots from the lenses or just... ah never mind.

This reminds of when the 70-300L just came out and I got it.  Some people were saying why did I get it because the 70-200 F4 IS is much better.  They also complained about the price.  Then a bunch of positive reviews from people who actually shoot with the lens, and it turns out it's actually a really good lens. I wonder if those are the same people dissing the 24-70F4 IS now.

[azizjhn]

...
Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles....

I like how people as dissing something new without actually trying it.  I agree with you, either post comparison shots from the lenses or just... ah never mind.

This reminds of when the 70-300L just came out and I got it.  Some people were saying why did I get it because the 70-200 F4 IS is much better.  They also complained about the price.  Then a bunch of positive reviews from people who actually shoot with the lens, and it turns out it's actually a really good lens. I wonder if those are the same people dissing the 24-70F4 IS now.

+1

[bholliman]

...
Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls.  The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII.  This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not.  Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles....

I like how people as dissing something new without actually trying it.  I agree with you, either post comparison shots from the lenses or just... ah never mind.

This reminds of when the 70-300L just came out and I got it.  Some people were saying why did I get it because the 70-200 F4 IS is much better.  They also complained about the price.  Then a bunch of positive reviews from people who actually shoot with the lens, and it turns out it's actually a really good lens. I wonder if those are the same people dissing the 24-70F4 IS now.

We probably are not hearing much from 24-70 f/4.0 owners because not many are being sold - for good reason.  There are a bunch of hands-on reviews of this lens and the consensus is that it is either roughly equivalent or a very slight upgrade to the 24-105L.  Here is the link to the TDP review in case you missed it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

As somebody else pointed out, it would be a decent alternative to the 24-105 if Canon had priced it around $800.  But, they priced it at double that!   So, you are paying an extra $800 for similar IQ, a little less distortion and CA while losing 35mm in reach.  I really can't see why anybody would consider buying one once they have all the facts.

[christianronnel]

We probably are not hearing much from 24-70 f/4.0 owners because not many are being sold - for good reason.  There are a bunch of hands-on reviews of this lens and the consensus is that it is either roughly equivalent or a very slight upgrade to the 24-105L.  Here is the link to the TDP review in case you missed it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

As somebody else pointed out, it would be a decent alternative to the 24-105 if Canon had priced it around $800.  But, they priced it at double that!   So, you are paying an extra $800 for similar IQ, a little less distortion and CA while losing 35mm in reach.  I really can't see why anybody would consider buying one once they have all the facts.

Review is one thing, actual usage is another.  When I tried both the 24-105 and the 24-70mkI, I was never happy with the image quality when using them wide open, but I mostly shot at the extreme ends of the zoom.  I also understand about the usefulness of having a wide range of focal lengths in a zoom, if the 28-300L wasn't so damn heavy (and white) I would have gotten it.
 
On your 2nd point, the 24-105 was US$1049 when I bought it.  It was not $800.  I apologize now but I will be frank here, and this is not directed at you, it's for anyone here.  If price is the only issue for not getting the lens, then perhaps the lens is not the problem, it's your economy.  Grow your economy to match how you want to spend instead of complaining about something being expensive.

[wickidwombat]

Stabilizing only accounts for one problem of low-light photography. It compensates for camera movement. It's great at doing that, but it can never compensate for subject movement. For me, shooting slower than 1/60th is not an option for available light event shooting. (Of course, with flashes, who needs IS anyways?)

when you are shooting for 10 or 12 hours fatigue becomes a very real issue and having an IS lens provides a significant advantage here by compensating for the additional camera shake that enevitably comes once fatigue has set in. some people forget this or dont shoot enough to experience it

[bholliman]

If price is the only issue for not getting the lens, then perhaps the lens is not the problem, it's your economy.  Grow your economy to match how you want to spend instead of complaining about something being expensive.

I never said I couldn't afford it, just that it is a very poor value.  Given its features and relative value to the 24-105, this lens is worth roughly $800-1,000, but Canon is asking $1,600 for it.  I wouldn't pay $7,000 for a 5D3 either, even if I had unlimited cash.

Also, I don't really see anything this lens has that makes it worth buying.  I have a 24-105 and am very happy with it.

[Rienzphotoz]

So, you are paying an extra $800 for similar IQ, a little less distortion and CA while losing 35mm in reach.  I really can't see why anybody would consider buying one once they have all the facts.

The answer is quite simple: those who want better IQ (or similar as you claim), less distortion and CA (does not matter if it is little less or lot less), those who do not care about the extra 35mm reach, for those that are not overly bothered about spending a few hundred extra (or 800 as you claim) will buy 24-70 f/4 IS.
Finally it is not necessary for us to "see" or understand "why anyone would consider buying one", coz its their need, their money and their decision.
Lots of people said the same thing about 5D MK III, "why pay $3499 for it, why not just buy 5D MK II and save almost $1500 etc, etc, etc" ... the fact remains that those who want/need it and can benefit from its features have bought it ... in fact in many parts of the world people are still paying anywhere between $3500 - $4350 to get a 5D MK III (body only).
Although I really like my 24-105 f/4 L IS, if money was not an issue, I would buy 24-70 f/4 L IS ... I would even buy my lost 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens again ... unfortunately money was/is an issue so I bought the 24-70 f/2.8 VC.

[J.R.]

when you are shooting for 10 or 12 hours fatigue becomes a very real issue and having an IS lens provides a significant advantage here by compensating for the additional camera shake that enevitably comes once fatigue has set in. some people forget this or dont shoot enough to experience it

Well said ... I guess this comes only from experience.

Frankly I never gave a thought to this - shooting 10-12 hours and fatigue setting in - because I've never shot that long continuously. 

[bholliman]

Finally it is not necessary for us to "see" or understand "why anyone would consider buying one", coz its their need, their money and their decision.

Excellent point.  We all make our own purchase decisions.  Features that are trivial to one person are essential to others.

[dswatson83]

While it is a good lens (great if you want Macro), it was not significantly better than the 24-105 in my opinion. It was smaller and lighter if you want that but the sharpness was not improved (was lower at 50mm on my lens). Chromatic Abrasion was better which was nice but it just did not feel like it was worth more money. I also compared it to the Tamron 24-70 VC f/2.8 which gives you an extra stop for $200 less. Great lens. Take a look Samples and full review between the 2 lenses here: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/104-tamron-24-70-f28-vc-vs-canon-24-70-f4l-is

Also have the review of the Canon 24-70 f/4: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/99-canon-24-70-f4-is-review

And a direct comparison with the 24-105mm f/4 IS: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/103-canon-24-70-f4-is-vs-canon-24-105-f4-is

If you would like to see the details of what i'm talking about. It's not that it is a bad lens, it just didn't seem to bring much new to the table except for a huge price jump (unless you want it for Macro)

[JerryKnight]

I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much.  I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting. 

I'm confused by how much some people lean on IS for low-light photography. Stabilizing only accounts for one problem of low-light photography. It compensates for camera movement. It's great at doing that, but it can never compensate for subject movement. For me, shooting slower than 1/60th is not an option for available light event shooting. (Of course, with flashes, who needs IS anyways?)

No need for confusion. What works for his particular case might not apply to you. All light event shooting is not exactly the same. It really annoys me how some pro-s diss standard or wide angle zooms with image stabilization (a review of the 16-35VR by Jared Polin comes to mind). This person has tried out the 2.8 II and chose the f/4 IS over it, so obviously it works better for him. Moreover, I cannot accept that Canon didn't do prior market research and just brought out a lens nobody cares for. There cannot be one standard answer for everything.

Please re-read my post, or closely read my attempted clarification below.

when you are shooting for 10 or 12 hours fatigue becomes a very real issue and having an IS lens provides a significant advantage here by compensating for the additional camera shake that enevitably comes once fatigue has set in. some people forget this or dont shoot enough to experience it

Look, I was only pointing out that a stabilized lens cannot compensate for a moving subject, which is big part of event photography, is it not? I know how wobbly the arms get during long shoots, and I know how good stabilizing is at doing what it's made for, but it's not a 100% cure-all for all low-light photography.

If Canon comes out with a stabilizer that can stabilize a moving subject, let me know, but until then, I make the claim that a wider aperture is more useful for low-light event photography than the same focal range with a smaller aperture and stabilizer. Of course, I'm only talking about cases where it's dark enough that you approach the reciprocal rule. There are plenty of "low-light" situations where either lens will perform great.

Or to put it another way: stabilizers are designed for when you're shooting near the reciprocal shutter speed, but when that shutter speed approaches 1/50th, subject motion blur becomes an issue. In this case, a wider aperture that lets you shoot faster than 1/50th is more useful than a stabilized lens at a narrower aperture. That is why I "diss" medium and wide stabilized lenses. They're relatively useless for shooting anything that moves in low light.

(Disclaimer: Again, this is only for stills. Video benefits much more from a stabilizer at any focal length.)