24-70 swap

[grey4]

Hey guys, I'm currently shooting on a 24-70 f/2.8 L (version 1) and it's just not giving me the results i was hoping for. I find it to be soft and i think it has less than stellar AF.

I'm considering swapping this lens for the 24-70 f/4 L IS. The sharpness is really what I'm seeking at if it takes a stop to get there so be it. The lenses have almost an identical price tag so that's a non factor. Also the size and weight of the new lens are an upgrade as well.

Has anyone here made the switch from the 2.8 version 1 to the new f/4 IS?


ALSO - my budget doesn't allow a 2.8 version II. I know how much CR loves that lens, don't try to recommend it. it's not happening.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I had 5 version 1 lenses, none were really good. The AF issue is likely due to some 5 cent internal plastic guides that crack, or break. You can replace them yourself. Thher are also internal lens adjustments that seem to need tweaking over the life of the lens which goes out of adjustment due to bumps.

The 24-70mm f/4 is not likely going to be a improvement, its about the same as the 24-105mmL.

I'd recommend having your lens tuned up. It might cost you $300, but you should see a big improvement. The one weak area is the curvature of field, at wide apertures, the edges will be oof, or if you focus at the edges, the center will be soft. This is a lens design issue and can't be fixed. Its only apparent to those who obsess over IQ.

 

[f1rstx]

Hey guys

look into Tamron 24-70 VC, it's almost as sharp as 24-70 L II

 

[Sporgon]

I had 5 version 1 lenses, none were really good. The AF issue is likely due to some 5 cent internal plastic guides that crack, or break. You can replace them yourself. Thher are also internal lens adjustments that seem to need tweaking over the life of the lens which goes out of adjustment due to bumps.

The 24-70mm f/4 is not likely going to be a improvement, its about the same as the 24-105mmL.

I'd recommend having your lens tuned up. It might cost you $300, but you should see a big improvement. The one weak area is the curvature of field, at wide apertures, the edges will be oof, or if you focus at the edges, the center will be soft. This is a lens design issue and can't be fixed. Its only apparent to those who obsess over IQ.

I have both the 24-70/4 and the 24-105 and the former is significantly better across the range and much better in the corners. Early copies that were reviewed do not seem to have been assembled that accurately; it has an unusually large amount of adjustable elements apparently.

Apart from critical IQ the advantage of the 24-70/4 is its small size and excellent IS. Disadvantage is lack of 2.8 and 75-105 range of the 24-105.

On a personal level I'm using the 24-105 more because I use the longer end extensively.

 

[Haydn1971]

You could try adding a prime to your kit - 35mm IS maybe ?

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I had 5 version 1 lenses, none were really good. The AF issue is likely due to some 5 cent internal plastic guides that crack, or break. You can replace them yourself. Thher are also internal lens adjustments that seem to need tweaking over the life of the lens which goes out of adjustment due to bumps.

The 24-70mm f/4 is not likely going to be a improvement, its about the same as the 24-105mmL.

I'd recommend having your lens tuned up. It might cost you $300, but you should see a big improvement. The one weak area is the curvature of field, at wide apertures, the edges will be oof, or if you focus at the edges, the center will be soft. This is a lens design issue and can't be fixed. Its only apparent to those who obsess over IQ.

I have both the 24-70/4 and the 24-105 and the former is significantly better across the range and much better in the corners. Early copies that were reviewed do not seem to have been assembled that accurately; it has an unusually large amount of adjustable elements apparently.

I have both as well.

However, I have different impressions. Both lenses have their own strengths and weaknesses and I have come to the opinion that one can't truly replace the other.

The 24-70 has better:
IS
Performance at 24mm, particularly in corners
Distortion control at 24mm
T-stop advantage (slight increase in exposure despite both being f4)

The 24-105 has better:
Range (71-105mm)
Performance in the 50mm range (significantly better, too)
Performance at/near MFD

At 70mm both seem to be about the same TBH.

Now, you may mention that I didn't bring up the close focusing ability of the 24-70 as an advantage over the 24-105. Why? I find it to be incredibly soft, plus one has to get so close that the lens blocks light. Not that useful in my opinion, but nonetheless it may find some use when I can't be bothered pulling the 100 macro out.

 

[jd7]

I have both as well.

However, I have different impressions. Both lenses have their own strengths and weaknesses and I have come to the opinion that one can't truly replace the other.

The 24-70 has better:
IS
Performance at 24mm, particularly in corners
Distortion control at 24mm
T-stop advantage (slight increase in exposure despite both being f4)

The 24-105 has better:
Range (71-105mm)
Performance in the 50mm range (significantly better, too)
Performance at/near MFD

At 70mm both seem to be about the same TBH.

Now, you may mention that I didn't bring up the close focusing ability of the 24-70 as an advantage over the 24-105. Why? I find it to be incredibly soft, plus one has to get so close that the lens blocks light. Not that useful in my opinion, but nonetheless it may find some use when I can't be bothered pulling the 100 macro out.

Have you sent your lens to Canon and had it calibrated? If not, I really recommend you try it.

My 24-70 f/4 was very soft at 50mm when I bought it, and not great at 35. 70 was better but 24 was certainly best. Sent it back to canon for calibration and it's a much better lens now. It's consistently good throughout the zoom range, from f/4.

As for macro mode, i agree the short working distance isn't helpful (although I still use it for occasional macro shots) but I don't feel like my copy is soft.

 

[Dylan777]

I had 5 version 1 lenses, none were really good. The AF issue is likely due to some 5 cent internal plastic guides that crack, or break. You can replace them yourself. Thher are also internal lens adjustments that seem to need tweaking over the life of the lens which goes out of adjustment due to bumps.

The 24-70mm f/4 is not likely going to be a improvement, its about the same as the 24-105mmL.

I'd recommend having your lens tuned up. It might cost you $300, but you should see a big improvement. The one weak area is the curvature of field, at wide apertures, the edges will be oof, or if you focus at the edges, the center will be soft. This is a lens design issue and can't be fixed. Its only apparent to those who obsess over IQ.

+1....had 3 Ver. 1 in the past. Results were low.

I can't speak for current f4 IS, but I know my f2.8 II is SUPER... ;D

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You might want to look at Lens Rental's comparison, he checked 24 copies of the 24-70mm f/4 and compared them to the 24-70MK I, MK I, the 24-105mmL, and even the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8.

Form your own opinion. Roger will be the first to admit that his numbers do not tell the whole story, there are lots of other factors to consider.

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