Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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

He did and the 24-105 was worst of the bunch and 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS best of the bunch with tamron 24-70 VC in the middle.

[ahsanford]

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.

I have to agree.  It is overpriced, but it's too early to call it DOA.

Those folks who say that range + speed + IS define the value proposition of a lens are potentially missing something.  I am not buying this new lens, but consider:

• The sharpness clearly shows that the new 24-70 F/4 beats the 24-105 F/4.  The new F/4 is better nearly across the board both wide open and stopped down to F/8, at both 24 and 70.  As much as people treasure their 24-105s, it's a good lens and not a great one.
• Lighter and smaller is great if it doesn't hurt IQ.
• Macro 0.7x is a huge upgrade for a kit lens.  The working distance is FUBAR (http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-24-70mm-f-4l/NzIxMzE1NDU_A --> see at 7:12 or so in the video), but for some folks, it beats buying and/or packing a dedicated macro lens.

In fairness, Photozone often only tests one lens, so I trust Roger's data at LR much more as a result.  And there (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests), the new F/4 was flagged as a solid step behind the new F/2.8 Mk II.  That data plus this price made this a currently DOA to me kind of lens.

Again, I'm not justifying the new offering, its reduction in range, high cost, etc. -- I'm just saying there are people who will buy this lens and enjoy it tremendously.

- A

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

Ignore what Klaus says and look at his raw numbers and you'll do a lot better. He also said the 24-105 was better than the 24 1.4 II LOL!!!!! Just because the 24 1.4 II was blurry at the edges under f/2.8!!! LOL
And yet all his numbers showed it utterly spanking the 24-105 aperture for aperture!

[ahsanford]

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.

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

- A

[Zlatko]

It will be an attractive lens to someone who wants the "all in one" approach such as for travel.  The price gets bashed by everyone, but that is the introductory price.  The price of the fantastic much-in-demand 24-70/2.8II is already down a few hundred dollars, so this one will likely head the same way.

The focus shift should be investigated further.  They only tried it at 70mm and without autofocus.  Apparently, the lens is not sharp for close-up work at 70mm at f/4, but who buys a macro for wide-open aperture work?  Their example shows a much sharper lens in the f/8 example (not just more depth of field).  Someone should test whether the focus shift is a genuine problem at smaller apertures, or whether depth of field covers it.  It's possible that at 50mm and f/8 and smaller there is no problem at all.

It may not meet some people's strict definition of "macro", but at 0.7X it is more macro than the 50/2.5 compact macro.  For some photographers this is a win:  it means one less lens to carry, one less lens to change.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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?   

How big a deal is it in practice though? The 24-70 II also has a huge focus shift near MFD but does anyone complain about it regular shooting?

[ahsanford]

It will be an attractive lens to someone who wants the "all in one" approach such as for travel.  The price gets bashed by everyone, but that is the introductory price.  The price of the fantastic much-in-demand 24-70/2.8II is already down a few hundred dollars, so this one will likely head the same way.

The focus shift should be investigated further.  They only tried it at 70mm and without autofocus.  Apparently, the lens is not sharp for close-up work at 70mm at f/4 anyway, but who buys a macro for wide-open aperture work?  Their example shows a much sharper lens in the f/8 example (not just more depth of field).  Someone should test whether the focus shift is a genuine problem at smaller apertures, or whether depth of field covers it.  It's possible that at 50mm and f/8 and smaller there is no problem at all.

It may not meet some people's strict definition of "macro", but at 0.7X it is more macro than the 50/2.5 compact macro.  For some photographers this is a win:  it means one less lens to carry, one less lens to change.

Agree agree agree. 

This is a single lens for travel kind of option.  I'm telling you, as weird as the minimum focusing distance is, the 0.7x macro will be a hit with certain users.  Make fun of them all you want, but this thing will resonate with some users.

- A

[K-amps]

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

Love your new Avatar... Striking!  Kudos Ramon.

[RLPhoto]

Ok, before this thread goes on any further. Lets define what DOA is and isn't.

If a 14-24L were released tomarrow, I can guarantee that lens will not be DOA. No matter the cost. It's a lens everyone wants. Orders would line up for months.

The 24-70 f/4L was released, and I haven't seen or heard much about it up to now. Many of my photogs buddies don't care and I don't see a lot of them at local rental stores or camera shops. I heard that almost nobody bought one.

That is DOA to me, but, but, it could be resurrected if its price is cut significantly. I want to like this lens but my copy of the 24-105L is just so good, why canon?

Edit: I use my 24-105 a lot for eBay shots. It's a tack.

[Zlatko]

Ignore what Klaus says and look at his raw numbers and you'll do a lot better. He also said the 24-105 was better than the 24 1.4 II LOL!!!!! Just because the 24 1.4 II was blurry at the edges under f/2.8!!! LOL
And yet all his numbers showed it utterly spanking the 24-105 aperture for aperture!

Good point.  Look at the numbers, not the interpretation.  The numbers show an excellent lens in a compact size. 

Reviewers are often biased against a product because of its introductory price.  Give them the price a year after release, and they may give a different interpretation.  Reviewers also have a bias based on their personal needs for a lens.  If they don't want it, they figure no one else wants it.  There is one reviewer always lauding the Sigma 35/1.4 over the Canon 35/2 IS because he prizes sharpness at f/1.4 and doesn't seem to care how big/heavy the lens is or whether it has IS.  Each lens has its value, but maybe to a different photographer.

[Zlatko]

How big a deal is it in practice though? The 24-70 II also has a huge focus shift near MFD but does anyone complain about it regular shooting?

I've never noticed it with the 24-70 II.  Now I'll have to look for it! 

[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.

Ignore what Klaus says and look at his raw numbers and you'll do a lot better. He also said the 24-105 was better than the 24 1.4 II LOL!!!!! Just because the 24 1.4 II was blurry at the edges under f/2.8!!! LOL
And yet all his numbers showed it utterly spanking the 24-105 aperture for aperture!

Hmmmm... That may explain why is review is not compatible with the others....I would love to see Roger at Lens Rentals take on this topic..then we would see if it has any merit....

[Zlatko]

Interestingly, someone on the Fred Miranda Canon forum read the same Photozone review and started a thread titled:  "24-70 f/4 IS tests really well on photozone" ...

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

You are right, I'd rent a 24-70mm f/2.8L first myself.  However, I'm very happy with my 24-105mmL and would not be even looking at the 24-70 f/4.
I keep thinking of getting the 24-70mm L f/2.8 version, but the zoom range is not what I'd like, I now use primes from 35mm to 135mm and at f/2 or wider apertures.  For the cases where I need wider, I have the 16-35mmL, but would like a faster aperture.
I would definitely like a 28-135mm f/2, but its not coming so I'm not waiting for it.

[mbpics]

Interestingly, someone on the Fred Miranda Canon forum read the same Photozone review and started a thread titled:  "24-70 f/4 IS tests really well on photozone" ...

That's because it did... I'm really confused as to why everyone here is so bitter, but then again it is a Canon forum so this is quite in character for you guys.

Aside from the focus shift issue which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else thus far, it tested significantly better than the 24-105 and only slightly worse than either Canon or Nikon's current 24-70s stopped down to f/4. And it can focus at macro distances to boot! The price is a bit high, but that's par for the course with Canon lenses at launch these days; we'll be seeing CR guy post about deals on this very site in no time, don't worry