I am considering getting a 24-70 f4 to replace my 5 year old 24-105 to use on a 5D3. has any one got one and are you pleased with it.
Have you one of the new 24-70 f4 canon lenses, Is it good
- Thread starter yellowkamper
- Start date
- Status
Not the worst review here: Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS Hands-on Review
Is there something wrong with your 24-105? The 24-70/4L doesn't seem like a very logical upgrade path for most people, in my opinion. It's only a bit more to go with the unrivaled 24-70/2.8L II, unless you want a lens somewhat improved over the 24-105 and have to have a stabilizer for some reason.
Is there something wrong with your 24-105? The 24-70/4L doesn't seem like a very logical upgrade path for most people, in my opinion. It's only a bit more to go with the unrivaled 24-70/2.8L II, unless you want a lens somewhat improved over the 24-105 and have to have a stabilizer for some reason.
Upvote
0
yellowkamper said:
The 24-70mm f/4.0 IS is a hyped up lens and for most purposes peice of junk if you don't need the macro. Many review sites confirm that it has boarderline image quality in the middle of the zoom range. Both the-digital-picture.com and lensrentals confirm that it is very poor in the middle of the zoom range, and that's after testing just under 30 copies. Lens rentals downplays it's performance in the middle of the zoom range, but it's actually worse at 50mm than the 24-105mm is at 24mm, and most people complain about that lens at 24mm. In fact it has the lowest single average score with multiple copies tested and averaged at 50mm than any other pro normal zoom. It's so bad that no matter how much you stop it down at 50mm, it will never be as sharp as the 24-105mm is at 50mm wide open, because it hits the diffraction limit before the IQ becomes anything less than extremely poor.
This lens is so incredibly bad at 50mm, that the old entry level non-pro 28-135mm IS that has very poor reviews is actually much much better at 50mm f/4.5 than this lens is at 50mm f/4.5. Which is a serious acheivement for a pro lens.
I purchased a copy and did an extensive comparison with over 600 shots of a test target and after doing both visual comparison and computer analysis from 24-70mm the 24-70mm f/4 had EQUAL image quality to the 24-105mm, if not slightly worse on average. It was much better at 24mm, much much worse at 50mm and around equal at 70mm. To say the least it went straight back, I don't need a lens that has worse image quality, costs nearly twice as much and has only 2/3rds the zoom range.
I know of at least 3 people that have purchased this lens on hype and returned it. Besides that it's a terrible investment as Canon is sure to drop the price over 30% in the next 6 months as they have done with every new release in the last year. While the 24-105mm has a virtually fixed price.
This lens WILL be better for you if you want macro, need a slightly smaller and lighter lens (very slight) or shoot at 24mm and 70mm more than 40mm,50mm, & 60mm, but again it's twice as much and slated for a huge price drop.
Upvote
0
yellowkamper said:
24-70 f/4...? Is that a typo? If you were talking about the new 24-70 f/2.8II then this is valid conversation. Why on earth would you consider swapping a 24-105 f/4is for the 24-70 f/4? The 24-105 is a great lens. It's kind of mysterious why the 24-70 f/4 even exists. Really, what's the point of it? Don't give it another thought and stay with your perfectly fine current lens.
-PW
Upvote
0
C
carlc
Guest
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. But, back to the subject at hand, while I had the 2.8 MkII I rented the Tamron, in my opinion, not as good as Canon. When the f/4 came out, I rented it and compared it to the f/2.8 and "for what I need" the f/4 was the winner and I returned the f/2.8 and bought the f/4. All comparisons done on a 5dMkIII.
Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal). 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 have never been paid a penny for test shots). Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).
I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points. Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!
Price was not the issue, the new hybrid IS on the f/4 allows me more than enough room to make up for the one stop difference and I get all the benefits of IS (yes, I give up one stop of DOF, but check out the DOF calculator - it is minimal). 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 have never been paid a penny for test shots). Finally, I need IS and it is my money, so don't critisize me for my shortcomings (unless you are willing to pay good money for it).
I love Canon products and applaud them for offering a wide range of great products with a wide range of price points. Finally, if they introduce a f/2.8 IS, I would strongly consider buying it just because I can!
Upvote
0
uh...you weren't kidding. that was about the most entertaining review i've ever seen. my new favorite people...asian guys with irreverent and dry humor done in british accent!
i could watch that guy review paper plates.
i've no interest in the 24-70mm F4 however.
Upvote
0
carlc said:
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?)
A wider aperture solves both problems, at least more than the same lens (on paper) stabilized with a narrower aperture. I would much rather have a faster lens without IS than otherwise. Especially one that's being heralded as the sharpest medium zoom lens yet made.
Another thing to consider, if you're on a 5D3.. The double-cross-type focus points in the center (ie. the diagonal AF sensors) are for lenses f/2.8 or faster. Slap a f/4 lens on, and they become normal single-cross-types. You're missing out on the peak performance of your autofocus. Maybe makes a difference? Maybe not, but something to consider as well.
Of course, if video enters the equation, then stabilizing becomes much more valuable, since subject motion blur is to be expected, but I'm not really qualified to compare these lenses for video, though.
Upvote
0
agierke said:
Yeah, the DigitalRev crew is very entertaining. You just have to accept that they're biased towards Canon.... and Nikon... and Sony... and Leica... and Fuji... actually, I think their bias changes every video.
They're like the Top Gear of photography. (The proper one, not the awful American version.) All they need is a Cool Wall and a Stig.
Upvote
0
i feel the same way for still photography. IS generally is the wrong solution for so many problems...very rarely is it the right solution. but the video guys i think find it much more useful. not sure how often they are using zooms. i have seen the the 70-200mm 2.8 being employed by videographers but usually it is primes when they go wide. dunno about this lens.
Upvote
0
JerryKnight said:
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.
Upvote
0
carlc said:
Every single person who has made a claim that this lens delivers poor results, except for lens rentals, has shot with it AND shot test charts. I think if you get excited about something you can get a sort of placebo effect where you think something is better than it is. My initial impression was that this lens was way better than my old lame outdated 24-105mm, but then I sat down, and shot test charts and was shocked to find out that it was worse, way worse at the focal lengths I use most and then I started to notice all the flaws in my photos from it and I realized I just bought into the hype. I know of at least 3 other reviewers who returned this lens and have similar stories of assuming it's better because it's newer or buying into the hype only to later relealize that the lens wasn't really so great.
Test charts aren't some mythical thing that's far removed from reality, it's just taking a regular photo of a subject that is designed to make it easier to judge the flaws of a lens. You can do both a visual and computer analysis, but the visual analysis doesn't lie. If the lens makes bad photos of a brick wall, or black and white flat pattern, it's going to make bad photos of a building, or the grey and purple sweater your subject is wearing.
Granted in your situation slightly newer IS will be better as you have a second lens I'm assuming you're carrying for the focal range past 70mm, but likley you will experience identical image quality overall, unless you favor the extremes of the zoom range over the middle.
Look I wanted to like this lens, I really did. I love my 24-70mm f/2.8 II and wanted an f/4.0 Hybrid IS version of it, but this lens just doesn't deliver. It's just a different flavor of 24-105mm that has a huge markup.
Upvote
0
carlc said:
I just like how anyone that doesn't share your opinion is either deluded or a troll :
Plus, i assume you compared the f4 with the tamron too and the f4 came out on top despite having the same price, a stop less and the disadvantage of not using 2.8AF. The last two are rather important for your low light event shooting needs, so you must have found a crucial advantage of the F4, do share it with us please.
Upvote
0
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.carlc said:
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.
Upvote
0
- Status
