EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests

[dstppy]

Hrm, looks like it's soft as all get out @ f/2.8

*ducks*

 

[Sporgon]

24-105L is my go-to lens for travel, though I could choose from key primes/tele zooms. It is by no means a "small" lens but I usually fall back on it when I carry just a single lens. It is a versatile, reliable performer.
[/quote]

+1 for that. I now find the shorty forty a very easy addition to throw in there, too, giving a nice option for lower light work.
[/quote

+1 - that's exactly what I'm doing
when I'm out on the off chance. 24-105 on camera, 40 in pocket.

With regard to the 24-70 f4, it must be intended to have significantly higher IQ than the 24-105 otherwise I cannot see any logical reason for it. Time will tell.

 

[robbymack]

And the winner is............Tamron

Honestly there is no real reason to chose the 24-70 f4 IS unless you really (and i mean really) care about saving a little weight. Seems to me the 24-105 now has to go the way of the dinosaurs for canon to move this lens in bulk.

 

[infared]

Roger gives us the BEST info!!!! Thanks Roger...I always feel informed after reading anything that he posts.

 

[transpo1]

You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands

Why? The tamron and 24-70 IS clearly test better, especially at 24mm.

As always, everything is a package deal....lets not discount the added reach the 24-105L offers with IS and decent IQ and contrast.

24-105 has added reach, but also added distortion and a 70-200/300 lens delivers much better 70-105mm quality plus a LOT more reach.

Thing is, 24-105 covers a lot of range as a quality walk around lens. No doubt a pair of lens (like a 24-70 & 70-200) give you more in multiple metrics, namely quality & reach, but one len / one body has it's benefits for casual trips where you don't even take a bag... That's why I like my 24-105.

+1 Absolutely.

 

[rbr]

I guess. I just figure that if I care enough to take a DSLR then I want better than the 24-105 delivers on FF (or wider and better (and for less) on APS-C). And walking around and travel and such are often when I come upon the best scenes where I'd want the most quality if anything.

I never, ever, ever got the whole leave the good stuff home when you are traveling (or even walking about)! That is when you are in interesting places! Why leave the good stuff home when you are around all these amazing and unique opportunities and then bring it out when you are back in the same old whatever? But to each their own. But for me, travel is when I'd most of all want the tops. I sooner use the convenient lower stuff for someones cat wandering through my backyard and the good stuff for the Seychelles or Paris or the Big Sur or what not.

Obviously many love the 24-105 though. It often comes up the tops in most favorite lens posts. (Then again it also comes up most often of any lens in least favorite lens posts too ;D). I tried to like it three times and quickly returned or solid it all three times. But obviously while many agree with me, very many also disagree.

I agree 100% with this. I have tried 3 copies of the 24-105 and owned one for about 6 months, but was never happy with it at the wide end where I would use it most. The corners never looked good for serious landscape work on full frame or even on a 1D4 at 24mm. While overpriced at the moment, it could possibly be a great landscape lens. Unfortunately these tests don't tell us much about that. Corner sharpness at 24mm stopped down a bit to maybe f8 is what I'm most interested in. Comparing this new lens wide open to f2.8 lenses stopped down just isn't a reasonable comparison IMO. According to the charts in the article, this lens is sharper wide open at 24mm than any of those f2.8 lenses wide open including the L II. With its small size I think it really has potential to be the lens I have been waiting for for travel and hiking. Yeah, it really should come down in price a few hundred dollars. I expect that this lens will have a similar fate to the 70-300L that a few years ago many felt was an unneeded and overpriced lens for Canon to come out with. The 70-300L has since become generally well liked and the price has also come down with frequent rebates, etc.

 

[Plato the Wise]

I'm really disappointed with the price-point of this lens.

While I like the 24-105 - the barrel distortion at 24mm is really annoying. If this lens were under $1K - I would definitely be in the market for it and trade in my 24-105.

From the tests it seems reasonably sharp. It is weather sealed, has IS, is small, and has a lot less distortion. It would be perfect to carry as a companion to a couple of primes.

 

[kobeson]

From the tests it seems reasonably sharp. It is weather sealed, has IS, is small, and has a lot less distortion. It would be perfect to carry as a companion to a couple of primes.

Exactly what I hoped this lens would be! I agree, overpriced still but hoping to add it to my 35/85/100 kit (along with a 70-200).

Just hope it has corner sharpness stopped down and I am sold!

 

[eyeland]

Would be nice with some measure of build quality and IS, but I guess that mileage varies to such a degree depending on particular use that it'd be of little use anyways...
Would be nice with some improved quality testing from canon at these price points though.
The way it looks, my vote goes to the Tamron as well if I should decide to start using zoom glass at all

 

[MichaelHodges]

Thanks and no thanks, Canon- I'm glad you're creating and improving products, but I'll stick with my 24-105L lens. I can live with 5% barrel distortion at the wide end in exchange for the increased telephoto reach. It's the best overall travel lens I've ever used.

I agree with this, and I like it even better on my 7D as a travel lens.


-------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

 

[Albi86]

It seems to me that (like the new 35mm f/2 IS) that Canon has produced a lens that compares well to its internal competition (exceeds the 24-105L 24-70L and MK1, is sufficiently short of the 24-70 MKII for fair value), but neglects to consider the competition (in this case, the Tamron). The Tamron comes out looking the greatest in terms of the combination of optics, features, and price.

The same thing is happening to the 35mm f/2 IS. It compares nicely to its predecessor and even the 35L, but the Sigma (and a fairly high price) make it seem a step behind and less of a value as it should be. At the 600-700 range, it would be a great alternative. At the current price, however, the Sigma looks like a far greater value (particularly when you consider that the Sigma comes with both a hood and a NICE case). Likewise, as someone has already pointed out, the 24-70 f/4L would be a great alternative at $1000. As it stands, however, it only reinforces the value of the Tamron and makes those of us who own the 24-105L want to hang onto it.

+1

I couldn't have said it better

This looks like a very good lens, but charging more than 900-1000$ places it in a league where it just doesn't belong. There is a big world outside Canon's offer.

 

[Rick]

The price will come down and maintain a similar relationship between the 24-70 II and the 24-105. The 24-70 II has already come down by $250. If one doesn't want to pay early adopter pricing, wait for the price reductions that are sure to come. It'll probably be cheaper as a kit lens for the 6D too.

For those who want better wide open performance, you have to pay for that. The 24-70/4 IS looks like it beats the 24-105 across the board in this respect. Couple that with a "macro" feature and a Lens Cap II, it could be worth the price. ;D

 

[syder]

People posting here (gearheads probably with 15 years worth of L lenses) really aren't the target market for this lens.

As a general walkabout lens with macro capabilities which will be good enough for many hobbyists this lens makes a lot of sense compared to the 24-105. Its sharper, has less distortion, hybrid IS and means people don't need to invest a separate macro lens. For someone moving up from a rebel to a 6D this lens would be great. For those who already have the 24-70 f2.8 mark i or ii or the 24-105 along with the 100L or another dedicated macro lens this offers very little unless you really want a two lens setup to go on holiday and take lots of macro pics. A 24-70 (with macro) + 70-200 is a lot more versatile, and will probably get better images than a 24-105 and 100L.

As with other lenses the price will drop in a few months time (see the 24-70 f2.8 mark ii as a reference).

 

[ddashti]

For a wide-telephoto zoom lens with IS, these figures are really good!

 

[Dylan777]

The price will come down and maintain a similar relationship between the 24-70 II and the 24-105. The 24-70 II has already come down by $250. If one doesn't want to pay early adopter pricing, wait for the price reductions that are sure to come. It'll probably be cheaper as a kit lens for the 6D too.

For those who want better wide open performance, you have to pay for that. The 24-70/4 IS looks like it beats the 24-105 across the board in this respect. Couple that with a "macro" feature and a Lens Cap II, it could be worth the price. ;D

Yes....during holidays and now $2299; http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+24-70mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta

 

[infared]

And the winner is............Tamron

Honestly there is no real reason to chose the 24-70 f4 IS unless you really (and i mean really) care about saving a little weight. Seems to me the 24-105 now has to go the way of the dinosaurs for canon to move this lens in bulk.

...more thorough research may change your consideration:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

I am not always a Canon Fanboy...but in some cases it is worth at least trying-on those clothes....

 

[verysimplejason]

The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price. If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there. I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D. 6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.

 

[hmmm]

The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price. If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there. I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D. 6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.

+1. Lower the price and this is perceived as a very good lens.

 

[EchoLocation]

The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price. If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there. I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D. 6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.

+1. Lower the price and this is perceived as a very good lens.

i agree. I liked the 24-105, but I always wanted something a little more compact to make up for the slow aperture. If i'm going to carry something big around, i'd rather have the F2.8. Thus, if this lens was 800ish, it would be a fantastic FF travel lens. I really like the idea of this lens, I just think that Canon is way off base with their prices.
L glass is cool.
F4 is not cool.
$1500 is a crapload of money. For that price, whatever lens I buy better be cool all the way around, not just because it's small and L.

 

[dcren123]

No standard f4 zoom is worth that price!

It seem like a good lens. With high iso performance on FF already good as it is, f4 won't be too much of a problem in dim light and the hybrid IS will certainly help a lot. I see this as some sort of 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM compromise in which Canon made it one stop slower in return for lighter weight and IS/macro. I'm hoping to see more reviews so we can be certain of its image quality. With its current price though... it's an epic fail.