Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
How is the focus shift? According to the Photozone review, the focus shift is so bad that the foreground gets more out of focus as you stop down - at least at close focus distances. What are your experiences regarding focus shift?
If the focus shift is as bad as the Photozone review says, it would be a showstopper for me.
If the focus shift is as bad as the Photozone review says, it would be a showstopper for me.
Upvote
0
Trondster said:
Wow, I wasn't aware of that and, honestly, in my non-lab use of it I didn't notice the issue. So obviously it's something that will come up under those specific conditions, which weren't replicated (or noticeable) in my day-to-day.
Upvote
0
(Excuse the slight necro-post.)
One thing that I've always been interested in is the concept of T-stops, in addition to the usual F-stops. For equal F-stops, two lenses on the same camera will have the same DOF, but not necessarily the same brightness. This is where T-stops ('T' for transmission) come into play. Differences have typically been small for lenses of the same type (zoom or prime) and aperture, so usually just F-stops are given.
However, in looking at the 24-70mm f/4L IS, I did happen to look at DxOMark's (I try not to focus on curves and such, but I don't discount them completely, either) transmission rating for the lens. It actually had a T rating of 4.0. This is not uncommon for a prime, but unusual for a zoom. Comparing with the 24-105mm, which is rated a 5.1, I found that it is approximately 2/3 of a T-stop brighter across the range of focal lengths. This may not be huge, but it might be just enough to keep motion blur to an acceptable level in lower-light situations or in fast-action situations by using a faster shutter speed or to allow for less noise by using lower ISO.
Almost as surprising is that it is just 1/3 of T-stop behind the 24-70mm f/2.8L (first version), which is rated a 3.6! Conversely, the 24-70mm f/2.8L II is rated a true 2.8. These relative differences are almost certainly due to the newer designs being more efficient and/or having better coatings.
Unfortunately, that doesn't do much for the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VR, as that lens is also rated an f/2.8!
One thing that I've always been interested in is the concept of T-stops, in addition to the usual F-stops. For equal F-stops, two lenses on the same camera will have the same DOF, but not necessarily the same brightness. This is where T-stops ('T' for transmission) come into play. Differences have typically been small for lenses of the same type (zoom or prime) and aperture, so usually just F-stops are given.
However, in looking at the 24-70mm f/4L IS, I did happen to look at DxOMark's (I try not to focus on curves and such, but I don't discount them completely, either) transmission rating for the lens. It actually had a T rating of 4.0. This is not uncommon for a prime, but unusual for a zoom. Comparing with the 24-105mm, which is rated a 5.1, I found that it is approximately 2/3 of a T-stop brighter across the range of focal lengths. This may not be huge, but it might be just enough to keep motion blur to an acceptable level in lower-light situations or in fast-action situations by using a faster shutter speed or to allow for less noise by using lower ISO.
Almost as surprising is that it is just 1/3 of T-stop behind the 24-70mm f/2.8L (first version), which is rated a 3.6! Conversely, the 24-70mm f/2.8L II is rated a true 2.8. These relative differences are almost certainly due to the newer designs being more efficient and/or having better coatings.
Unfortunately, that doesn't do much for the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VR, as that lens is also rated an f/2.8!
Upvote
0
Have this lens for two weeks! one weekend went hiking and one weekend shoot wedding. Very good lens, sharp, good contrast from wide end to tele end. Only shortcoming is expensive price for F4 general lens, but I bought below $1000 for white box version at used market.
The size very compact, focus is fast and accurate, IS very effective. Macro mode is nice but working distance very short, need to avoid cast shadow of the lens to subject.
The size very compact, focus is fast and accurate, IS very effective. Macro mode is nice but working distance very short, need to avoid cast shadow of the lens to subject.
Upvote
0
The Canon 24-70 f4 L IS seems to be treated like the red headed stepchild on the internet. It's not easy to be the little brother to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II lens. I first borrowed 24-70 F4 lens for a 2 week trip to Glacier National Park. The lens was superb on my 5D3. Easy to hike with and IS. I liked it so much that I bought one when I got home. On the 2 copies that I have used of this lens, both have been very sharp, fast accurate AF and great IS.
I have used the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and IMO the 24-70 F4 gives up little in IQ to his bigger brother.
I have found in my use of this lens that the 50mm focal point is quite contrary to popular opinion on the interenet, the 2 copies of this lens that I have used were/are very sharp.
This Canon 24-70 F4 L IS plus my Canon 70-200 F2.8 II make for a superb combination. Same filter size. Both have Canon's newest IS. Superb image quality and sharpness.
If you don't really need the f2.8 aperature and want IS, this is a lens you really should try.
The much loved Canon 24-105 of course is another option to consider, especially given the price of it now. I chose the Canon 24-70 F4 over the 24-105 for it's much better handling of distortion at 24mm and upgraded IS.
I dont miss the extra reach of the 24-105 because I carry the 70-200 for that. That's my real world review of this lens.
I have used the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and IMO the 24-70 F4 gives up little in IQ to his bigger brother.
I have found in my use of this lens that the 50mm focal point is quite contrary to popular opinion on the interenet, the 2 copies of this lens that I have used were/are very sharp.
This Canon 24-70 F4 L IS plus my Canon 70-200 F2.8 II make for a superb combination. Same filter size. Both have Canon's newest IS. Superb image quality and sharpness.
If you don't really need the f2.8 aperature and want IS, this is a lens you really should try.
The much loved Canon 24-105 of course is another option to consider, especially given the price of it now. I chose the Canon 24-70 F4 over the 24-105 for it's much better handling of distortion at 24mm and upgraded IS.
I dont miss the extra reach of the 24-105 because I carry the 70-200 for that. That's my real world review of this lens.
Upvote
0
mjardeen said:
Yeah, and with the Sigma 24-105 out now receiving excellent reviews I see the place for this lens a little less. *except* for how compact it is.
Upvote
0
JVLphoto said:
So far the Sigma has had one great review.... from the same place that says the 70-200 2.8 II delivers the worst 200mm f/2.8 performance of all the Canon 70-200 lenses.... and the 70-300 non-L beats the 70-300L and 300 f/4L.... and the 16-35 II has the sharpest FF edges at f/2.8....
Don't forget how they rank lenses either, they take one aperture and focal length, whatever performs thebest (which strangely seems to be wide open 99% of the time) and compare. So you could have a sigma doing well middle range wide open but worse in other regards (like say at 24mm where it's tricky to do well on FF) getting ranked higher, for instance.
I mean maybe the sigma will prove to be good, but I'm still wary of it based upon their own MTF charts and early sample photos.
It is also larger and heavier than the 24-70 II 2.8! despite only offering f/4.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
No, it's a lens that solves a problem.
The older 24-70/105 type lenses never delivered a satisfactory 24mm on FF if you cared about edge to edge landscape detail and reasonable freedom from PF of branches against clouds and such. This one does.... while also being easily the smallest and lightest of them all (other than the tamron 28-75 2.8) and IS.
The only other one that seems to fully deliver at 24mm is the 24-70 II 2.8, which costs a LOT more (and has no IS). Although perhaps the new tamron isn't too bad.
Upvote
0
PROS
"AF"
CONS
"Distortion across the focal range, specifically at 24mm
Awkward macro mode"
Those seem like weird cons to me. None of the others offer the macro option at all no matter what you do and how hard is it to flip the macro switch and zoom into macro? And yeah it has distortion at 24mm but it also has the LEAST distortion at 24mm of ANY 24-70/105 type zoom, so compared to a prime it is a con, but it seems unfair to not also mention that compared to other zooms it's actually the best.
OTOH, the AF seemed merely average to me for an L and not a huge PRO (not a CON either though).
"AF"
CONS
"Distortion across the focal range, specifically at 24mm
Awkward macro mode"
Those seem like weird cons to me. None of the others offer the macro option at all no matter what you do and how hard is it to flip the macro switch and zoom into macro? And yeah it has distortion at 24mm but it also has the LEAST distortion at 24mm of ANY 24-70/105 type zoom, so compared to a prime it is a con, but it seems unfair to not also mention that compared to other zooms it's actually the best.
OTOH, the AF seemed merely average to me for an L and not a huge PRO (not a CON either though).
Upvote
0
- Status
