Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

[infared]

I think Photozone performed a major spanking...they even got the wooden spoon out!
I do not think I have ever read a review of an L lens where the reviewer recommended two other lenses instead of the one reviewed...not with an L lens. That focus shift is really a deal breaker for a lens that expensive..and brandy newly designed and introduced...um..Canon needs to do something about that.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance.

The cheaper one is better? I don't think so. As I read the resolution numbers on Photozone, the new 24-70/4L is mostly better than the 24-105/4L. And it offers a much closer minimum focusing distance. And it's smaller and lighter. Except for the initial price, it would make a very attractive kit lens.

Any kind of definitive testing would involve 10-20 lenses from different batches. Its unfortunate but true, lenses vary significantly from unit to unit and batch to batch.

I like Photozone and read their reviews, but I also read other reviews, and sometimes they are drastically different. Klaus has to rely on owners or camera stores to lend him a lens, and if it has obvious decentering or other readily discovered fault, he gets another, but even then, there can be large differences.

So read and enjoy, but its just the results from one lens, a different lens will almost certainly be different.

When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.

Agree with the single specimen problem, but focus shifts usually have more to do with the lens structure than with sample variation. On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.

even the lower performance Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS instead

This clearly says the 24-70 IS is better all around. I think it is more comfortable for owners (and potential owners) to imagine the 24-105 to be better because they have a "better and cheaper" lens.

I know from personal experience the 24-105 is an excellent lens, but people seem to just enjoy hating the 24-70 IS. I'd say that is totally uncalled for. If it was a bad idea to make this lens (and sell it at this price), the market will let Canon know for sure. But as it happens, only a very small fraction of that market is populated by the Canonrumor-mongers.

 

[curby]

So does anyone remember the wide open LoCA shot for the Photozone review of the Tamron? It shows the same softness that plagues the Canon:

http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_2470_28_eosff/loca_f28.jpg

Why was that not called out as a fault during the Tamron review? I think I'm missing something here because it seems like a very similar problem, but it wasn't discussed as such in the Tamron review.

On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.

Oh, is that all it was? I thought that when you stop down to say f/8, the camera is still doing focusing with the lens wide open. It's not until you click that the lens stops down to f/8, effectively changing the aperture after focusing. What's really going on here?

people seem to just enjoy hating the 24-70 IS.

That just makes it the perfect kit lens for the well-hated 6D. ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.

Unless you're shooting wide open or focusing manually with the DoF Preview button pressed, you're stopping down after focusing every time you shoot. AF is always performed with the lens wide open, regardless of the aperture selected. The lens stops down just before the shot, and that's when focus shift occurs.

Do you see a bigger issue now?

 

[curby]

OK, I'm getting really confused now. Here are some reviews and hands-on previews, all of which fail to mention any sort of fous shift issue with the lens. Is everyone else's testing methods so non-rigorous that they miss this problem, is it in fact not a problem during real life use of the lens, or did photozone get a bad lens?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests *
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f4l-is-usm/
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_24_70mm_f4_l_is_usm_review/
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-4l-usm-lens-review-21291
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-70mm-f4.htm **

* Roger mentions that his writeup specifically did not deal with focusing issues, but I imagine he would have mentioned something if he discovered a glaring problem.

** :-X

 

[Eagle Eye]

I'd like to recommend that some people open up their minds a little as to what people will and will not add to their kits. I added the EF 24-70 f/4L IS to my kit to replace my EF 24-105mm f/4L. What? How can this be? Why would anyone...? A few reasons. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter. I shoot almost exclusively landscape, so I'm stopped down. As soon as I hit f/8 on my 24-70, it's sharper than the 24-105 at every focal length. I carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS in my kit, so I have 70-105 covered by a lens that is also sharper than the 24-105 at every corresponding focal length. The 24-70mm gives me the ability to take macro shots while I'm carrying a two lens kit on backcountry trips. And yes, they are macro shots. Don't knock the feature until you take a look at some of the images. Is it as good as my EF 100mm f/2.8L IS? Heck no. Is it taking macro shots that are good enough to print/publish/sell? Heck yes. Unlike, the reviewer, I haven't noticed any focus shift with mine. Bottom line, if ounces count, which they typically do for landscape photographers, this lens is much more attractive that the 24-105mm. I chose the Canon system in 2005 almost exclusively because of the f/4L zoom line. This lens is a great addition to that line and an excellent alternative to the 24-105mm (which I've hung onto for single-lens trips).

 

[RLPhoto]

Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro? None. There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.

Good reasoning but does being a unique one-lens option provide that sort of value? One could think of it in the opposite direction too; it is only f/4, not a true macro at 0.7, and neither much (if) better than the competition optically.

After all, I guess we all agree, it is worth for those who purchase and not worth for those who do not. If the market consists mainly of the latter, the price goes down and vice versa... This lens might become the kit lens replacing the 24-105 eventually which would be unfortunate for us who like the 24-105 and would like to see a v2 of it. I recall even calls for a f/2.8 version of it...

Cheers!

+1

I've been around some other photogs in my area, and not a single one of them had any interest in this lens. It's not a bad product, its just bad @ 1499$. If it was around 649$, along with a 70-200 f/4, then yes it would make sense.

At its current price, a 100L + 24-105L is what you could get used for the same monies.

There is no ideal one lens solution, afterall that's the whole point of SLRs.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Wow it tested quite well. Blows away the 24-105 IS and even beats the 24-70 II at the edges and even more corners at times although I think never in the center or at f/4 for the most part. Super low distortion and excellent lateral CA.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't know if I would call that a spanking. The review is mostly very positive with one big gotcha. That big gotcha plus the high cost of this lens means I would expect few to choose it over the 24-105. Maybe that does add up to a spanking.

Well... Residual Spherical abborations, focus shift, soft @ F 4, and a not so compelling price.. I'll hold on to my 24-105 for a while longer. A lens that continue to deliver.

Huge distortion, tons of lateral CA, lots of LoCA, blurry eges and corners, mediocre center sharpness, yeah glad I got rid of all my 24-105 fast! The 24-70 II and seemingly this new are and appear to be much better.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

and why does this lens have a red ring?

???

Maybe because it blows away the 24-105???

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.

He did and the 24-105 was worst of the bunch and 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS best of the bunch with tamron 24-70 VC in the middle.

 

[ahsanford]

Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance.

The cheaper one is better? I don't think so. As I read the resolution numbers on Photozone, the new 24-70/4L is mostly better than the 24-105/4L. And it offers a much closer minimum focusing distance. And it's smaller and lighter. Except for the initial price, it would make a very attractive kit lens.

I have to agree. It is overpriced, but it's too early to call it DOA.

Those folks who say that range + speed + IS define the value proposition of a lens are potentially missing something. I am not buying this new lens, but consider:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The sharpness clearly shows that the new 24-70 F/4 beats the 24-105 F/4. The new F/4 is better nearly across the board both wide open and stopped down to F/8, at both 24 and 70. As much as people treasure their 24-105s, it's a good lens and not a great one.
[*]Lighter and smaller is great if it doesn't hurt IQ.
[*]Macro 0.7x is a huge upgrade for a kit lens. The working distance is FUBAR (http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-24-70mm-f-4l/NzIxMzE1NDU_A --> see at 7:12 or so in the video), but for some folks, it beats buying and/or packing a dedicated macro lens.
[/list]

In fairness, Photozone often only tests one lens, so I trust Roger's data at LR much more as a result. And there (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests), the new F/4 was flagged as a solid step behind the new F/2.8 Mk II. That data plus this price made this a currently DOA to me kind of lens.

Again, I'm not justifying the new offering, its reduction in range, high cost, etc. -- I'm just saying there are people who will buy this lens and enjoy it tremendously.

- A

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I think Photozone performed a major spanking...they even got the wooden spoon out!
I do not think I have ever read a review of an L lens where the reviewer recommended two other lenses instead of the one reviewed...not with an L lens. That focus shift is really a deal breaker for a lens that expensive..and brandy newly designed and introduced...um..Canon needs to do something about that.

Ignore what Klaus says and look at his raw numbers and you'll do a lot better. He also said the 24-105 was better than the 24 1.4 II LOL!!!!! Just because the 24 1.4 II was blurry at the edges under f/2.8!!! LOL
And yet all his numbers showed it utterly spanking the 24-105 aperture for aperture!

 

[ahsanford]

When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.

I would doubt that lensrentals would get 50 copies of this lens. I would guess that most renters would go for a 2.8 lens either the Canon or the Tamron.

Still I agree with your basic point that Photozone occaisonally gets a poor copy while Lensrentals gives more statistically meaningful data.

Already done: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

- A

 

[Zlatko]

It will be an attractive lens to someone who wants the "all in one" approach such as for travel. The price gets bashed by everyone, but that is the introductory price. The price of the fantastic much-in-demand 24-70/2.8II is already down a few hundred dollars, so this one will likely head the same way.

The focus shift should be investigated further. They only tried it at 70mm and without autofocus. Apparently, the lens is not sharp for close-up work at 70mm at f/4, but who buys a macro for wide-open aperture work? Their example shows a much sharper lens in the f/8 example (not just more depth of field). Someone should test whether the focus shift is a genuine problem at smaller apertures, or whether depth of field covers it. It's possible that at 50mm and f/8 and smaller there is no problem at all.

It may not meet some people's strict definition of "macro", but at 0.7X it is more macro than the 50/2.5 compact macro. For some photographers this is a win: it means one less lens to carry, one less lens to change.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.

Unless you're shooting wide open or focusing manually with the DoF Preview button pressed, you're stopping down after focusing every time you shoot. AF is always performed with the lens wide open, regardless of the aperture selected. The lens stops down just before the shot, and that's when focus shift occurs.

Do you see a bigger issue now?

How big a deal is it in practice though? The 24-70 II also has a huge focus shift near MFD but does anyone complain about it regular shooting?

 

[ahsanford]

It will be an attractive lens to someone who wants the "all in one" approach such as for travel. The price gets bashed by everyone, but that is the introductory price. The price of the fantastic much-in-demand 24-70/2.8II is already down a few hundred dollars, so this one will likely head the same way.

The focus shift should be investigated further. They only tried it at 70mm and without autofocus. Apparently, the lens is not sharp for close-up work at 70mm at f/4 anyway, but who buys a macro for wide-open aperture work? Their example shows a much sharper lens in the f/8 example (not just more depth of field). Someone should test whether the focus shift is a genuine problem at smaller apertures, or whether depth of field covers it. It's possible that at 50mm and f/8 and smaller there is no problem at all.

It may not meet some people's strict definition of "macro", but at 0.7X it is more macro than the 50/2.5 compact macro. For some photographers this is a win: it means one less lens to carry, one less lens to change.

Agree agree agree.

This is a single lens for travel kind of option. I'm telling you, as weird as the minimum focusing distance is, the 0.7x macro will be a hit with certain users. Make fun of them all you want, but this thing will resonate with some users.

- A

 

[K-amps]

This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.

Love your new Avatar... Striking! Kudos Ramon.

 

[RLPhoto]

Ok, before this thread goes on any further. Lets define what DOA is and isn't.

If a 14-24L were released tomarrow, I can guarantee that lens will not be DOA. No matter the cost. It's a lens everyone wants. Orders would line up for months.

The 24-70 f/4L was released, and I haven't seen or heard much about it up to now. Many of my photogs buddies don't care and I don't see a lot of them at local rental stores or camera shops. I heard that almost nobody bought one.

That is DOA to me, but, but, it could be resurrected if its price is cut significantly. I want to like this lens but my copy of the 24-105L is just so good, why canon?

Edit: I use my 24-105 a lot for eBay shots. It's a tack.

 

[Zlatko]

Ignore what Klaus says and look at his raw numbers and you'll do a lot better. He also said the 24-105 was better than the 24 1.4 II LOL!!!!! Just because the 24 1.4 II was blurry at the edges under f/2.8!!! LOL
And yet all his numbers showed it utterly spanking the 24-105 aperture for aperture!

Good point. Look at the numbers, not the interpretation. The numbers show an excellent lens in a compact size.

Reviewers are often biased against a product because of its introductory price. Give them the price a year after release, and they may give a different interpretation. Reviewers also have a bias based on their personal needs for a lens. If they don't want it, they figure no one else wants it. There is one reviewer always lauding the Sigma 35/1.4 over the Canon 35/2 IS because he prizes sharpness at f/1.4 and doesn't seem to care how big/heavy the lens is or whether it has IS. Each lens has its value, but maybe to a different photographer.