Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

[Quasimodo]

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4

 

[bchernicoff]

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.

 

[RLPhoto]

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

 

[robbymack]

Not a wholly unflattering portrait of a lens. Yes price seems a little high for what you get but I am sure the little Japanese guys at canons advertising and marketing department know more than I do so they obviously think there is a market for this lens. I also assume the 24-105 will soon go the way of the dinosaurs or well see an update to that lens (I'd actually be really interested in that) probably at a much higher price point. Fwiw there seems to be little reason to buy this lens unless you have red ring envy or really care about weight, the tamron is cheaper, faster, and also has IS.

 

[Quasimodo]

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.

 

[Quasimodo]

Not a wholly unflattering portrait of a lens. Yes price seems a little high for what you get but I am sure the little Japanese guys at canons advertising and marketing department know more than I do so they obviously think there is a market for this lens. I also assume the 24-105 will soon go the way of the dinosaurs or well see an update to that lens (I'd actually be really interested in that) probably at a much higher price point. Fwiw there seems to be little reason to buy this lens unless you have red ring envy or really care about weight, the tamron is cheaper, faster, and also has IS.

+1

 

[Zlatko]

By their own numbers, resolution is excellent at every aperture. Just be sure to stop down for macro shots ... Standard operating procedure for any macro work.

 

[Random Orbits]

By their own numbers, resolution is excellent at every aperture. Just be sure to stop down for macro shots ... Standard operating procedure for any macro work.

Agree. If the focus shift only happens in macro mode, then it's not too big of a concern to pick the f-stop first. It would behave like a MP-E 65 where focus and magnification are linked. It is a quirky lens though.

It'd make more sense closer to 1k as opposed to 1.5k. I'm guessing the price will fall faster for this lens than other recent Canon releases since its initial pricing is so out of whack.

 

[well_dunno]

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

+1
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...

Cheers!

 

[RLPhoto]

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

+1
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...

Cheers!

Or even

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2

or

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

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

 

[YuengLinger]

Quasimodo, even though this is a lens I have zero interest in buying, the analysis on Photozone was fascinating. Thanks for bringing this to CR forum!

An earlier post referred to the brilliance of the marketing team at Canon. Was that tongue-in-cheek? I hope so. This is a lens looking for a market, we didn't need it, and it would be a horrible shame if it turns out to be a replacement for the more useful ef 24-105mm. Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance. Seems like a sad new kit lens, especially with the focus shifting problems reported in the review.

Some day, a better version of the 24-105mm would be welcome, say with better IS, less distortion at 24mm, and less "nervous" bokeh. (Love that term, "nervous," as that is exactly the feeling it generates.) But don't chop off 35mm from the zoom range and say you are done!

 

[AJ]

and why does this lens have a red ring?

 

[charlesa]

and why does this lens have a red ring?

Because of the red ring price

 

[Zlatko]

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.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

 

[Zlatko]

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

+1
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...

Cheers!

Or even

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2

or

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

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

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.

Image quality wouldn't matter at $1499? Then the 24-70/2.8II was DOA at its introductory price of $2299. But it wasn't.

 

[RLPhoto]

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

+1
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...

Cheers!

Or even

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2

or

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

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

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.

Image quality wouldn't matter at $1499? Then the 24-70/2.8II was DOA at its introductory price of $2299. But it wasn't.

Its funny you say "Built in Macro" because my old powershot has a "Built in macro" feature. Just because it can focus really close doesn't mean its a macro lens just as my powershot lens isn't really a macro.

And yes, the IQ didn't matter @ 1499$, Because this lenses IQ is laughable for said price. Its marginally better than the 24-105L for twice the price.

While the 24-70II is the very best 24-70 ever made by any manufacturer, thus worth the 2300$ price tag.

Jack of all trades, Master of some, and chosen by none. IE: DOA.

 

[curby]

Interesting results, to be sure. This lens, along with the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, are frontrunners for replacing my 17-55/2.8 IS if I end up going full frame later on this year. Seems like I'd be trading focus shifting and smaller aperture for portability (smaller lens, and I probably wouldn't need a dedicated macro).

Odd that the review didn't really mention macro performance too much, and none of the sample shots show a close focus situation. I guess the LoCA section is meant to cover that.

RLPhoto: Macro means a large magnification, and for a non-dedicated Macro lens this qualifies handily. The "all-in-one" nature of this lens means I can carry a smaller, lighter kit, and that's precisely why it's even in the running besides the otherwise superior Tamron.

In the end, the focus shift issues and price are two sides of the same problem. With great resolution, amazing versatility, compact size, and durable construction, I wouldn't mind paying the asking price if it focused more reliably at macro ranges. On the other hand, I could allow for such quirks if they asked less. The combination of the two makes it a hard pill to swallow though.

 

[jthomson]

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.

 

[well_dunno]

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!