Is the Canon 24-70 F4 worth the price?

[Coolhandchuck]

I'm just wondering, are Canon blind and not understanding that the competition is right on their heels? Why would someone pay $1300 for an 24-70 f4, when they have competitors that make a 24-70 f2.8, of better IQ, for the same price?

 

[thewaywewalk]

Because they're selling!

Read Me!

 

[gferdinandsen]

I'm just wondering, are Canon blind and not understanding that the competition is right on their heels? Why would someone pay $1300 for an 24-70 f4, when they have competitors that make a 24-70 f2.8, of better IQ, for the same price?

I concur, I don't see any advantage to the 24-70 f/4 versus the 24-105 f/4. I will admit I have never shot with the 24-70 f/4, so I can't say how IQ compares between the lenses, but I'll take the 24-105 f/4 is I'm using an f/4 lens.

 

[Marsu42]

I'm just wondering, are Canon blind and not understanding that the competition is right on their heels? Why would someone pay $1300 for an 24-70 f4, when they have competitors that make a 24-70 f2.8, of better IQ, for the same price?

Canon has the better af & IS system vs. Tamron & cps support if you want that, plus the 24-70/4 has some macro capability even if the working distance is very short. Imho this is meant to be a premium kit lens sooner or later, it's just currently got the "new" price penalty.

Another motivation of Canon would be to sell more 70-200/300 tele lenses because there's no "overlap" with the current 24-105L kit lens.

I concur, I don't see any advantage to the 24-70 f/4 versus the 24-105 f/4. I will admit I have never shot with the 24-70 f/4, so I can't say how IQ compares between the lenses, but I'll take the 24-105 f/4 is I'm using an f/4 lens.

How about this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[rs]

I concur, I don't see any advantage to the 24-70 f/4 versus the 24-105 f/4. I will admit I have never shot with the 24-70 f/4, so I can't say how IQ compares between the lenses, but I'll take the 24-105 f/4 is I'm using an f/4 lens.

How about this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

24mm is the only focal length where the new 24-70/4 appears to be better than the 24-105/4 in that comparison. At 50mm the older lens appears to be the better of the two samples tested.

It really depends on whether you value some compromised but improved macro capability and better IS, or prefer an extra 50% telephoto reach and a big cash saving. If I was choosing between them, I'd rightly or wrongly go for the 24-105.

 

[Loswr]

Certainly, it's worth it – to people who want the smallest, lightest general-purpose L-series zoom available, need near macro capability in a walkaround lens, etc.

Sounds like it's not worth it, to you, and that's okay. Honestly, I think it's great that we have so many choices in the range.

 

[steliosk]

- Is the Canon 24-70 F4 worth the price?

NO


Get the 24-105
Cheaper, longer end, sharper after 50mm (and at 24mm f/5)

barrel distortion and vignetting is correctable in ACR/LR


Never understood why canon released the 24-70 f/4 IS

The IS should go to the 24-70 2.8 which is hell expensive, and also a second version of the beloved 24-105 would be a wise upgrade if existed.