December 18, 2014, 07:47:28 AM

Author Topic: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?  (Read 9131 times)

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1445
  • www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2014, 01:06:57 PM »
f/4 lenses have many uses - they are lighter in weight and generally considerably cheaper than similar quality f/2.8 lenses. Landscape photographers, hikers, tourists are perfectly happy  to have these lenses.

That's right, when traveling I carry the 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-300L. All of these lenses can be considered 'slow' so I compliment them with the tiny 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.8 MkI. On my latest holiday in Japan I could really sense that I had replaced the 70-300 VC Tamron that I carried previously, 12 hr days on my feet resulted in back pain. Thankfully I wasn't carrying any f/2.8 'monsters' or my back would have been irreparably damaged....
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, G16 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2014, 01:06:57 PM »

jd7

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2014, 08:55:57 PM »
My lens has gone off to Canon for servicing.  The shop tells me it's a 6 to 8 week turnaround, which is a bit frustrating, but I guess the main thing is whether or not it comes back in good shape.  Fingers crossed!!

Anyone know the rules for CPS membership in Australia?  I'm pretty sure last time I looked into it, you have to be getting paid for your photos.

As for whether f/4 lenses are any use, you won't be surprised to know I think they have their uses!  Sure it's nice to have a wider max aperture but in the end with lenses it's always about the trade offs.  In fact, I've even been considering selling my 70-200 2.8L II and picking up a 135L (and change), although I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet.  If they bring out a 135L IS, that might well convince me ... although I'm still tempted by the 135L as is.   (And no, I don't want to just add a 135L to my kit. I really don't need any more lenses!)
6D | 24-70 4L IS | 70-200 4L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 35 2 IS | 40 2.8 | 85 1.8 | 1.4x mk II | 430EX II

kennephoto

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2014, 09:36:48 PM »
I would sell both to get the 24-70 2.8 II.


Totally agree, now that's a lens that keeps on impressing.
Canon 5d Mark II Canon 1D classic EOSM 20-35 2.8L 50 1.2L 135 2.0L 80-200 2.8L 40 Pancake and a bunch of old film cameras

ScottyP

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2014, 11:30:02 PM »
FWIW I'm really bored with 24-70 zooms, so I ditched mine (24-70 f/2.8 L) and got a Ʃ35 f/1.4A instead to bridge a gap in my range of wide to standard prime lenses. I find that I am shooting with primes more and more often, with really satisfactory results. Often I will have a wide or standard prime on the 5DMkII  and a tele-zoom on the 5DMkIII. My 24-105L and 17-40L get most of their use when I travel, the 17-40L is almost exclusively for holiday use .

Yes.  I have the Sig 35 Art and it just forces me to make better composition, and its colors and sharpness are just insane.  I almost can't take a bad image with that lens. 
I plan to pick up a 7d2 (if it isn't just a Bigfoot riding a unicorn) and then keep he 35 on the 6d and the 70-200 on the crop.
Canon 6D; Canon Lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF 85 f/1.8; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8; Canon 1.4x Mk. III T.C.; Sigma Lens: 35mm f/1.4 "Art"

ScottyP

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 572
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2014, 11:40:46 PM »

In fact, I've even been considering selling my 70-200 2.8L II and picking up a 135L (and change), although I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet.  If they bring out a 135L IS, that might well convince me ... although I'm still tempted by the 135L as is.   (And no, I don't want to just add a 135L to my kit. I really don't need any more lenses!)

Nooooooooooooooooo!
Canon 6D; Canon Lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF 85 f/1.8; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8; Canon 1.4x Mk. III T.C.; Sigma Lens: 35mm f/1.4 "Art"

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1724
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2014, 02:18:18 AM »
I can't understand why Canon would persist to make F4 lenses, specially ones that are designed to be upgrades (Fisheye 8-15mm f4).

Probably the most pointless aperture setting there is.

Huh?

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1445
  • www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2014, 04:45:38 AM »

In fact, I've even been considering selling my 70-200 2.8L II and picking up a 135L (and change), although I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet.  If they bring out a 135L IS, that might well convince me ... although I'm still tempted by the 135L as is.   (And no, I don't want to just add a 135L to my kit. I really don't need any more lenses!)

Nooooooooooooooooo!

+1, that's almost insane - the 70-200 2.8L II is a bag full of f/2.8 primes all rolled into one. It is the ultimate zoom. So unless you're bothered by its size and weight, I recommend getting the 135L beside the 70-200L (I know how GAS works). Whatever you do don't first sell the 70-200 and then get the 135L. Keep them both for a while (a year or so) to see how it works out.
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, G16 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2014, 04:45:38 AM »

Menace

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1372
  • New Zealand
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2014, 05:00:53 AM »

In fact, I've even been considering selling my 70-200 2.8L II and picking up a 135L (and change), although I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet.  If they bring out a 135L IS, that might well convince me ... although I'm still tempted by the 135L as is.   (And no, I don't want to just add a 135L to my kit. I really don't need any more lenses!)

Nooooooooooooooooo!

+1, that's almost insane - the 70-200 2.8L II is a bag full of f/2.8 primes all rolled into one. It is the ultimate zoom. So unless you're bothered by its size and weight, I recommend getting the 135L beside the 70-200L (I know how GAS works). Whatever you do don't first sell the 70-200 and then get the 135L. Keep them both for a while (a year or so) to see how it works out.

Agreed - well put.
1Dx | 5D III
85 1.2L II | 100 2.8 | 400 2.8L IS II 
24-70 2.8L II | 70-200 2.8L IS II

Laktibrada

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2014, 06:25:02 AM »
i was pondering between the 24-70 and 24-105 (both f4 and IS) and a lot of people told me that the 24-70 is extremly good at 24ish and 70ish mm (close to the 2.8 II)... but the further you go from those focal lengths the worse it gets... they went as far as saying it is less sharp at 50mm than the very basic kit lens (18-55)

so i guess it is THE zoom lens for people who hate 50mm ;)
or if you dont care abut switching lenses now and then... add the cheap nifty fifty and you should be set  8)

jd7

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #24 on: July 27, 2014, 04:57:16 AM »
i was pondering between the 24-70 and 24-105 (both f4 and IS) and a lot of people told me that the 24-70 is extremly good at 24ish and 70ish mm (close to the 2.8 II)... but the further you go from those focal lengths the worse it gets... they went as far as saying it is less sharp at 50mm than the very basic kit lens (18-55)

so i guess it is THE zoom lens for people who hate 50mm ;)
or if you dont care abut switching lenses now and then... add the cheap nifty fifty and you should be set  8)

Around 50mm does seem to be the weak spot for the 24-70 4 IS.  That said, LensRentals' testing puts it as slightly sharper than the 24-105 even at 50mm (although query if you'd pick a difference in real use). 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests
It seems there is plenty of copy variation amongst the 24-70 4s though - and it seems the ones which are poor can be quite poor.

I'm crossing my fingers mine shows a very significant improvement once it's been serviced by Canon!

And I do still wonder if I might not have been better going with the 24-105, although I do like the handling of the 24-70 4 IS and the macro mode could be fun occasionally.

« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 05:00:02 AM by jd7 »
6D | 24-70 4L IS | 70-200 4L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 35 2 IS | 40 2.8 | 85 1.8 | 1.4x mk II | 430EX II

jd7

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2014, 05:07:41 AM »

In fact, I've even been considering selling my 70-200 2.8L II and picking up a 135L (and change), although I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet.  If they bring out a 135L IS, that might well convince me ... although I'm still tempted by the 135L as is.   (And no, I don't want to just add a 135L to my kit. I really don't need any more lenses!)

Nooooooooooooooooo!

+1, that's almost insane - the 70-200 2.8L II is a bag full of f/2.8 primes all rolled into one. It is the ultimate zoom. So unless you're bothered by its size and weight, I recommend getting the 135L beside the 70-200L (I know how GAS works). Whatever you do don't first sell the 70-200 and then get the 135L. Keep them both for a while (a year or so) to see how it works out.

Agreed - well put.

I did say I was considering it but hadn't been able to bring myself to do it yet!   :)

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is fantastic, but I do a lot of my photography when travelling and the size and weight can be an issue.  I have a 70-200 4 IS and it's great too, and half the weight and significantly smaller so it tends to be the one I take often.  And it feels like overkill for me to have two 70-200s!  Still, the 2.8 is so good, and useful in so many situations, I think I'll end up keeping it.
6D | 24-70 4L IS | 70-200 4L IS | 70-200 2.8L IS II | 35 2 IS | 40 2.8 | 85 1.8 | 1.4x mk II | 430EX II

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1920
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2014, 07:24:23 AM »
I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Antono Refa

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2014, 07:39:19 AM »
I can't understand why Canon would persist to make F4 lenses, specially ones that are designed to be upgrades (Fisheye 8-15mm f4).

1) Price. The 16-35mm + 24-70mm + 70-200mm trio at f/4 is 40% cheaper than the f/2.8 trio.

2) Weight. The f/4 trio is 33% lighter than the f/2.8 trio.

3) f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 IS-less. As explained by others, IS compensates for hand movement, aperture helps freeze the subject.

As for the fisheye zoom, I think it's a different story altogether. Canon could have gone two ways:

1. Make four fisheye prime lenses - circular & diagonal, each for APS-C & FF, like Sigma did. That means dealing with overhead of four niche lenses, all the way from design, through production, marketing, stocking, and stocking parts to fix sold lenses.

2. Make one fisheye zoom lens. It misses the niche market of circular fisheye lens for APS-C, but has (a) saves on said overhead, (b) is a lens the owner can keep when upgrading to FF.

Also, as shallow DoF is not a consideration for fisheyes, an ISO stop would usually compensate for an aperture stop. There might be night time photographers who would like f/2.8 today, but improvements in sensors might make this a moot point long before the fisheye zoom reaches end-of-life.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2014, 07:39:19 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15193
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2014, 08:20:51 AM »
I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed...  I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3542
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2014, 08:28:36 AM »
It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2014, 08:28:36 AM »