Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?

[sanj]

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.

Huh?

 

[mrsfotografie]

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!

+1, that's almost insane - the 70-200 2.8L II is a bag full of f/2.8 primes all rolled into one. It is the ultimate zoom. So unless you're bothered by its size and weight, I recommend getting the 135L beside the 70-200L (I know how GAS works). Whatever you do don't first sell the 70-200 and then get the 135L. Keep them both for a while (a year or so) to see how it works out.

 

[Menace]

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!

+1, that's almost insane - the 70-200 2.8L II is a bag full of f/2.8 primes all rolled into one. It is the ultimate zoom. So unless you're bothered by its size and weight, I recommend getting the 135L beside the 70-200L (I know how GAS works). Whatever you do don't first sell the 70-200 and then get the 135L. Keep them both for a while (a year or so) to see how it works out.

Agreed - well put.

 

[Laktibrada]

i was pondering between the 24-70 and 24-105 (both f4 and IS) and a lot of people told me that the 24-70 is extremly good at 24ish and 70ish mm (close to the 2.8 II)... but the further you go from those focal lengths the worse it gets... they went as far as saying it is less sharp at 50mm than the very basic kit lens (18-55)

so i guess it is THE zoom lens for people who hate 50mm
or if you dont care abut switching lenses now and then... add the cheap nifty fifty and you should be set 8)

 

[jd7]

i was pondering between the 24-70 and 24-105 (both f4 and IS) and a lot of people told me that the 24-70 is extremly good at 24ish and 70ish mm (close to the 2.8 II)... but the further you go from those focal lengths the worse it gets... they went as far as saying it is less sharp at 50mm than the very basic kit lens (18-55)

so i guess it is THE zoom lens for people who hate 50mm
or if you dont care abut switching lenses now and then... add the cheap nifty fifty and you should be set 8)

Around 50mm does seem to be the weak spot for the 24-70 4 IS. That said, LensRentals' testing puts it as slightly sharper than the 24-105 even at 50mm (although query if you'd pick a difference in real use).
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests
It seems there is plenty of copy variation amongst the 24-70 4s though - and it seems the ones which are poor can be quite poor.

I'm crossing my fingers mine shows a very significant improvement once it's been serviced by Canon!

And I do still wonder if I might not have been better going with the 24-105, although I do like the handling of the 24-70 4 IS and the macro mode could be fun occasionally.

 

[jd7]

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!

+1, that's almost insane - the 70-200 2.8L II is a bag full of f/2.8 primes all rolled into one. It is the ultimate zoom. So unless you're bothered by its size and weight, I recommend getting the 135L beside the 70-200L (I know how GAS works). Whatever you do don't first sell the 70-200 and then get the 135L. Keep them both for a while (a year or so) to see how it works out.

Agreed - well put.

I did say I was considering it but hadn't been able to bring myself to do it yet!

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is fantastic, but I do a lot of my photography when travelling and the size and weight can be an issue. I have a 70-200 4 IS and it's great too, and half the weight and significantly smaller so it tends to be the one I take often. And it feels like overkill for me to have two 70-200s! Still, the 2.8 is so good, and useful in so many situations, I think I'll end up keeping it.

 

[tron]

I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

 

[Antono Refa]

I can't understand why Canon would persist to make F4 lenses, specially ones that are designed to be upgrades (Fisheye 8-15mm f4).

1) Price. The 16-35mm + 24-70mm + 70-200mm trio at f/4 is 40% cheaper than the f/2.8 trio.

2) Weight. The f/4 trio is 33% lighter than the f/2.8 trio.

3) f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 IS-less. As explained by others, IS compensates for hand movement, aperture helps freeze the subject.

As for the fisheye zoom, I think it's a different story altogether. Canon could have gone two ways:

1. Make four fisheye prime lenses - circular & diagonal, each for APS-C & FF, like Sigma did. That means dealing with overhead of four niche lenses, all the way from design, through production, marketing, stocking, and stocking parts to fix sold lenses.

2. Make one fisheye zoom lens. It misses the niche market of circular fisheye lens for APS-C, but has (a) saves on said overhead, (b) is a lens the owner can keep when upgrading to FF.

Also, as shallow DoF is not a consideration for fisheyes, an ISO stop would usually compensate for an aperture stop. There might be night time photographers who would like f/2.8 today, but improvements in sensors might make this a moot point long before the fisheye zoom reaches end-of-life.

 

[Loswr]

I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed... I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.

 

[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$.

 

[candyman]

I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed... I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.

I bought the 70-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS ;D

 

[mrsfotografie]

I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed... I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.

I bought the 7-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS ;D

I've got the 70-300L for travel too. It collapses to a very manageable size and has excellent image quality too

 

[tron]

I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed... I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.

I bought the 7-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS ;D

I've got the 70-300L for travel too. It collapses to a very manageable size and has excellent image quality too

Can you please stop mentioning how useful for travel the 70-300L is? ;D

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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??

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

My first copy was better than the 24-105Ls I've tried but it did seem a bit extra dodgy at 50mm and the edges in general. I ended up returning it and trying a second copy and it definitely did better at the edges all around and it seemed, in a weird way, to have a lot more DOF at 50mm. Not quite as good as the 24-70 II stopped down, but not bad at all, although the difference even more at f/4, but all the same very good and the second best general zoom I've ever used on FF and FAR better than any 24-105L copy I have ever used.

 

[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!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed... I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.

I bought the 7-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS ;D

I've got the 70-300L for travel too. It collapses to a very manageable size and has excellent image quality too

Can you please stop mentioning how useful for travel the 70-300L is? ;D

It's pretty much the best. NO photographer can be without one. Not one! ;D

(seriously though it's one of my most used lenses, for me 24-70 II, 70-300L and 300 2.8 IS L and 100L get the most usage by far and of those the 70-300L might even be #1)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed... I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.

I bought the 7-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS ;D

I've got the 70-300L for travel too. It collapses to a very manageable size and has excellent image quality too

Can you please stop mentioning how useful for travel the 70-300L is? ;D

70-300L on travel:

 

[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.

 

[Menace]

I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!

Indeed... I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.

I bought the 7-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS ;D

I've got the 70-300L for travel too. It collapses to a very manageable size and has excellent image quality too

Can you please stop mentioning how useful for travel the 70-300L is? ;D

70-300L on travel:

Hi tron, did I mention that 70-300L is a very useful for travel - relatively light and compact too? (Just kidding)