A second look at the 24-70 F/4L IS's place in my bag...

[ahsanford]

Hey gang,

I continue to be intrigued with the new 24-70L F/4L IS. I don't own it yet, and I won't bite at the current price. That said, I'm poking around at early data and reviews.

Despite a few near universal opinions on this forum:

• Yes, we all wanted to see a 24-70 F/2.8L IS announced instead. (Minus points if you link the Tamron sarcastically)
• Yes, the current asking price for the new 24-70L F/4L IS is unreasonable.
• Yes, 24-105 F/4L IS is already available -- with more length and lower cost!

I'd like to put those comments on the "I understand, but we're not talking about that here" parking lot. Otherwise this thread will spiral into 'why did Canon do this instead of what I wanted' territory. Please don't go there, thx.

I still am intrigued by a few points on this lens:

• 70% max magnification from a standard zoom in L quality? That's really ducked under a lot of people's radars. This is a formidable on-demand macro option. I often leave my 100L macro at home, especially when I am traveling, and tubes are a pain in my hands, so this is an attractive feature for me.
• Smaller, lighter, etc. I am carrying primes much more often than my pickle jar 24-70 F2.8L Mk I these days.
• Better IQ. I am confident that the new 24-70 F/4L IS will trump the 24-105 F/4L IS, but I am waiting for more data on how it stacks up to my 24-70 F2.8L Mk I.

Or another way to put it, isn't this new lens just a 24-105 minus length, but plus smaller size/weight plus better IQ plus 0.7x Macro?

I am not proposing that it is a good call right now, given its price, but given how little I shoot macro and how heavy my 24-70 F2.8L Mk I is, this lens could conceivably do an 8/10 job at replacing both. I certainly wouldn't argue to pitch better lenses for this, but this could be a killer travel / vacation / 'fight all battles' lens call.

Thoughts? Does anyone here have one and could share their usage experience?

Thx,
A

 

[Random Orbits]

It is an interesting comparison if price were not a factor.

According to LensRentals, the 24-70 f/4 IS is a bit better than the original Canon 24-70 and the 24-105, but it is closer to those two lenses than matching the performance of the 24-70 II.

The other thing that I've read is that the macro feature requires a short working distance, and at max mag, lighting will be a challenge. It's not like 0.7x is needed often, but it a nice feature to have...

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

 

[robbymack]

It seems to me the macro was more or less a "hey look what we can do" feature and oh that means we can charge you another $700. The iq improvement is nice, but I still question the need for this lens in the line up. This is only a guess but im thinking canon saw a marked decrease in their 70-200 sales (any version) since the 24-105 came out. Most general users would probably not need much more than 105 day to day and likely didn't want to pay for the overlapping mm and either would opt not to purchase a tele lens or maybe go for a 100-400 instead.

 

[wayno]

It's a shame this lens isn't equivalent in IQ to the new 24-70 as the 70-200 f4 IS to its bigger brother.
Would be more palatable, particular when it drops in price more.
At the moment, seems like a questionable addition to most kits.

 

[BL]

the macro function is of most interest to me. but good golly, do you have to get close with the 24-70!

i have enough problems blocking light with my 100L, I can't imagine the excercise in frustration shooting close with speedlites, shadows, etc.

 

[brad-man]

It would be a fine $800 lens...

 

[ahsanford]

Agree on most comments. I was hoping this next gen of 24-70 (even at F/4) would have IQ closer to the new 24-70 F/2.8 II and that seems to be missing.

I absolutely do not think this is a ploy to get people to buy more 70-200s. Not a major one, at least. The 24-105 is so prevalent b/c (a) it's the high-end kit lens and (b) offers the longest zoom range of any L lens in the standard length. Were this lens obsoleted, I wouldn't see weeping fans of it saying "Aw, shucks, now I need a huge white lens for that extra length." More likely, they would:

• Find a used 24-105.
• Buy a 24-70 instead and give up on that length, consider a 70-200, etc.
• Take a hard look at the EF 28-135
• Take a hard look at off-brand alternatives

Only one of those options above makes Canon more money. The idea that Canon can subtly control our minds and get us to fall off of multi-thousand dollar cliffs is a bit much. There comes a point where what they take away creates a problem too onerous to solve (e.g. heavy, pricey 70-200s), and we choose not to adopt the change. We just keep what we have.

Clearly, Canon thinks that smaller/lighter/macro is worth either losing a stop (compared to the 2.8 lens) or losing the length (compared to the 24-105), otherwise they wouldn't offer it. I'm just not hearing people agree with that math in these forums.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

the macro function is of most interest to me. but good golly, do you have to get close with the 24-70!

i have enough problems blocking light with my 100L, I can't imagine the excercise in frustration shooting close with speedlites, shadows, etc.

+1 Agree with my 100L, and from what I've read anecdotally in reviews of the new 24-70 F/4L IS, you have to get right on top of whatever bug/flower/watch you are shooting. Shading is a challenge.

So maybe the thrown-in macro is less impactful?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

As luck would have it, Kai just posted his video review of this lens yesterday:

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-24-70mm-f-4l/NzIxMzE1NDU_A

On the macro front, jump to 7:15 in the video. Yikes. That will speak to the proximity light-block challenge of high magnification with a relatively shorter macro length.

- A

 

[JerryKnight]

I'm fascinated at who Canon expects to buy this lens.

I agree 100%.

Maybe they think people will see the expensive 24-70/2.8L II and its newer f/4 IS brother and think that the f/4 is cheaper and the IS will make it "just as good" and therefore a bargain.

Either way, by releasing the 24-70/4L they really seem to be shoving the 24-105/4L to the back of their medium L-series zoom line-up. Without saying it, they're hoping people are thinking the classic "Old, Busted....... New Hotness!" and the 24-105 will retire to a life of being just a kit lens.

 

[ahsanford]

Thought No. 2:

I've heard that Canon created a prototype 24-70/2.8 with IS but decided not to release it.

Maybe the technical department made the 24-70/4 as a compromise, so they have a high quality 24-70 lens with IS, albeit at f4 to keep the weight down. Then the marketing department stepped in and simply sold it at too high a price?

(I think my original post landed with a thud. No one's buying the 'one standard zoom to rule them all' until the 2.8 IS comes out.)

I have no doubt Canon could market a 24-70 F/2.8 IS -- it's probably been made before. It will be big, it will be heavy, and it will be expensive. I think they'll let Tamron (and likely later Sigma) scoop up some business with such a lens, but Canon will hold off on theirs until Nikon surfaces with theirs, much like they do with big new body announcements.

At face value, many have stated that the new 24-70 Ls are now sizing up to the 70-200 model:

• Two smaller diameter / weight lenses at F/4, one with and one without IS.
• Two larger diameter / weight lenses at F/2.8, one with and one without IS.

I, for one, love this model. Opt in for 2.8 or IS or both as you wish, from $700 - $2300 or so. In almost all cases, you get exactly what you pay for. Hate what that price is, but you can't disagree with the usefulness of each feature or why the prices were staggered as they were.

It's just so very odd that, despite this similarity, they are doing some odd things here. Presuming that there are indeed four L 24-70s in our future:

• Canon is first coming to market with their 2nd and 3rd best lenses of those four. Very odd.
• The lenses Canon led with already have decent offerings today -- they aren't perfect, but they exist. In contrast, the F/2.8 IS and F/4 non-IS are nowhere in sight. The former is deeply desired, and the second could be a sleeper budget L lens (Say, $600-700) that many would grow to love over time like the 17-40 F/4L or 70-200 F/4L.
• Though it's only two lenses so far, the F/4 lens is not as sharp as the F/2.8 (with 70-200, F/4 glass is almost as good as the 2.8 )

I just don't get it.

- A

 

[RLPhoto]

This lens was DOA. It really needs to be around 749$ for me to ditch my 24-105L.

 

[bholliman]

This lens was DOA. It really needs to be around 749$ for me to ditch my 24-105L.

+1

This lens is badly overpriced for what it brings to the table. I think Canon is going to be forced to dramatically drop the price in order to sell these things.