Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Good review....with current pricing I can see this is a considerably less expensive option to the 24-70mm 2.8L II....but I think it is a less convincing option to the 24-105mm, no? When comparing tele reach AND price this lens does not stack up unless the IQ is that much better.....
(Did I miss something Justin, or were you actually able to squeeze 73mm out of the lens for the shot of the child in the hat? AMAZING!). ;D
(Did I miss something Justin, or were you actually able to squeeze 73mm out of the lens for the shot of the child in the hat? AMAZING!). ;D
Upvote
0
The initial lens reviews included a section on "CR's take" speaking about the lens from a rental company's perspective. I did find this section quite helpful as it gave some insight about durability and copy-to-copy variation. If would be great if this section could be added to the newer reviews as well.
On the review itself: I did not grasp what is so awkward about the semi-macro function (except for the close focusing distance, which does not come as a surpise given the focal length). The fact that the lens has semi-macro functionality makes it an interesting travel lens as it allows you to capture an occasional butterfly or flower while only carrying 1 compact lens. Justin, would it be possible to include one or a few macro shots in the review? I would be interested to learn how it compares to a 24-70 II or 24-105 with an extension tube attached. A general comparison to the 24-105 would also be nice to include. In my view the 24-70 f4 is much more of a competitor/alternative to the 24-105 f4 than to the 24-70 f2.8 II (in terms of price range, speed and presence of IS); both f/4's are interesting travel lenses.
On the review itself: I did not grasp what is so awkward about the semi-macro function (except for the close focusing distance, which does not come as a surpise given the focal length). The fact that the lens has semi-macro functionality makes it an interesting travel lens as it allows you to capture an occasional butterfly or flower while only carrying 1 compact lens. Justin, would it be possible to include one or a few macro shots in the review? I would be interested to learn how it compares to a 24-70 II or 24-105 with an extension tube attached. A general comparison to the 24-105 would also be nice to include. In my view the 24-70 f4 is much more of a competitor/alternative to the 24-105 f4 than to the 24-70 f2.8 II (in terms of price range, speed and presence of IS); both f/4's are interesting travel lenses.
Upvote
0
This lens has one significant issue: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC which is around 30% cheaper in my country. Professionals will probably take the absolute best = Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk. II and hobbyists will either take the absolute best (if they can afford it) or the best in cost/performance ratio = Tamron. IMO the main market for this lens will be using it as a new kit lens for FF bodies.
Upvote
0
I want a 24-105 F2.8L
I don't care if its bulky and heavy. I want one!
I want a little more range than the 24-70 II. On my 1DX, it's too short for me.
I rented the 24-105 f4 for a week and I loved the extended range but the AF was terrible.
It produced a lot of out of focus images and when it did focus it was soft.
It is my everyday lens and I love it. I just wish I had those extra 35mm
I don't care if its bulky and heavy. I want one!
I want a little more range than the 24-70 II. On my 1DX, it's too short for me.
I rented the 24-105 f4 for a week and I loved the extended range but the AF was terrible.
It produced a lot of out of focus images and when it did focus it was soft.
It is my everyday lens and I love it. I just wish I had those extra 35mm
Upvote
0
Good review, I appreciate the style and take. Like others, I think a more direct comparison to the 24-105mm would be useful.
Following Neuro's comment, I've heard repeatedly that IQ is not that much improved by the 24-70mm compared to the older 24-105mm. Anyone care to comment on differences on distortion, particularly on the wide end?
My first thought when I read the announcement for the new 24-70mm was oh no, there will never be a 24-105mm mkii! I hope I'm wrong on that one, the extra reach has always proved useful to me.
Following Neuro's comment, I've heard repeatedly that IQ is not that much improved by the 24-70mm compared to the older 24-105mm. Anyone care to comment on differences on distortion, particularly on the wide end?
My first thought when I read the announcement for the new 24-70mm was oh no, there will never be a 24-105mm mkii! I hope I'm wrong on that one, the extra reach has always proved useful to me.
Upvote
0
I am getting very favourable reports from photographers who are using this lens.
I can only assume that Canon have intended this lens to offer better 'IQ' than the 24-105, though not all early testing has confirmed this. It's interesting to note that here in the UK the RRP of each lens is only £20 different, but the actual selling price of the 24-105 has fallen to the £850 ( about $1,300 ) region, still much more expensive than in the States, whereas the 24-70 f4 has only dropped to £1299. ( Bearing in mind that gear such as this is proportionally much more expensive in Europe than America ).
We may be purchasing one for Building Panoramics, so if we do I will post images and further thoughts on the lens. ( We are aware of the RSA issue).
As has been pointed out many times, there's more to image quality than test charts
I can only assume that Canon have intended this lens to offer better 'IQ' than the 24-105, though not all early testing has confirmed this. It's interesting to note that here in the UK the RRP of each lens is only £20 different, but the actual selling price of the 24-105 has fallen to the £850 ( about $1,300 ) region, still much more expensive than in the States, whereas the 24-70 f4 has only dropped to £1299. ( Bearing in mind that gear such as this is proportionally much more expensive in Europe than America ).
We may be purchasing one for Building Panoramics, so if we do I will post images and further thoughts on the lens. ( We are aware of the RSA issue).
As has been pointed out many times, there's more to image quality than test charts
Upvote
0
For me, I'd just rather go with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. You still get the stabilization and get a 1 stop advantage for $200 less. Build quality and sharpness are very close as well...though the macro mode will be wished.
Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!
Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
It's the 3 sentence logic often found in politics (see Yes, Minister):
1. We have to do something (24-105 is getting old, significantly better iq update would be too expensive, 24-70/2.8 is w/o IS and also too expensive for the general crowd)
2. This is something we can do (manufacture a lens with decent iq, Canon-only tech hybrid IS, macro mode, good profit for Canon and potential to lower the price after some time like the 6d)
3 = 1+2: This is what we must do.
Upvote
0
Ladislav said:
Personally I'm with you on the Tamron 24-70, however it's quite a heavy lens. Trust me, it's heavy. When I buy it I probably will get the Canon 5d3 grip at the same time to try and balance it out some.
Otherwise, I'm split on my opinion. In some ways, I'm with Neuro in that it's a solution in search of the right problem. On the other, the idea of a light travel lens with near macro capabilities is nice. Although I think I'd prefer a somewhat longer focal length in a standard travel zoom since versatility can be more important sometimes.
Upvote
0
Drizzt321 said:
"heavy" really is subjective, depending on your experience with heavy lenses, the camera/body balance and esp. the lens' length creating torque on the wrist - that's why the 70-200ii feels so heavy to me and the Tamron didn't when I tried it.
neuroanatomist said:
I will add this to my favorite phrases, but imho the problem with the older 24-105 flooding the market and the way too expensive and IS-less 24-70/2.8 was present first for Canon, so the 24-70/4 is attempt to be on the profitable side again.
Upvote
0
infared said:
Thanks, I've never used the 24-105 so purposefully avoided comparisons, I have no doubt somebody on this forum will chime win with some sort of spec/chart comparison to show off exactly how different they are at 37mm f/4.5.
As for the 73mm, that's what the exif read when I "pushed" the lens into Macro mode... not sure how accurate that is, but it *is* at the long end of the zoom range past 70mm on the marker.
Upvote
0
Vossie said:
The lens-cap image *is* a macro photo, I'll see what else I have, though it was winter which is not my favourite macro season.
And I agree with you that having the feature/option is better than not, I just found I was *so* close to my subjects that I blocked out the light, which made macro a fairly awkward achievement (I've used both Canon 60mm and 100mm macro's and own the 100mm f/2.8 L IS). I just don't want anyone buying this lens thinking they're going to be going around with a great macro lens because, really, it's not, it's just a good utilitarian lens which, like you mentioned, is great for going around and travelling with.
Sadly I've never used the 24-105 f/4 L IS, and we don't know what it's fate will be, but surely someone here will bring it up soon enough
Upvote
0
RLPhoto said:The issue is not the lens, the issue is the value of the lens. 24-105L's are good enough for 700$.
Well put.
Upvote
0
With Nikon offering a 24-120, perhaps that's what Canon has their eyes on instead. And, if so, how much will it be?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
