Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good

[azizjhn]

...
Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls. The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII. This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not. Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles....

I like how people as dissing something new without actually trying it. I agree with you, either post comparison shots from the lenses or just... ah never mind.

This reminds of when the 70-300L just came out and I got it. Some people were saying why did I get it because the 70-200 F4 IS is much better. They also complained about the price. Then a bunch of positive reviews from people who actually shoot with the lens, and it turns out it's actually a really good lens. I wonder if those are the same people dissing the 24-70F4 IS now.

+1

 

[bholliman]

...
Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls. The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII. This hybrid IS is rock solid.

I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not. Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles....

I like how people as dissing something new without actually trying it. I agree with you, either post comparison shots from the lenses or just... ah never mind.

This reminds of when the 70-300L just came out and I got it. Some people were saying why did I get it because the 70-200 F4 IS is much better. They also complained about the price. Then a bunch of positive reviews from people who actually shoot with the lens, and it turns out it's actually a really good lens. I wonder if those are the same people dissing the 24-70F4 IS now.

We probably are not hearing much from 24-70 f/4.0 owners because not many are being sold - for good reason. There are a bunch of hands-on reviews of this lens and the consensus is that it is either roughly equivalent or a very slight upgrade to the 24-105L. Here is the link to the TDP review in case you missed it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

As somebody else pointed out, it would be a decent alternative to the 24-105 if Canon had priced it around $800. But, they priced it at double that! So, you are paying an extra $800 for similar IQ, a little less distortion and CA while losing 35mm in reach. I really can't see why anybody would consider buying one once they have all the facts.

 

[christianronnel]

We probably are not hearing much from 24-70 f/4.0 owners because not many are being sold - for good reason. There are a bunch of hands-on reviews of this lens and the consensus is that it is either roughly equivalent or a very slight upgrade to the 24-105L. Here is the link to the TDP review in case you missed it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

As somebody else pointed out, it would be a decent alternative to the 24-105 if Canon had priced it around $800. But, they priced it at double that! So, you are paying an extra $800 for similar IQ, a little less distortion and CA while losing 35mm in reach. I really can't see why anybody would consider buying one once they have all the facts.

Review is one thing, actual usage is another. When I tried both the 24-105 and the 24-70mkI, I was never happy with the image quality when using them wide open, but I mostly shot at the extreme ends of the zoom. I also understand about the usefulness of having a wide range of focal lengths in a zoom, if the 28-300L wasn't so damn heavy (and white) I would have gotten it.

On your 2nd point, the 24-105 was US$1049 when I bought it. It was not $800. I apologize now but I will be frank here, and this is not directed at you, it's for anyone here. If price is the only issue for not getting the lens, then perhaps the lens is not the problem, it's your economy. Grow your economy to match how you want to spend instead of complaining about something being expensive.

 

[wickidwombat]

Stabilizing only accounts for one problem of low-light photography. It compensates for camera movement. It's great at doing that, but it can never compensate for subject movement. For me, shooting slower than 1/60th is not an option for available light event shooting. (Of course, with flashes, who needs IS anyways?)

when you are shooting for 10 or 12 hours fatigue becomes a very real issue and having an IS lens provides a significant advantage here by compensating for the additional camera shake that enevitably comes once fatigue has set in. some people forget this or dont shoot enough to experience it

 

[bholliman]

If price is the only issue for not getting the lens, then perhaps the lens is not the problem, it's your economy. Grow your economy to match how you want to spend instead of complaining about something being expensive.

I never said I couldn't afford it, just that it is a very poor value. Given its features and relative value to the 24-105, this lens is worth roughly $800-1,000, but Canon is asking $1,600 for it. I wouldn't pay $7,000 for a 5D3 either, even if I had unlimited cash.

Also, I don't really see anything this lens has that makes it worth buying. I have a 24-105 and am very happy with it.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

So, you are paying an extra $800 for similar IQ, a little less distortion and CA while losing 35mm in reach. I really can't see why anybody would consider buying one once they have all the facts.

The answer is quite simple: those who want better IQ (or similar as you claim), less distortion and CA (does not matter if it is little less or lot less), those who do not care about the extra 35mm reach, for those that are not overly bothered about spending a few hundred extra (or 800 as you claim) will buy 24-70 f/4 IS.
Finally it is not necessary for us to "see" or understand "why anyone would consider buying one", coz its their need, their money and their decision. ;D
Lots of people said the same thing about 5D MK III, "why pay $3499 for it, why not just buy 5D MK II and save almost $1500 etc, etc, etc" ... the fact remains that those who want/need it and can benefit from its features have bought it ... in fact in many parts of the world people are still paying anywhere between $3500 - $4350 to get a 5D MK III (body only).
Although I really like my 24-105 f/4 L IS, if money was not an issue, I would buy 24-70 f/4 L IS ... I would even buy my lost 24-70 f/2.8 L II lens again ... unfortunately money was/is an issue so I bought the 24-70 f/2.8 VC.

 

[J.R.]

when you are shooting for 10 or 12 hours fatigue becomes a very real issue and having an IS lens provides a significant advantage here by compensating for the additional camera shake that enevitably comes once fatigue has set in. some people forget this or dont shoot enough to experience it

Well said ... I guess this comes only from experience.

Frankly I never gave a thought to this - shooting 10-12 hours and fatigue setting in - because I've never shot that long continuously.

 

[bholliman]

Finally it is not necessary for us to "see" or understand "why anyone would consider buying one", coz its their need, their money and their decision. ;D

Excellent point. We all make our own purchase decisions. Features that are trivial to one person are essential to others.

 

[dswatson83]

While it is a good lens (great if you want Macro), it was not significantly better than the 24-105 in my opinion. It was smaller and lighter if you want that but the sharpness was not improved (was lower at 50mm on my lens). Chromatic Abrasion was better which was nice but it just did not feel like it was worth more money. I also compared it to the Tamron 24-70 VC f/2.8 which gives you an extra stop for $200 less. Great lens. Take a look Samples and full review between the 2 lenses here: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/104-tamron-24-70-f28-vc-vs-canon-24-70-f4l-is

Also have the review of the Canon 24-70 f/4: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/99-canon-24-70-f4-is-review

And a direct comparison with the 24-105mm f/4 IS: http://www.learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/103-canon-24-70-f4-is-vs-canon-24-105-f4-is

If you would like to see the details of what i'm talking about. It's not that it is a bad lens, it just didn't seem to bring much new to the table except for a huge price jump (unless you want it for Macro)

 

[JerryKnight]

I like the 24-70mm f/4 IS very much. I originally bought the f/2.8 MkII, it is a fantastic lens, however I need the IS for low light event shooting.

I'm confused by how much some people lean on IS for low-light photography. Stabilizing only accounts for one problem of low-light photography. It compensates for camera movement. It's great at doing that, but it can never compensate for subject movement. For me, shooting slower than 1/60th is not an option for available light event shooting. (Of course, with flashes, who needs IS anyways?)

No need for confusion. What works for his particular case might not apply to you. All light event shooting is not exactly the same. It really annoys me how some pro-s diss standard or wide angle zooms with image stabilization (a review of the 16-35VR by Jared Polin comes to mind). This person has tried out the 2.8 II and chose the f/4 IS over it, so obviously it works better for him. Moreover, I cannot accept that Canon didn't do prior market research and just brought out a lens nobody cares for. There cannot be one standard answer for everything.

Please re-read my post, or closely read my attempted clarification below.

when you are shooting for 10 or 12 hours fatigue becomes a very real issue and having an IS lens provides a significant advantage here by compensating for the additional camera shake that enevitably comes once fatigue has set in. some people forget this or dont shoot enough to experience it

Look, I was only pointing out that a stabilized lens cannot compensate for a moving subject, which is big part of event photography, is it not? I know how wobbly the arms get during long shoots, and I know how good stabilizing is at doing what it's made for, but it's not a 100% cure-all for all low-light photography.

If Canon comes out with a stabilizer that can stabilize a moving subject, let me know, but until then, I make the claim that a wider aperture is more useful for low-light event photography than the same focal range with a smaller aperture and stabilizer. Of course, I'm only talking about cases where it's dark enough that you approach the reciprocal rule. There are plenty of "low-light" situations where either lens will perform great.

Or to put it another way: stabilizers are designed for when you're shooting near the reciprocal shutter speed, but when that shutter speed approaches 1/50th, subject motion blur becomes an issue. In this case, a wider aperture that lets you shoot faster than 1/50th is more useful than a stabilized lens at a narrower aperture. That is why I "diss" medium and wide stabilized lenses. They're relatively useless for shooting anything that moves in low light.

(Disclaimer: Again, this is only for stills. Video benefits much more from a stabilizer at any focal length.)

 

[wickidwombat]

Of course IS doesnt account for subject movement but thats not the point
I dont think anyone ever said it did :

Its just silly that people continuously argue in a very aloof manner
"that IS is not needed on wide to normal focal lengths"
Fact is it helps in alot of situations and no its not going to help freeze the subject
but there are many other ways of dealing with that such as flash

personally all else being equal I would rather the lens i'm using have IS than not

now that being said the only lenses I use alot that even have IS are the 24-105L and the 70-200f2.8L II
since the 24-70 does not have IS i prefer to use the 16-35 I can still shoot this lens comfortably at 1/20th second and keep the shot sharp and 1/10th if i really try.

I would LOVE an improved 16-35 with IS (let all the dogma preaching sheep now give me a lecture about how I dont need IS at those focal lengths and I must have no idea what i'm doing)
If a good quality 24-70 f2.8 with IS came out from either canon or sigma I would more likely use that more often
(I cant live with Tamron build)

and as for canon putting IS on primes, I think its awesome, I wonder if this trend will translate to more future L primes. I certainly hope it does i can only imagine how cool a 35mm f1.4L IS would be.... or a 50f1.2L IS and 85 f1.2L IS, 135 f2L IS

 

[FlowerPhotog]

I had high hopes for this lens, as I'm not 100% in love with my 24-105. I read with disappointment Roger at LenRentals confirmation of the very poor image quality at 50mm, and just now read the new detailed review at SLR Gear, which pretty much put the nail in the coffin for me. Even at the other focal lengths, the full frame blur plots don't have the edge sharpness I would expect in a brand new state of the art, high dollar "L" lens. The other big concern is the lens they did the analysis on was the best of three they tested, the other two were far worse.

Key takeaway from their review "the lens' performance at 50mm stands out as unacceptable, especially when you consider the lower-priced option here still costs $1,500."

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1573/cat/11