Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?

[jd7]

Hi all

I've been playing with a Canon 24-70 4L IS for the last few weeks and comparing it to my old Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG HSM. I haven't had that much time to do comparisons but so far I'm struggling to be impressed by the 24-70 4L IS. I was hoping - expecting really - it would be a clear step up from the Sigma, but it's closer than that. I know I'm pixel peeping but still, U have to say I was expecting more from a Canon L (especially after lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS II, and non-L lenses like the 35 2 IS).

Trying to sum it up:

At f/2.8 the Sigma is pretty good at 24mm, but it gets steadily worse as the focal length increases. The drop off in sharpness and contrast by 70mm is significant.

At f/4, the Sigma shows a clear improvement over 2.8 across the whole focal length range. The quality still drops as the focal length increases but the drop off is less significant than at 2.8.

At f/4, the Canon is good at 24mm, but by 35mm the quality has dropped noticeably. By 50mm I'd go so far as to call it poor - certainly for sharpness, if not so much for contrast. It improves again by 70mm, but it doesn't get back to the standard it set at 24mm. I would say the Sigma wins at f/4 at 50mm and perhaps even 35mm.

From various reviews, I expected the Canon to be weaker towards the middle of its range, but looking at the LensRentals' resolution tests I thought it would still be pretty decent there. What has surprised me is just how poor it seems towards the middle of its focal length range. I think I'm still leaning towards keeping the Canon and selling the Sigma - because the Canon's IS has its uses, it's a bit lighter, it's better at 24mm and 70mm, and it's got its semi-macro mode for a bit of fun. That said, the Sigma's f/2.8 has its uses too - even if the quality drops towards the longer end of the focal length range - and I'd get more if sold the Canon.

Anyone else really disappointed with the 24-70 4L IS in the middle of its focal length range? For those who are happy with their 4L ISs, are you genuinely happy with them at 50mm? Have I got a poor copy? Hhmmm, I don't want to pay for the Canon 24-70 2.8L II and I'm uncertain about the Tamron 2.8 VC (my brother has one). Maybe I should just keep my Sigma? Or look for a 2nd-hand 24-105 4L IS?

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd return the lens now, if you can. Otherwise, send it to Canon with your issues. I was considering getting one for product photography, the close focusing seemed like a useful thing. IS doesn't matter for that.

The high price, and the less than stellar performance led me to believe that a 24-105mmL is almost as good for half the price. I have the 24-70 f/2.8, it is weak at close focusing, but otherwise superb. Lack of IS has not been a issue.

 

[Menace]

If it's too late to return, sell it and keep the Sigma esp as its f2.8 - depending upon your photography style that may or may not be a big issue.

 

[DRR]

My one thought on this topic is simple - whenever I have been underwhelmed with a lens when first using/testing it, I have never been happy with the lens and have always ended up getting rid of it for something else.

The lens is not going to get magically better so I'd return it now if I were you.

 

[ErikNZ]

The lens could, of course, be a lemon. However, the lens may also require calibration with your body to achieve the optimal results. My first action would be to return the lens and ask for another example - if you bought the lens in a store, go back and ask to test multiple examples to see if they are any better.

This is the point to make a decision, return the lens for a refund or proceed to step 2.

If any of the replacement 24-70 lenses are significantly better than your original copy, I would just write the
first one off as a lemon and proceed with step 2 - sending your bodies and lens(es) off to Canon for a proper calibration. If you're not a CPS member, this may cost you a little but I have always found it to be worthwhile and Canon CPS here in NZ has always been able to achieve far better results than I could do on my own with AF micro adjustments.

On the matter of Tamron - I had a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX that I was not happy with (at all). But at that point in time, a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L (Mk I) was not in the budget so I managed to swap the Sigma for a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di with a friend who needed the extra 4mm and was looking for a softer portrait lens. (The Sigma was not unpleasant at all and for portrait work, it actually produced some great results).

After many years, I upgraded most of my kit - moved to 1D-series bodies and most of my lenses were replaced with Canon L lenses. Except for the Tamron. And why? Because in every comparison test, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L failed to blow the Tamron away - yes, at f/2.8 the Canon was surely the better lens but at f/4 I already could not longer see a difference when pixel peeping. The Canon may have been the better lens but at 3 times the price of the "magic coke can", the 24-70mm /f2.8L completely failed my value-for-money test.

 

[tron]

I would sell both to get the 24-70 2.8 II.

 

[mrsfotografie]

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 .

 

[Chisox2335]

I have the lens and I'm very pleased with it. Just used it to take a few pictures of people at a friend 's wedding. Of about 32 shots 30 were keepers. I used various focal lengths for the shots. Might try AFMA first then return it if it's still not working well (unless it's truly just iq, then I suppose just return it for a new copy)

 

[jd7]

Thanks for your thoughts all.

To those recommending the 24-70 2.8L II, I have no doubt it's superb. I'm looking for a general purpose "walk around" / travel / hiking lens, so the combination of heavier weight, larger size and higher price mean it's not perfect for my needs. Obviously having 2.8 would be nice at times, but I don't think that's so important to me for what I plan to use this lens for. And if I need to stop action in low light, I have primes in the same focal length range.

Reading around the internet (again!) makes me think I may just have a poor copy of the 24-70 4L IS. TDP and LensRentals note the drop in sharpness at 50mm but seem to suggest it's not too bad. SLRLounge has a "shoot out" of a number of lenses at 24, 35, 50 and 70 mm and rates the lens pretty highly - and their 100% crops seem to back up the idea. Various other reviews (Photozone, Bob Atkins, PhotographyBlog, to name a few) seem similarly impressed with the lens at all focal lengths. Interestingly, SLRgear notes they tested 3 copies and the first two were very poor at 50mm but the third one was significantly better (albeit 50mm remained a weak spot). It all makes me think I'm right to be expecting better than I'm seeing from my lens.

In any event, I will call the shop and see what they say but I'll be surprised if they'll do anything more than send it off to Canon to be checked. Sadly I'm outside the 14 day period within which they will exchange for another product, and they do not offer refunds unless the item doesn't work (and I'm guessing I'll have trouble convincing them about that). Unfortunately shops in Australia rarely offer the kind of "no questions asked" refund policies which I gather can be found overseas (or at least in the US).

Hhmmm, maybe I should take mrsphotografie's hint and ditch the 24-70 zoom altogether and just go with primes.

 

[skoobey]

I use 24-105. Have tried out the 24-70 2.8 non-is and was impressed by the difference in color reproduction and added contrast compared to my lens. It was also slightly sharper.

However, not so amazed that I'd trade those extra 35mm that make it a portrait lens, and much more versatile.

Try it for as much as you can, maybe you'll get to love it's strengths, rather than pick on it's downfalls.

Also: If you have your photo library in LR, check your stats, if you shoot a lot at focal lengths where Canon i better, there is your answer.

 

[Sporgon]

Hi all
Have I got a poor copy?
Thanks for any thoughts.

Yes.

If you read the Lens rental review Roger states that there are an alarming amount of adjustable elements in the construction.

I'm guessing that many of the early production ones were not set up correctly - hence the initial unfavourable reviews from a number of sources.

It's actually a very fine lens; whether the improved 24mm and overall borders over the 24-105 is worth losing the 75-105 range is up to you.

 

[jd7]

Thanks for adding your thoughts Sporgon. If you're happy with your 24-70 4 IS at 50mm f/4, I'm sure it's more than good enough for me ... which further convinces me I really do have a sub-standard copy.

I've also done some more testing over the last couple of days. I haven't done it very scientifically (eg shooting hand-held, although making sure the shutter time is nice and fast) but it's consistent over a variety of subjects/situations. Taking the same subject at different focal lengths, I'm happy with the lens at f/4 at 24 and 70, but at 50 it's just plain poor. I have to say I generally like the handling of the lens, so if it was (pretty much) as sharp at 50 as it is at 70, I'd be very happy with it.

Called the shop today and they just say they'll send it back to Canon ... and I should get it back in 4 to 6 weeks. Sigh. Fingers crossed it doesn't actually take that long ... and they actually fix it.

 

[idene]

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.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

This thread has many familiar elements for me! I still love my old Tamron 28-75 2.8

I also love my various prime lenses when I am feeling artistic and have the time to play around during a photoshoot.

But when money is involved, I often use my trusty workhorse, the 24-105. The extra zoom range and the IS is worth more to me than the larger aperture of the 24-70 2.8 at a fraction of the price.

And I think we can all appreciate the frustration of having a lens that doesn't work well. I was hoping that the invention of MicroFocusAdjustment would bring that sad era to an end, but it hasn't.

Sending your lens back to Canon was probably the best thing to do at this point. Please let us know how it works when you get it back!

 

[NancyP]

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. My APS-C workhorse is the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, and it is supplemented by the EF 70-200 f/4 IS. My FF kit is developing, I don't have a workhorse zoom at this point. I have some adapted legacy (my dad's) manual primes (Nikkors 50mm f/1.2, 55mm f/3.5 macro, 100mm f/2.5) and Samyang 14mm f/2.8, Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. I am glad to have these very nice wide primes, but if I ever do a through-hike trip or a trip with a lot of elevation, I may get the new 16-35 f/4L IS for the weight savings. A big guy can afford a few extra pounds in a through-hike kit, but a small woman has to make choices to stay under the "no more than 1/3 of your body weight" pack rule - 38# limit in my case.

 

[mrsfotografie]

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....

 

[jd7]

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!)

 

[kennephoto]

I would sell both to get the 24-70 2.8 II.

Totally agree, now that's a lens that keeps on impressing.

 

[ScottyP]

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.

 

[ScottyP]

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!