Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

[Zlatko]

This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.

+1
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...

Cheers!

Or even

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2

or

24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro?  None.  There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.

Image quality wouldn't matter at $1499?  Then the 24-70/2.8II was DOA at its introductory price of $2299.  But it wasn't.

[RLPhoto]

This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.

+1
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...

Cheers!

Or even

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2

or

24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro?  None.  There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.

Image quality wouldn't matter at $1499?  Then the 24-70/2.8II was DOA at its introductory price of $2299.  But it wasn't.

Its funny you say "Built in Macro" because my old powershot has a "Built in macro" feature. Just because it can focus really close doesn't mean its a macro lens just as my powershot lens isn't really a macro.

And yes, the IQ didn't matter @ 1499$, Because this lenses IQ is laughable for said price. Its marginally better than the 24-105L for twice the price.

While the 24-70II is the very best 24-70 ever made by any manufacturer, thus worth the 2300$ price tag.

Jack of all trades, Master of some, and chosen by none. IE: DOA.

[curby]

Interesting results, to be sure.  This lens, along with the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, are frontrunners for replacing my 17-55/2.8 IS if I end up going full frame later on this year.  Seems like I'd be trading focus shifting and smaller aperture for portability (smaller lens, and I probably wouldn't need a dedicated macro). 

Odd that the review didn't really mention macro performance too much, and none of the sample shots show a close focus situation.  I guess the LoCA section is meant to cover that.

RLPhoto: Macro means a large magnification, and for a non-dedicated Macro lens this qualifies handily.  The "all-in-one" nature of this lens means I can carry a smaller, lighter kit, and that's precisely why it's even in the running besides the otherwise superior Tamron. 

In the end, the focus shift issues and price are two sides of the same problem.  With great resolution, amazing versatility, compact size, and durable construction, I wouldn't mind paying the asking price if it focused more reliably at macro ranges.  On the other hand, I could allow for such quirks if they asked less.  The combination of the two makes it a hard pill to swallow though.

[jthomson]

When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.

I would doubt that lensrentals would get 50 copies of this lens.  I would guess that most renters would go for a 2.8 lens either the Canon or the Tamron.

Still I agree with your basic point that Photozone occaisonally gets a poor copy while Lensrentals gives more statistically meaningful data.

[well_dunno]

Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro?  None.  There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.

Good reasoning but does being a unique one-lens option provide that sort of value?   One could think of it in the opposite direction too; it is only f/4, not a true macro at 0.7, and neither much (if) better than the competition optically.

After all, I guess we all agree,  it is worth for those who purchase and not worth for those who do not. If the market consists mainly of the latter, the price goes down and vice versa... This lens might become the kit lens replacing the 24-105 eventually which would be unfortunate for us who like the 24-105 and would like to see a v2 of it. I recall even calls for a f/2.8 version of it...

Cheers!

[infared]

I think Photozone performed a major spanking...they even got the wooden spoon out! 
I do not think  I have ever read a review of an L lens where the reviewer recommended two other lenses instead of the one reviewed...not with an L lens.  That focus shift is really a deal breaker for a lens that expensive..and brandy newly designed and introduced...um..Canon needs to do something about that.

[sagittariansrock]

Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance. 

The cheaper one is better?  I don't think so.  As I read the resolution numbers on Photozone, the new 24-70/4L is mostly better than the 24-105/4L.  And it offers a much closer minimum focusing distance.  And it's smaller and lighter.  Except for the initial price, it would make a very attractive kit lens.

Any kind of definitive testing would involve 10-20 lenses from different batches.  Its unfortunate but true, lenses vary significantly from unit to unit and batch to batch.
 
I like Photozone and read their reviews, but I also read other reviews, and sometimes they are drastically different.  Klaus has to rely on owners or camera stores to lend him a lens, and if it has obvious decentering or other readily discovered fault, he gets another, but even then, there can be large differences.
 
So read and enjoy, but its just the results from one lens, a different lens will almost certainly be different.
 
When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.

Agree with the single specimen problem, but focus shifts usually have more to do with the lens structure than with sample variation. On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.

even the lower performance Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS instead

This clearly says the 24-70 IS is better all around. I think it is more comfortable for owners (and potential owners) to imagine the 24-105 to be better because they have a "better and cheaper" lens.

I know from personal experience the 24-105 is an excellent lens, but people seem to just enjoy hating the 24-70 IS. I'd say that is totally uncalled for. If it was a bad idea to make this lens (and sell it at this price), the market will let Canon know for sure. But as it happens, only a very small fraction of that market is populated by the Canonrumor-mongers.

[curby]

So does anyone remember the wide open LoCA shot for the Photozone review of the Tamron?  It shows the same softness that plagues the Canon:

http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_2470_28_eosff/loca_f28.jpg

Why was that not called out as a fault during the Tamron review?  I think I'm missing something here because it seems like a very similar problem, but it wasn't discussed as such in the Tamron review.

On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.

Oh, is that all it was?  I thought that when you stop down to say f/8, the camera is still doing focusing with the lens wide open.  It's not until you click that the lens stops down to f/8, effectively changing the aperture after focusing.  What's really going on here?

people seem to just enjoy hating the 24-70 IS.

That just makes it the perfect kit lens for the well-hated 6D. 

[neuroanatomist]

On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.

Unless you're shooting wide open or focusing manually with the DoF Preview button pressed, you're stopping down after focusing every time you shoot. AF is always performed with the lens wide open, regardless of the aperture selected. The lens stops down just before the shot, and that's when focus shift occurs.

Do you see a bigger issue now?   

[curby]

OK, I'm getting really confused now.  Here are some reviews and hands-on previews, all of which fail to mention any sort of fous shift issue with the lens.  Is everyone else's testing methods so non-rigorous that they miss this problem, is it in fact not a problem during real life use of the lens, or did photozone get a bad lens?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests *
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f4l-is-usm/
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_24_70mm_f4_l_is_usm_review/
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-4l-usm-lens-review-21291
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-70mm-f4.htm **

* Roger mentions that his writeup specifically did not deal with focusing issues, but I imagine he would have mentioned something if he discovered a glaring problem.

** 

[Eagle Eye]

I'd like to recommend that some people open up their minds a little as to what people will and will not add to their kits. I added the EF 24-70 f/4L IS to my kit to replace my EF 24-105mm f/4L. What? How can this be? Why would anyone...? A few reasons. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter. I shoot almost exclusively landscape, so I'm stopped down. As soon as I hit f/8 on my 24-70, it's sharper than the 24-105 at every focal length. I carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS in my kit, so I have 70-105 covered by a lens that is also sharper than the 24-105 at every corresponding focal length. The 24-70mm gives me the ability to take macro shots while I'm carrying a two lens kit on backcountry trips. And yes, they are macro shots. Don't knock the feature until you take a look at some of the images. Is it as good as my EF 100mm f/2.8L IS? Heck no. Is it taking macro shots that are good enough to print/publish/sell? Heck yes. Unlike, the reviewer, I haven't noticed any focus shift with mine. Bottom line, if ounces count, which they typically do for landscape photographers, this lens is much more attractive that the 24-105mm. I chose the Canon system in 2005 almost exclusively because of the f/4L zoom line. This lens is a great addition to that line and an excellent alternative to the 24-105mm (which I've hung onto for single-lens trips).

[RLPhoto]

Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro?  None.  There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.

Good reasoning but does being a unique one-lens option provide that sort of value?   One could think of it in the opposite direction too; it is only f/4, not a true macro at 0.7, and neither much (if) better than the competition optically.

After all, I guess we all agree,  it is worth for those who purchase and not worth for those who do not. If the market consists mainly of the latter, the price goes down and vice versa... This lens might become the kit lens replacing the 24-105 eventually which would be unfortunate for us who like the 24-105 and would like to see a v2 of it. I recall even calls for a f/2.8 version of it...

Cheers!

+1

I've been around some other photogs in my area, and not a single one of them had any interest in this lens. It's not a bad product, its just bad @ 1499$. If it was around 649$, along with a 70-200 f/4, then yes it would make sense.

At its current price, a 100L + 24-105L is what you could get used for the same monies.

There is no ideal one lens solution, afterall that's the whole point of SLRs.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Wow it tested quite well. Blows away the 24-105 IS and even beats the 24-70 II at the edges and even more corners at times although I think never in the center or at f/4 for the most part. Super low distortion and excellent lateral CA.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't know if I would call that a spanking. The review is mostly very positive with one big gotcha. That big gotcha plus the high cost of this lens means I would expect few to choose it over the 24-105. Maybe that does add up to a spanking. 

Well... Residual Spherical abborations, focus shift, soft @ F 4, and a not so compelling price.. I'll hold on to my 24-105 for a while longer. A lens that continue to deliver.

Huge distortion, tons of lateral CA, lots of LoCA, blurry eges and corners, mediocre center sharpness, yeah glad I got rid of all my 24-105 fast! The 24-70 II and seemingly this new are and appear to be much better.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

and why does this lens have a red ring?

Maybe because it blows away the 24-105???