Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS

[Sporgon]

I'm guessing Canon were unable to produce the improvements seen in the 24-70 f4L if they had given it the 24-105 range without the lens having to retail as the level of the 24-70II.

All the stuff I've seen on the Sigma 24-105 suggests they can't either.

 

[Marsu42]

I'm guessing Canon were unable to produce the improvements seen in the 24-70 f4L if they had given it the 24-105 range without the lens having to retail as the level of the 24-70II.

Given the level of engineering expertise Canon has, I somehow doubt that - but I find it much more likely they want people to have more reason to buy a "natural" focal length addon of 70-200 or 70-300 ... with the overlapping 24-105 you can do ok, but as stated above a lot of times 24-70 is too short for a complete setup.

 

[Sporgon]

I'm guessing Canon were unable to produce the improvements seen in the 24-70 f4L if they had given it the 24-105 range without the lens having to retail as the level of the 24-70II.

Given the level of engineering expertise Canon has, I somehow doubt that - but I find it much more likely they want people to have more reason to buy a "natural" focal length addon of 70-200 or 70-300 ... with the overlapping 24-105 you can do ok, but as stated above a lot of times 24-70 is too short for a complete setup.

So why introduce the 24-105 in the first place ?

I'm sure you're right regarding their engineering expertise, but would it be (financially) worthwhile for them ? That's the point.

Incidentally Roger at Lens Rentals stated he'd never seen a lens with so many element adjustments, so it's clearly a complicated little beast. I wonder if this convoluted set up is responsible for the early copies testing little better than the 24-105.

 

[Marsu42]

So why introduce the 24-105 in the first place?

My only guess it were other times back then when Canon had a different marketing approach, they wanted a complete ff 5d2 solution with one lens to keep the system affordable. Not that everyone and his cat has a cheaper 6d ff camera and Canon is on the money grab they probably feel customers can be nudged into buying two lenses.

 

[Sporgon]

So why introduce the 24-105 in the first place?

My only guess it were other times back then when Canon had a different marketing approach, they wanted a complete ff 5d2 solution with one lens to keep the system affordable. Not that everyone and his cat has a cheaper 6d ff camera and Canon is on the money grab they probably feel customers can be nudged into buying two lenses.

The 24-105 was introduced with the original 5D in 2005.

The 24-105 vs 24-70 L IS really is a matter of personal preference. Greater range vs subtly better resolution. I have both ( through Building Panoramics ) and I'm torn between the two. The new lens is definitely better but as a general purpose 'do everything' lens I use 105 a lot.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm guessing Canon were unable to produce the improvements seen in the 24-70 f4L if they had given it the 24-105 range without the lens having to retail as the level of the 24-70II.

Given the level of engineering expertise Canon has, I somehow doubt that - but I find it much more likely they want people to have more reason to buy a "natural" focal length addon of 70-200 or 70-300 ... with the overlapping 24-105 you can do ok, but as stated above a lot of times 24-70 is too short for a complete setup.

...and the 16-35 will become a 16-24 for the same reasons . Well, then again, it worked for Nikon by adding 2mm...

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I was wondering if I should sell my old 24-70mm 2.8L and get this new lens. Has anyone make a side-by-side comparison in terms of IQ?

Regards

 

[ahsanford]

I was wondering if I should sell my old 24-70mm 2.8L and get this new lens. Has anyone make a side-by-side comparison in terms of IQ?

Regards

All of it is here (at least from a sharpness perspective):
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

As you'll see the F/4 IS is better than the 24-105 and 24-70 I, but not as good as the 24-70 II.

I made the jump from the F/2.8L I to the F/4 IS and I'm quite pleased. I don't shoot indoor sports, and I don't shoot portraits with that lens, so I had little need for F/2.8 in a standard zoom.

The new F/4 in comparison to the F/2.8L IS is sharper, lighter, shorter in length, and has a very serviceable macro mode if you are in a pinch. It's a perfect all-in-one lens for travel, hiking, etc. I am very pleased with the pickup. And on a lesser note, it doesn't push me to need to get 82mm filters. Unless I'm shooting with my 100L macro, all my lenses are 58mm or 77mm, which is a nice convenience.

Be advised that the lens does take a toughness downgrade compared to the venerable 24-70 F/2.8L I. The Mark I is a tank with a lot more metal. The 24-70 F/4L IS is not poorly constructed by any means, but it's not built for war. I'd liken it to the 24-105 or the 100L macro -- it's plasticky, but solidly assembled.

- A

 

[Marsu42]

I was wondering if I should sell my old 24-70mm 2.8L and get this new lens. Has anyone make a side-by-side comparison in terms of IQ?

Upgrading might make sense if you want to lose weight & gain IS únless you often shoot f2.8 - for sharpness comparisons always look at this widget:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I was wondering if I should sell my old 24-70mm 2.8L and get this new lens. Has anyone make a side-by-side comparison in terms of IQ?

Upgrading might make sense if you want to lose weight & gain IS únless you often shoot f2.8 - for sharpness comparisons always look at this widget:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Thanks! I very seldom shoot protraits with this lens. I found myself most of the time shooting f4-f5.6 for social and family pictures.

 

[erjlphoto]

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

It's sharper than the old 24-105 and has less distortion at wide angles. It also focuses much closer than the old lens.

 

[Sandrine]

With Nikon offering a 24-120 funda google nexus 6, perhaps that's what Canon has their eyes soporte coche nexus 9 tablet on instead.

 

[chilakamarthi]

Well finally I pulled the trigger for this lens. I got it for $650 after $200 MIR and 1 year US Warranty. Waiting for the lens.

 

[bholliman]

Well finally I pulled the trigger for this lens. I got it for $650 after $200 MIR and 1 year US Warranty. Waiting for the lens.

You got t for a good price. Post some pictures when you get it.