Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

[neuroanatomist]

I didn't know the 15-85 was offered as a kit, although I agree with your point.

Perhaps not in every market globally, but definitely in some...

 

[jon_charron]

24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

Hahahaha! Awesome. ;D

 

[jon_charron]

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).

Sorry if this has been addressed later in the thread as I haven't finished reading, but can you post some pics taken with the 24-70? I'm very interested to see a few and would greatly appreciate this.

 

[jon_charron]

I know the IS will help with the Macro mode for hand held work, but I still think you are better to keep the long end with a 24-105L and buy something like a 50mm 2.5 compact macro for $250 to keep for macro. This is what you get with the 50mm:

Okay to be fair, that shot is with the 50mm plus kenko extension tubes.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I didn't know the 15-85 was offered as a kit, although I agree with your point.

Perhaps not in every market globally, but definitely in some...

heck of a lot more useful than the 18-135 or 28-135 they bundle in the US!

 

[Zlatko]

Sure, it's not an improvement because of the reduced 35mm of range ... if focal length range is your measure of improvement. In that case, 10X or 20X super-zoom would be the ultimate improvement. But focal range is not the usual measure of improvement. The facts are as shown by the numbers in ahsanford's post above. Those numbers clearly show an overall improvement in IQ.

Of course, owners of the 24-105 aren't "throwing it out" to buy this 24-70. That doesn't reflect on the 24-70 at all. The 24-105 is a fine lens in its own right and remains a good value. So no one is crazy enough to throw it out. The 24-70 is an alternative with some improvements and differences, not an obvious replacement. Many people will find the 24-105 meets their needs and budget better. That doesn't mean that other people won't find that this new 24-70 meets their needs and budget better. That's the beauty of alternatives. They meet the needs of different people with different needs and applications.

Optical perfection is a very high standard. You don't get it for an extra $400-$600 from any manufacturer.

That's the problem.

Your logic clashes with the reality of facts being that this lens is going to replace the 24-105 as FF kit lens. And I can see why people react with a loud WTF.

Also, achieving optical improvements at the expense of zoom range is hardly something to rave about. At its best, these two lenses are equal. Then why is the new one supposed to cost so much more?

By the way, this lens is also hardly any sharper than the Tamron 24-70 @f/4 - which is one full stop faster, if you need it.

My logic clashes with your prediction of the future, not with reality or facts. If you look at Canon's lens lineup, there is lots and lots of duplication. How many versions of the 70-200? And of the 70-300? There are four 50's. It's not a stretch to conceive that maybe the 24-105 is not being replaced by this 24-70.

 

[mrsfotografie]

My logic clashes with your prediction of the future, not with reality or facts. If you look at Canon's lens lineup, there is lots and lots of duplication. How many versions of the 70-200? And of the 70-300? There are four 50's. It's not a stretch to conceive that maybe the 24-105 is not being replaced by this 24-70.

Yep, why stop a bestseller?

How about this marketing scenario: Sell the 24-70 F/4 with a camera kit. People buy it and later if they want some extra range in one zoom, they have to buy the 24-105 also. Double money