Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS
- Thread starter Quasimodo
- Start date
- Status
LetTheRightLensIn said:infared said: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!
Hmmmm... That may explain why is review is not compatible with the others....I would love to see Roger at Lens Rentals take on this topic..then we would see if it has any merit....
Upvote
0
jthomson said:
You are right, I'd rent a 24-70mm f/2.8L first myself. However, I'm very happy with my 24-105mmL and would not be even looking at the 24-70 f/4.
I keep thinking of getting the 24-70mm L f/2.8 version, but the zoom range is not what I'd like, I now use primes from 35mm to 135mm and at f/2 or wider apertures. For the cases where I need wider, I have the 16-35mmL, but would like a faster aperture.
I would definitely like a 28-135mm f/2, but its not coming so I'm not waiting for it.
Upvote
0
M
mbpics
Guest
Zlatko said:
That's because it did... I'm really confused as to why everyone here is so bitter, but then again it is a Canon forum so this is quite in character for you guys.
Aside from the focus shift issue which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else thus far, it tested significantly better than the 24-105 and only slightly worse than either Canon or Nikon's current 24-70s stopped down to f/4. And it can focus at macro distances to boot! The price is a bit high, but that's par for the course with Canon lenses at launch these days; we'll be seeing CR guy post about deals on this very site in no time, don't worry
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:sagittariansrock said:
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?
Ah, thanks for the edification.
Indeed, then it would be a VERY BIG ISSUE, and then I wonder why that hasn't been all over the internet already! Maybe sample variation did play a role here? ???
BTW, not that I am personally interested in this lens, but would this be true even if one is back-button focusing?
Upvote
0
This lens was a hard sell from the beginning.
I was waiting for the reviews to come in , and i would have considered it IF it was a stellar performer: sharp everywhere, great contrast, resistant to flare, low distortion etc etc. But it has very little to offer over my 24-105 and it's only 70g lighter, ... so it's dead to me.
I was waiting for the reviews to come in , and i would have considered it IF it was a stellar performer: sharp everywhere, great contrast, resistant to flare, low distortion etc etc. But it has very little to offer over my 24-105 and it's only 70g lighter, ... so it's dead to me.
Upvote
0
If you manual focus in Live View, then the focus shift is irrelevant.neuroanatomist said:sagittariansrock said:
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?
It's a deal breaker for me. I have zero interest in a lens with focus shift problems.
Upvote
0
Besides the RSA in macro mode at 70 mm, what else is work this lens? Nothing. I seldom use macro mode on many of my lenses, so this is a none issue for me.
I would like to have seen a comparison between the 24-70 F2.8II, 24-105 and this lens for IQ in non-macro situations.
I would like to have seen a comparison between the 24-70 F2.8II, 24-105 and this lens for IQ in non-macro situations.
Upvote
0
Again, this has all been published by LR, which unlike most reviewers, runs many copies of a given lens.RGF said:
As linking the data isn't enough for some readers...
LR data attached -- this all came from LR at http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests.
I'll just link the F/4 data -- see attachments. It's pretty clear that the new F/4 IS lens is very good, but I believe the world will disregard it for petty reasons (i.e. this lens isn't new compared to the 24-105) and legitimate value-based reasons (i.e. overpriced).
Again, I'm not supporting this lens as offered -- it's clearly overpriced. But to bash it just on three specs (range/speed/IS) is a little nearsighted, IMHO. This lens will be used, it will be loved, and it will build a following just like the 24-105, though perhaps for different reasons.
- A
Attachments
Upvote
0
While I trust their methods and unbiasedness at Photozone, as several have pointed out, the sheer number of lenses not tested is also an important aspect to consider when reading the different reviews.
How many lenses does TDP, DPReview, DXO use for tetsing lenses?
For me personally I like my 24-105 and my copy delivers sharp pictures and is a great lens (apart from a sliding movement of the inner barrel when carrying it around (easily fixed by strapping on a plastic/rubber ring that girls wear around their arms, bought in accesorize)). I also believe that the F4 vs. F2.8 is somewhat less of a showstopper now that the latest cameras have had great improvements in ISO, which also speaks for the new 24-70 IS. To me, the incrimental improvement in sharpness vs. the one I know and like is too small to justify such an investment. If the 24-70 II were to drop in price.....
How many lenses does TDP, DPReview, DXO use for tetsing lenses?
For me personally I like my 24-105 and my copy delivers sharp pictures and is a great lens (apart from a sliding movement of the inner barrel when carrying it around (easily fixed by strapping on a plastic/rubber ring that girls wear around their arms, bought in accesorize)). I also believe that the F4 vs. F2.8 is somewhat less of a showstopper now that the latest cameras have had great improvements in ISO, which also speaks for the new 24-70 IS. To me, the incrimental improvement in sharpness vs. the one I know and like is too small to justify such an investment. If the 24-70 II were to drop in price.....
Upvote
0
M
mbpics
Guest
ahsanford said:Again, this has all been published by LR, which unlike most reviewers, runs many copies of a given lens.RGF said:
As linking the data isn't enough for some readers...
LR data attached -- this all came from LR at http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests.
I'll just link the F/4 data -- see attachments. It's pretty clear that the new F/4 IS lens is very good, but I believe the world will disregard it for petty reasons (i.e. this lens isn't new compared to the 24-105) and legitimate value-based reasons (i.e. overpriced).
Again, I'm not supporting this lens as offered -- it's clearly overpriced. But to bash it just on three specs (range/speed/IS) is a little nearsighted, IMHO. This lens will be used, it will be loved, and it will build a following just like the 24-105, though perhaps for different reasons.
- A
Why is nobody talking about 1.7% barrel distortion at 24mm vs 5% for the 24-105??? Photozone rates it as 2.4% vs 4.3%, respectively - a HUGE difference.
If you want to correct the 24-105's distortion, you'll end up with resolution far less than that of the new 24-70/4 IS. That by itself shows that this is a much better lens all around than the aging 24-105, and you can also focus much more closely.
Upvote
0
mbpics said:
I did mention it. This one has the lowest distortion of them all. MUCH less than the tamron at 24mm, much less than 24-105 at 24mm, less than the 24-70 II at 24mm, only the 24mm primes do better for distortion at 24mm.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
sagittariansrock said:neuroanatomist said:sagittariansrock said:
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?
Ah, thanks for the edification.
Indeed, then it would be a VERY BIG ISSUE, and then I wonder why that hasn't been all over the internet already! Maybe sample variation did play a role here? ???
BTW, not that I am personally interested in this lens, but would this be true even if one is back-button focusing?
Yes, true no matter how you autofocus.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:sagittariansrock said:neuroanatomist said:sagittariansrock said:
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?
Ah, thanks for the edification.
Indeed, then it would be a VERY BIG ISSUE, and then I wonder why that hasn't been all over the internet already! Maybe sample variation did play a role here? ???
BTW, not that I am personally interested in this lens, but would this be true even if one is back-button focusing?
Yes, true no matter how you autofocus.
Maybe they are dealing with it in the lens AF firmware? Basically an "on the fly AFMA based on aperture" of sorts perhaps? Would be interesting to compare the observed shift doing manual chart shot vs AF chart shot at various apertures.
Upvote
0
mbpics said:
But at least the distortion of the 24-105L is correctable. Out-of-focus shots caused by the focus shifting of the 24-70 f4L is not.
BTW, I wouldn't consider the focus shift an automatic deal breaker for me, since I don't use macro that often and typically shoot close to wide open. But it is another small reason why I'm not expecting to "upgrade" from the 24-105L, with price / loss of 35mm on the long end the main reasons. The 24-105L is a great walkaround lens, the 24-70 not as much (to me at least).
Upvote
0
RGF said:
I agree, if the focus shift is only in macro mode, then it's a non-issue. Macro shots mean manual focus, usually with live view. There will be no focus shift in live view with manual focus because the aperture will be at your selected setting while you focus.
Upvote
0
Quasimodo said:
You make a fair point. From the reviews I've read, it appears that each site has strengths and weaknesses:
Roger at LR is king of sharpness data from my perspective, b/c he tests all of LRs stock of the same lens (in some cases, dozens of the same lens). That trumps most everyone out there for data, but he's not the thoughtful tips/feedback/insights guy that Bryan Carnathan is. Roger also has (IMHO) massive street cred on being a camera nerd first and a fanboy last. He'll blow any design out of the water if it underperforms.
TDP -- Carnathan does test multiple copies but not a huge number. He brings up copy to copy variation when something odd occurs and obtains new glass to verify odd findings. See his Tamron 24-70 IS and new Mk II 24-70 reviews -- fishy stuff came up and he itemized the differences.
Further, his site is more of a broad read of useability and his personal (though admittedly expert) take on things. His site excels at fun image-level comparisons of all the lenses taking the same shot (or test page) from a tripod, and then allowing you to mouseover to see what's going on: L vs. non-L vs. Sigma, aperture, ISO, etc.
I read his site fairly religiously for all-around reasons. It's thoughtful, useful commentary from a knowledgable user. But his is a world of insight and adjectives -- it's not a lab-like mountain of details.
Photozone has the most nicely broken down sharpness data that I can read easily. They have middle/border/extreme resolution data for many focal lengths on a zoom, and they report it for most common apertures selected. Very helpful. This is a site opens your mind a bit as you tend to comparison shop. At a site like this, you see non-L glass punching its weight brilliantly against L glass if you stop it down just a shade. Big limitation? I believe it's only one lens they test.
DXOs interesting angle is having combinatorial data of bodies + lenses. No idea how many lenses they actually test. I don't read this site much as DXO has (groan) their own metrics on their own hardware that I haven't bothered to learn how to read. I still don't understand their data fully.
I don't read DPreview reviews as they require a dozen page turns to get ad views. Fail. They are wasting my time versus their competitors.
I don't read Ken Rockwell much, but my goodness, if you want a fine detail about metal vs. plastic, if the front element rotates during focusing, how many points on the sunstar created when stopping down, etc. then he's your guy. Absurd little details for the nerdy camera lover. TDP has some of this, too, but it's inconsistently reported from review to review.
For me, I trust:
- TDP for everything but data -- it's just there, easy to find, and thoughtfully explained.
- Roger at LR for hard sharpness numbers. End of story.
- Photozone for quick, easy comparison of two lenses I might be considering
- A
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
