Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?

[tron]

Now, If you want to make me spend more money for yet another lens you will not make it ... yet

Earlier this year I got the 24-70 2.8 II and immediately before leaving for vacation I got 16-35 f/4L IS (by giving my EF24 2.8 ) and 100L 2.8 Macro (by giving my old non-usm non-L 100mm 2.8 macro).

Plus, I knew I needed my 2.8 zoom due to an event that takes place at low light. ;D

So I will think about it next year if I there are no announcements for 5DMkIV, 14-24 2.8, 16-35 2.8 III, so many ifs... ;D ;D ;D

 

[Zv]

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.

????

So someone has to pay twice as much to get f/2.8 lens and lug more weight just for landscape shots?

What is wrong with f/4??

Yeah, what's your beef with f/4?? A lot if the time I want more than just an eye in focus.

 

[Act444]

Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)

Anyway, yes, I have seen the reviews of the 24-70 f4 and remain confused. I was wondering why so many gave such a high impression of this lens (with the exception of TDP which shows awful performance at 50mm)...I went to my local store to try one out and it confirmed the mediocre performance at 50mm f4 (ok, trying to be nice - it simply sucked at 50). It was very good at 24mm (much better than the 24-105 and close to the 24-70 2.8 II)...got worse as I zoomed in. At 35 it was just ok...at 50 no part of the image was sharp. Center was just barely passable, toward the edges - I thought my 24-105 was meh at 24, but (!!!)...and then it improved again at 70mm but it's still not as good as it was at 24. Macro mode seemed cool but gimmicky at the same time. Performance wise the macro mode seemed to be fairly good (of course, not in the league of the 100L but WAY better than anything in its class).

Basically, with the exception of 24mm f4, this seemed like a step DOWN from the 24-105 which really surprised me given reviews I've read singing its praises. Then, finally I stumble upon some reviews docking it for its performance at 50mm (and threads like this)...I wonder if that was just a bad copy that the store had. Unfortunately it's the only copy they have too...I'd like to try out another one to see if it's any better.

So...sounds like it's normal to see a drop in performance in that lens at 50, but it shouldn't be a dramatic one?

 

[jd7]

Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)

Anyway, yes, I have seen the reviews of the 24-70 f4 and remain confused. I was wondering why so many gave such a high impression of this lens (with the exception of TDP which shows awful performance at 50mm)...I went to my local store to try one out and it confirmed the mediocre performance at 50mm f4 (ok, trying to be nice - it simply sucked at 50). It was very good at 24mm (much better than the 24-105 and close to the 24-70 2.8 II)...got worse as I zoomed in. At 35 it was just ok...at 50 no part of the image was sharp. Center was just barely passable, toward the edges - I thought my 24-105 was meh at 24, but (!!!)...and then it improved again at 70mm but it's still not as good as it was at 24. Macro mode seemed cool but gimmicky at the same time. Performance wise the macro mode seemed to be fairly good (of course, not in the league of the 100L but WAY better than anything in its class).

Basically, with the exception of 24mm f4, this seemed like a step DOWN from the 24-105 which really surprised me given reviews I've read singing its praises. Then, finally I stumble upon some reviews docking it for its performance at 50mm (and threads like this)...I wonder if that was just a bad copy that the store had. Unfortunately it's the only copy they have too...I'd like to try out another one to see if it's any better.

So...sounds like it's normal to see a drop in performance in that lens at 50, but it shouldn't be a dramatic one?

I agree - it does seem to be a bit of a confusing lens! From everything I've read and experienced, your assessment seems to be correct though (and the copy you tested sounds very much like mine). 50mm is the weak spot for the lens, but even so if you get a good one it should be almost as good at 50mm as it is at 70mm - probably close enough you're unlikely to notice the difference in real world use.

For example, it seems SLR Lounge got a good one ...
http://www.slrlounge.com/school/canon-24-70-vs-24-105-vs-28-300-lens-wars-50mm/

I think many of us were hoping the 24-70 4 IS would be basically a 24-70 2.8 II but trading aperture for size/weight. Doesn't seem to have quite worked out that way though. Given how good most of Canon's more recent lenses have been (eg 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 II, 35 2 IS, etc), I wonder what happened with the 24-70 4 IS? Complications related to the inclusion of the macro mode? Allowing larger tolerances in an attempt to reduce manufacturing costs? Anyone got any other ideas?

I really hope mine has become a good copy by the time it comes back from Canon!

 

[jd7]

Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)

Yep, the people around here are a great help if you want to spend money ... not always so much if you're trying to save it ;D

 

[jd7]

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$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!

Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

I have to say I ruled out the Sigma 24-105 largely on grounds of size and weight. If I'm going to carry something like that, I'd be saving for the 24-70 2.8L II. For my purposes the aim of using an f/4 zoom is to trade aperture for size/weight savings, so if the extra focal length was really important to me I'd still be looking at the Canon 24-105 4L over the Sigma even if the Sigma is (may be?) a little sharper.

As for the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, I did consider it. For some reason I couldn't get excited enough about it to want to carry the extra size/weight anyway. I'm not trying to be critical of it - my only real "complaint" about its IQ is the onion ring bokeh (I reckon my old Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM was a step up for bokeh, if not sharpness), but query if that would make any difference to me in real life (as against when pixel-peeping at 1:1). Anyway, I just didn't get excited about it so I didn't go down that path.

I admit I haven't looked really closely at the Sigma 24-105 (as I say, the size/weight issue was enough to put me off it - for my uses) but I wonder if you're being a little harsh on the 24-70 4L IS. It seems like a good copy is pretty darn good - but the issue is getting a good copy.

 

[RLPhoto]

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$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!

Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

I have to say I ruled out the Sigma 24-105 largely on grounds of size and weight. If I'm going to carry something like that, I'd be saving for the 24-70 2.8L II. For my purposes the aim of using an f/4 zoom is to trade aperture for size/weight savings, so if the extra focal length was really important to me I'd still be looking at the Canon 24-105 4L over the Sigma even if the Sigma is (may be?) a little sharper.

As for the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, I did consider it. For some reason I couldn't get excited enough about it to want to carry the extra size/weight anyway. I'm not trying to be critical of it - my only real "complaint" about its IQ is the onion ring bokeh (I reckon my old Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM was a step up for bokeh, if not sharpness), but query if that would make any difference to me in real life (as against when pixel-peeping at 1:1). Anyway, I just didn't get excited about it so I didn't go down that path.

I admit I haven't looked really closely at the Sigma 24-105 (as I say, the size/weight issue was enough to put me off it - for my uses) but I wonder if you're being a little harsh on the 24-70 4L IS. It seems like a good copy is pretty darn good - but the issue is getting a good copy.

I was simply stating that any of those lenses would be a wiser choice unless you absolutely needed whatever little benefit the 24-70 F/4L has. 24-105L, Sigma 24-105L, or Tamron 24-70 VC. Doesn't matter but until canon wakes up and lowers the price on it, You won't see the 24-70 F/4L thread get very much bigger.

It's only gripe is the price, but otherwise a decent replacement for the 24-105L. I'd be all over that 24-70 F/4L @ 799 like peanut butter to a jelly sandwich.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!

Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

No, all lenses do not look sharp at f/5.6-f/8. Compare a 75-300 IS to a 70-300L at even f/8. Compare a 24-105 at 24mm f/8 to 24 1.4 II or 24-70 II or 24-70 f/4 IS. And contrast and longitudinal CA and distortion and such can vary too even stopped down.

The Sigma barely costs more than reasonable street price of the 24-70 f/4 IS (I see it on sale for $999 all the time and a couple times for $950).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Now, If you want to make me spend more money for yet another lens you will not make it ... yet

Earlier this year I got the 24-70 2.8 II and immediately before leaving for vacation I got 16-35 f/4L IS (by giving my EF24 2.8 ) and 100L 2.8 Macro (by giving my old non-usm non-L 100mm 2.8 macro).

Plus, I knew I needed my 2.8 zoom due to an event that takes place at low light. ;D

So I will think about it next year if I there are no announcements for 5DMkIV, 14-24 2.8, 16-35 2.8 III, so many ifs... ;D ;D ;D

Wow nice set 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 2.8 II and 100L! Same here. Only plus 70-300L ;D and 300 2.8 IS ;D ;D. BUY BUY BUY ;D ;D ;D.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)

Anyway, yes, I have seen the reviews of the 24-70 f4 and remain confused. I was wondering why so many gave such a high impression of this lens (with the exception of TDP which shows awful performance at 50mm)...I went to my local store to try one out and it confirmed the mediocre performance at 50mm f4 (ok, trying to be nice - it simply sucked at 50). It was very good at 24mm (much better than the 24-105 and close to the 24-70 2.8 II)...got worse as I zoomed in. At 35 it was just ok...at 50 no part of the image was sharp. Center was just barely passable, toward the edges - I thought my 24-105 was meh at 24, but (!!!)...and then it improved again at 70mm but it's still not as good as it was at 24. Macro mode seemed cool but gimmicky at the same time. Performance wise the macro mode seemed to be fairly good (of course, not in the league of the 100L but WAY better than anything in its class).

Basically, with the exception of 24mm f4, this seemed like a step DOWN from the 24-105 which really surprised me given reviews I've read singing its praises. Then, finally I stumble upon some reviews docking it for its performance at 50mm (and threads like this)...I wonder if that was just a bad copy that the store had. Unfortunately it's the only copy they have too...I'd like to try out another one to see if it's any better.

So...sounds like it's normal to see a drop in performance in that lens at 50, but it shouldn't be a dramatic one?

My second copy definitely was better than the first. But your copy sounds super bad at 50mm.

Anyway 24mm area performance had always been the hold grail for FF. 50mm was trivial, even a cheap 50 1.8 delivered that fine corner to corner. 24m was challenge, also people tend to shoot standard zooms most often at the wide and long end, so I way preferred the design decision to make the 24-70 f/4 IS peak at 24mm (and 70mm) as opposed to the 24-105 which chose to be best at the trivial and less used 50mm and much worse at 24mm (and 70-105m).

24mm f/4 IS also fights off nasty longitudinal CA much better than the 24-105L as well.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I was simply stating that any of those lenses would be a wiser choice unless you absolutely needed whatever little benefit the 24-70 F/4L has. 24-105L, Sigma 24-105L, or Tamron 24-70 VC. Doesn't matter but until canon wakes up and lowers the price on it, You won't see the 24-70 F/4L thread get very much bigger.

What little benefit?? I never kept a 24-105L longer than a week they left me so disappointed at 24mm. I kept the 24-70 f/4 IS until swapping it for 16-35 f/4 IS (which is less redundant to the 24-70 II). So much better at 24mm for landscapes.

Way smaller and lighter than the sigma 24-105 and better stopped down for landscapes and barely costs more. I don't even see the point of the sigma for a canon shooter (24-105 costs less, 24-70 f/4 IS barely costs more and is better and much smaller and lighter, 24-70 II is the same size and much better and f/2.8, tamron is same size and better and f/2.8).

Way smaller and lighter than the tamron 24-70 vc and a few hundred less expensive, although tamron does give you f/2.8 so it's an either or decision.

 

[Act444]

My second copy definitely was better than the first. But your copy sounds super bad at 50mm.

Thankfully it wasn't "my copy" so to speak, just one I got to try at a local store...it seemed fine at 24 and at 70 but at 50 it's probably the worst performance I've seen. I expect FAR better from a lens in that class/price range. Even my 18-55 kit lens + M is superior...

It was bad enough that I would have figured there was something wrong with it. Haven't written it off yet, though - I really would like to test another one. Problem is that the "bad one" is the only one available to test (so far). We'll see, perhaps that's a good thing...

 

[RLPhoto]

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$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!

Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

No, all lenses do not look sharp at f/5.6-f/8. Compare a 75-300 IS to a 70-300L at even f/8. Compare a 24-105 at 24mm f/8 to 24 1.4 II or 24-70 II or 24-70 f/4 IS. And contrast and longitudinal CA and distortion and such can vary too even stopped down.

The Sigma barely costs more than reasonable street price of the 24-70 f/4 IS (I see it on sale for $999 all the time and a couple times for $950).

Doesn't change a single thing I mentioned in my comment because the sigma is still the better lens for cheaper and the 24-105L is cheaper lens for about the same IQ. I found my Tamron 24-70 VC for 800$! Does that mean anything? No but that not as important as I can find 24-105L's for 500$ too.

I didn't mean to offend but the 24-70 F/4L is overpriced.

 

[jd7]

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$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!

Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

I have to say I ruled out the Sigma 24-105 largely on grounds of size and weight. If I'm going to carry something like that, I'd be saving for the 24-70 2.8L II. For my purposes the aim of using an f/4 zoom is to trade aperture for size/weight savings, so if the extra focal length was really important to me I'd still be looking at the Canon 24-105 4L over the Sigma even if the Sigma is (may be?) a little sharper.

As for the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, I did consider it. For some reason I couldn't get excited enough about it to want to carry the extra size/weight anyway. I'm not trying to be critical of it - my only real "complaint" about its IQ is the onion ring bokeh (I reckon my old Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM was a step up for bokeh, if not sharpness), but query if that would make any difference to me in real life (as against when pixel-peeping at 1:1). Anyway, I just didn't get excited about it so I didn't go down that path.

I admit I haven't looked really closely at the Sigma 24-105 (as I say, the size/weight issue was enough to put me off it - for my uses) but I wonder if you're being a little harsh on the 24-70 4L IS. It seems like a good copy is pretty darn good - but the issue is getting a good copy.

I was simply stating that any of those lenses would be a wiser choice unless you absolutely needed whatever little benefit the 24-70 F/4L has. 24-105L, Sigma 24-105L, or Tamron 24-70 VC. Doesn't matter but until canon wakes up and lowers the price on it, You won't see the 24-70 F/4L thread get very much bigger.

It's only gripe is the price, but otherwise a decent replacement for the 24-105L. I'd be all over that 24-70 F/4L @ 799 like peanut butter to a jelly sandwich.

Yes, even now the price of the 24-70 4L IS has dropped a bit from its real release price, it's still pretty hard to swallow. The Tamron 24-70 VC has a lot to recommend it, and when you factor in price as well it's easy to see many people choosing it over the 24-70 4L IS. And then when you also factor in weak IQ in the middle of the zoom range seemingly effecting many copies ... well, the 24-70 4L IS feels frustrating to say the least. I agree with LTRLI that Canon made a good call in producing a lens with good IQ at the extremes of the range, but even so I expect quite a lot more than I was seeing from my copy in the middle of the zoom range (and I'm pretty sure I'm less picky than many on CR!).

I'm looking forward to testing my copy when it comes back from Canon. Fingers crossed it turns out to be one of the good copies!

 

[Sporgon]

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$.

The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!

Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.

I have to say I ruled out the Sigma 24-105 largely on grounds of size and weight. If I'm going to carry something like that, I'd be saving for the 24-70 2.8L II. For my purposes the aim of using an f/4 zoom is to trade aperture for size/weight savings, so if the extra focal length was really important to me I'd still be looking at the Canon 24-105 4L over the Sigma even if the Sigma is (may be?) a little sharper.

As for the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, I did consider it. For some reason I couldn't get excited enough about it to want to carry the extra size/weight anyway. I'm not trying to be critical of it - my only real "complaint" about its IQ is the onion ring bokeh (I reckon my old Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM was a step up for bokeh, if not sharpness), but query if that would make any difference to me in real life (as against when pixel-peeping at 1:1). Anyway, I just didn't get excited about it so I didn't go down that path.

I admit I haven't looked really closely at the Sigma 24-105 (as I say, the size/weight issue was enough to put me off it - for my uses) but I wonder if you're being a little harsh on the 24-70 4L IS. It seems like a good copy is pretty darn good - but the issue is getting a good copy.

I was simply stating that any of those lenses would be a wiser choice unless you absolutely needed whatever little benefit the 24-70 F/4L has. 24-105L, Sigma 24-105L, or Tamron 24-70 VC. Doesn't matter but until canon wakes up and lowers the price on it, You won't see the 24-70 F/4L thread get very much bigger.

It's only gripe is the price, but otherwise a decent replacement for the 24-105L. I'd be all over that 24-70 F/4L @ 799 like peanut butter to a jelly sandwich.

Yes, even now the price of the 24-70 4L IS has dropped a bit from its real price, it's still pretty hard to swallow. The Tamron 24-70 VC has a lot to recommend it, and when you factor in price as well it's easy to see many people choosing it over the 24-70 4L IS. And then when you also factor in weak IQ in the middle of the zoom range seemingly effecting many copies ... well, the 24-70 4L IS feels frustrating to say the least. I agree with LTRLI that Canon made a good call in producing a lens with good IQ at the extremes of the range, but even so I expect quite a lot more than I was seeing from my copy in the middle of the zoom range (and I'm pretty sure I'm less picky than many on CR!).

I'm looking forward to testing my copy when it comes back from Canon. Fingers crossed it turns out to be one of the good copies!

Let us know the outcome of this. Roger at Lens Rentals mentioned that the new 24-70 IS has more adjustable elements than any other lens he'd seen ( or something like that ) so it obviously requires a skilled set up. Our copy at Building Panoramics is OK at 50 mm.

What concerns me about the Tamron is it's durability when used by someone like myself. Some of the elements are just glued into place with three spots of glue. I don't like the idea of that.

 

[Act444]

Another observation - compared to the 2.8 II version, even at 70mm the 2.8 is noticeably better than the 4 when both are set to f/4. I was truly hoping for a smaller, lighter, slower version of the 2.8 lens but the 4 (at least the one I tried) just doesn't have the resolving power of the 2.8, even factoring in the IS.

Compare to the 70-200 series where the 4 and 2.8 are near equals!

 

[x-vision]

I think many of us were hoping the 24-70 4 IS would be basically a 24-70 2.8 II but trading aperture for size/weight. Doesn't seem to have quite worked out that way though.

My thoughts exactly - and it's frustrating to read about the inconsistent performance at 50mm.
I'm also waiting to hear how your copy turns out after it comes back from Canon service.

 

[jd7]

For those interested, I got back my lens late last week. I only had a chance to take a handful of shots with it over the weekend, and they were in less than ideal testing conditions (ISO3200, except for about 4 shots at ISO 400). However, I'm very pleased to say my initial impression is the lens is much improved after servicing. I need to test it more thoroughly yet, but it's looking like the lens is still a touch better at 24mm and 70mm than at 35mm or 50mm but the difference is now pretty small. Seems like 35mm and 50mm are pretty good - it seems promising anyway!

Will update again when I've tested more carefully, hopefully next weekend.

 

[jd7]

In case anyone stumbles over this old thread at some point and is interested to know how the story ended ...

Having done some more testing, I'm pretty happy with my 24-70 4 IS now. The IQ is pretty consistent all the way through the zoom range now. It's possible its weak spot is now at 35mm (f/4), and I think it might not be quite as good at 24mm (f/4) as before I sent it to Canon (but it's marginal - I might be imagining that), but really its consistent - and very good - throughout. It's a vast improvement over its performance before I sent it back to Canon, that's for sure.

It's interesting reading around the internet that some people report the 24-70 4 IS being great throughout the zoom range (eg see PhotoNet http://photo.net/equipment/canon-ef24-70f4/, and see SLRlounge's "lens wars" series including their 50mm "wars"), while many others report it being weak in the middle of the zoom range, especially at 50mm. Sporgon mentioned in an earlier post that Roger Cicala had found the 24-70 4 IS has an unusually high number of adjustable elements. Maybe Canon bit off a little bit more than they can chew with the 24-70 4 IS, in the sense the QC required to make it consistently good out of the box would mean it would have to be priced at a level which isn't going to fly from a commercial point of view?

Anyway, the story has ended well for me, so I'm happy!

PS - It seems pretty clear it's not going to be what you're looking for if you're serious about macro photography, but as someone who isn't that much into macro, I'm definitely having some fun with the (semi) macro mode on the 24-70 4 IS.