Gear Talk > Lenses

A second look at the 24-70 F/4L IS's place in my bag...

(1/4) > >>

ahsanford:
Hey gang,

I continue to be intrigued with the new 24-70L F/4L IS.  I don't own it yet, and I won't bite at the current price.  That said, I'm poking around at early data and reviews.

Despite a few near universal opinions on this forum:


* Yes, we all wanted to see a 24-70 F/2.8L IS announced instead.  (Minus points if you link the Tamron sarcastically)
* Yes, the current asking price for the new 24-70L F/4L IS is unreasonable.
* Yes, 24-105 F/4L IS is already available -- with more length and lower cost!
I'd like to put those comments on the "I understand, but we're not talking about that here" parking lot.  Otherwise this thread will spiral into 'why did Canon do this instead of what I wanted' territory.  Please don't go there, thx.

I still am intrigued by a few points on this lens:


* 70% max magnification from a standard zoom in L quality?  That's really ducked under a lot of people's radars.  This is a formidable on-demand macro option.  I often leave my 100L macro at home, especially when I am traveling, and tubes are a pain in my hands, so this is an attractive feature for me.
* Smaller, lighter, etc.  I am carrying primes much more often than my pickle jar 24-70 F2.8L Mk I these days.
* Better IQ.  I am confident that the new 24-70 F/4L IS will trump the 24-105 F/4L IS, but I am waiting for more data on how it stacks up to my 24-70 F2.8L Mk I.
Or another way to put it, isn't this new lens just a 24-105 minus length, but plus smaller size/weight plus better IQ plus 0.7x Macro?

I am not proposing that it is a good call right now, given its price, but given how little I shoot macro and how heavy my 24-70 F2.8L Mk I is, this lens could conceivably do an 8/10 job at replacing both.  I certainly wouldn't argue to pitch better lenses for this, but this could be a killer travel / vacation / 'fight all battles' lens call.

Thoughts?  Does anyone here have one and could share their usage experience?

Thx,
A

Random Orbits:
It is an interesting comparison if price were not a factor.

According to LensRentals, the 24-70 f/4 IS is a bit better than the original Canon 24-70 and the 24-105, but it is closer to those two lenses than matching the performance of the 24-70 II.

The other thing that I've read is that the macro feature requires a short working distance, and at max mag, lighting will be a challenge.  It's not like 0.7x is needed often, but it a nice feature to have...

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

robbymack:
It seems to me the macro was more or less a "hey look what we can do" feature and oh that means we can charge you another $700. The iq improvement is nice, but I still question the need for this lens in the line up. This is only a guess but im thinking canon saw a marked decrease in their 70-200 sales (any version) since the 24-105 came out. Most general users would probably not need much more than 105 day to day and likely didn't want to pay for the overlapping mm and either would opt not to purchase a tele lens or maybe go for a 100-400 instead.

wayno:
It's a shame this lens isn't equivalent in IQ to the new 24-70 as the 70-200 f4 IS to its bigger brother.
Would be more palatable, particular when it drops in price more.
At the moment, seems like a questionable addition to most kits.

BL:
the macro function is of most interest to me.  but good golly, do you have to get close with the 24-70!

i have enough problems blocking light with my 100L, I can't imagine the excercise in frustration shooting close with speedlites, shadows, etc.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version