Canon 24-70 f/4 IS Review

[jdramirez]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

I have a 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro and a 24-105... and while it would be nice to have the functionality in one lens... it's not worth the price tag. I know the price of the 24-70 will come down... but I really really like my 100mm L and I don't mind having multiple lenses.

Honestly, I don't have any big issues with my 24-105... and I'm glad it will stay in my bag... because the 24-70 f/2.8L mkii is just way out of my price range and I just refuse to buy Tamron or Sigma.

 

[M.ST]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

If you look on the lens market today the most versions with IS (VC) can´t reach the non IS (VC) versions in image quality.

That´s why I prefer the EF 24-70 2.8 II.

 

[Grummbeerbauer]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

I' also a happy owner of both the 100L and the 24-105L, and I, too, was thinking "What the ..." when Canon announced the new 24-70 f4 L IS. Way too expensive for little gain.
lensrentals.com has an interesting comparison of 24-70 2.8 I, 24-70 2.8 II, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, 24-70 f4 IS, and 24-105 f4 IS, and that averaged over many samples. Here the new 24-70 f4 IS beats the 24-105 by a small margin in sharpness (and by a large margin in distortion ), and the Tamron lies in between the Canon 2.8s.

See for yourself:

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

Still, not only based on that numbers, I don't think that I would ever "upgrade" to the 24-70 f4. I would rather spent that money on the Tamron, which seems to be excellent, given the price.

 

[beansauce]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

This basically confirms my first impressions of the new 24-70 (sharpness issue aside). The new 24-70 offers pretty much nothing when compared to the 24-105 except a macro mode with 0.7 magnification and is not an upgrade from the 24-105.

I doubt anyone who got the 24-105 will "upgrade" to the f/4 24-70. The inbuilt macro of the 24-70 is a non-issue because you could get the excellent 100L macro and also save some $$$.

I guess Canon might phase out the 24-105 but then Canon's marketing strategy is impossible to comprehend.

Looking forward to the Tamron review.

Cheers ... JR

I really, really hope Canon doesn't phase out the 24/105L. It is such a fabulous lens.... and for what? A crappy 24-70 F4! No thanks...

If they do and my 24-105 ever fails and is unserviceable, ill spring for the 24-70 f/2.8 II

 

[J.R.]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

I really, really hope Canon doesn't phase out the 24/105L. It is such a fabulous lens.... and for what? A crappy 24-70 F4! No thanks...

If they do and my 24-105 ever fails and is unserviceable, ill spring for the 24-70 f/2.8 II

I doubt whether the 24-70 f/4 is crappy. It is only that the 24-105L has been bought by most users as a kit lens that the 24-70 appears to be a waste of space. However, someone not having the 24-105 has an option of getting a decent 24-70 f/4L which can do reasonable close up work in a single lens. I see many prosumers opting for this lens (as a first L lens) primarily for this reason.

BTW, I agree with you that if the 24-105 fails, even I would upgrade to the 24-70 f/2.8 II - actually I might upgrade sooner without waiting for the 24-105 to fail .

 

[spinworkxroy]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

I'm more interested to see his comparison with the Tamron really.
I never considered this lens the day it was announced
I already have the 24-105 and i just bought the 24-70II.
When i want the sharpness, i'll go to the 24-70.
When i need the IS and reach, i go to the 24-105..This 24-70f4….is just average for everything..and to not even match the old 24-105 in sharpness is really not acceptable in my opinion..

 

[Viggo]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

Thanks for posting. I'm a bit surprised, checked the results over at TDP also, and looks like it is like this. Dissapointing.

 

[Act444]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

The lack of sharpness on the 24-70 at 50mm (compared to the 24-105) jumped out at me when I looked at the TDP resolution charts...so it wasn't just my imagination then- something is going on there.

Perhaps that's the compromise they had to make optically in order to squeeze in the macro function- who knows. Still would have expected more at that price point.

 

[oscaroo]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

Thanks for the warning!
I'll stop eagerly awaiting for the 24-70 IS and instead gloat with my 24-105.

 

[rs]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

TDP have just published the ISO 12233 test chart shots. The 24-70/4 looks better at 24mm, but anything longer and the old 24-105 look better:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

 

[dswatson83]

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow

I can't say I expected these results at all.

See the full written comparison of the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS with samples
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/104-tamron-24-70-f28-vc-vs-canon-24-70-f4l-is

Or check out the video
Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!

 

[robbymack]

Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow

Thanks for the review, can't say I'm surprised though. I almost waited to pull the trigger on the tamron after the canon was announced, but realized there was no way it was going to be so much better than the tamron to make up for the lost stop of light. I has just hoped the tamron would drop in price even maybe $100 in some pre holiday sale at BH or adorama. No such luck which tells me this lens is selling strong.

 

[Efka76]

Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow

Tamron is sharper than Canon, it is F/2.8 with image stabilisation comparing to Canon F/4 (you can shoot with Tamron in much darker places), autofocus speed is almost the same, vignetting at F/4 is much better in Tamron, Tamron is less expensive.

My conclusion would be "Shame on you, Canon"! It seems that third party manufacturers started to produce much better quality production, which is much cheaper. This particular lens is better than Canon 24-70 L 2.8 Mark I and slightly worse than Mark II (which is much pricier). I would say that Canon should really revise its pricing strategy and focus more on quality in order to compete with Tamron and Sigma.

I really like L class lenses, however, I hate to be screwed! I bought Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 instead of Canon 24-70 2.8 L II because of price and lack of image stabilisation in Canon. I am very happy with Tamron!

 

[V8Beast]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

Since the 24-70 f/2.8 Gen I lens has been phased out, perhaps Canon came out with the 24-70 f/4 as an alternative to the obscenely priced 24-70 f/2.8 II?

I'm one of the freaks who opted for the 24-105 over the old 24-70 f/2.8 for one simple reason: I need the extra reach.

 

[dswatson83]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

You started so many threads to redirect audience to your reviews, it is virtually spamming...not to mention repeated link posting in any thread possible. Introducing your links in a discussion is one thing…starting several NEW clutter threads in a week with the sole purpose of promoting your site is an annoyance!
Instead of cluttering the forum with the same spam threads for EACH of your reviews, each sometimes with a several new threads...why don’t you pay CR to include a link to your site?

Sorry, I started the threads in different relevant topics. The lens is brand new so there were not ongoing discussions already thus why I started a thread. I'm not sure how posting a review of the Canon lens in a canon lens forum is spamming...I just happened to have the lens, worked really hard the last few days making a review so that others can know how this lens performed before spending $1500. I'm not some big business or anything. I'm just a gear loving photographer and thought these reviews would help someone decide.

 

[mrmarks]

Re: Canon 24-70 f/4 IS vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS - Not what I expected

If you look on the lens market today the most versions with IS (VC) can´t reach the non IS (VC) versions in image quality.

That´s why I prefer the EF 24-70 2.8 II.

Is this true for the 70-200 2.8 IS II vs the non-IS version?

 

[RLPhoto]

Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow

This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.

 

[marinien]

Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow

This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.

@RLPhoto: hey, no need to repeat that in every 20-70 f/4 IS review/comparison thread
DOA or not, let's wait for the sale figure.

 

[RLPhoto]

Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC vs NEW Canon 24-70 f/4L IS - Wow

This lens is exactly how I pronounced it at release. DOA.

@RLPhoto: hey, no need to repeat that in every 20-70 f/4 IS review/comparison thread
DOA or not, let's wait for the sale figure.

There is no NEED to post the same topic over and over.

 

[beansauce]

Who cares anyhow... not many here will buy it anyway when the 24-70 II is a few hundred more and provides optical quality far superior than any other L zoom in Canons portfolio.

We will see the price elasticity of the 24/70 f4 adjust QUICKLY, which will eventually supplement the 6D and other lower tiered FF bodies as a kit lens and possibly kick the 24-105 out on its own as an option just like any other L lens. I also think we will see he price of the 24-105 increase when it is no longer packaged as a kit lens. There is no reason why an L zoom like the 24/70 f4, with its inferior optical quality, is priced more than the 24-105.

Maybe I'm wrong, but canon seems as of late to drop the ball on the price point of its products. The 5D3 is a good example with its price point $500 over the top. Canon responds with the 5D3 with a permanent rebate. At the very least, we have Nikon to thank for providing supplements and keeping canons greed in check (to some extent).