Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?

[blobmonster]

For what it's worth, I have a 24-70 f2.8 and apart from in my small home portrait studio (usually at 35-70) it only gets used for weddings/events I attend and only if friends/family specifically ask me to take photos as they've not hired anyone. The quality is excellent, but the size and weight are not. I also dislike carring any expensive zoom on my shoulder. It's just something to worry about getting broken, not to mention most zooms are obnoxiously large when zoomed out.

I would usually much rather use/carry a 35 f1.4 as walkabout / general purpose as with a 1.6 equivalent post-process crop you get a 50 f2 with lower output resolution. The 50 f2 equivalent is generally going to give you better shallow dof (with lower iso/ faster shutter, better autofocus) portraits than the 70mm f2.8 or f4. It stops action better and for some people, most of the time is a better choice, especially if you have an 85 1.8 in your pocket as well. If you own a decent smart phone, you already have a wide angle approx 28mm on you most of the time

As I've gotten older I've grown to despise the handling and aesthetic of any large, non-internal zoom lens, which not only looks and feels (for me) a bit crude and amateurish, but for me it prevents me from composing and enjoying photography...but I wouldn't have reached this conclusion without experience of the zoom and learning what I like...

Also although the 135 is amazing (I have its twin brother the 200 f2.8 ) it is too long for a lot of situations. There is a massive real life difference imo between 70mm and 85mm
especially if the aperture difference is f1.8/f1.4 vs f4. I'd be happy to own both the lenses you are thinking about, but as stated prefer two smaller primes that are more pocketable and better suited to non phone camera (i.e. special) photos.

 

[john kriegsmann]

I owned the lens for one month and returned it to BH. It was plenty sharp but did not have color and contrast i have come to appreciate in Canon L glass. I actually like the look of the Canon 24-105 L much better. It has vignetting issues at 24mm that can be corrected in post processing and it is not razor sharp but has practical zoom range and very nice color and contrast that makes the image pop.

 

[Handrews]

As the guys before me mentioned, it's a good lens at a good price. I bought mine at 1/3 of the price of 2.8 version.
My copy is very sharp (I don't have 2.8 for comparison, but I ran a couple of tests and it's on par with 16-35 F4 IS at 24mm and 35mm).

As already mentioned, the IS works well; here's a handheld shot 1/4 secs

Untitled by B90ATX, on Flickr

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I considered getting the f/4 IS for its advertised macro capability, then read that it was not very good at close work. I had a 24-105L at the time. I went ahead and bought the f/2.8L II and have never regretted it.

IS has never been missed, my subjects are often moving and IS is of no value for those photos.

 

[jd7]

The 24-70mm f/4L IS is a very nice lens and a bargain at its current price point in the US. I owned one 18 months ago when we visited Hawaii, and I was very happy with the images I took with it. The IS allows sharp images at very slow shutter speeds. I was able to take some waterfall images handheld at under 1 second exposure that were tack sharp bracing the camera against a tree, something I could never do with a non-IS lens.

If you are mostly shooting stationary objects this might be a better option than the f/2.8 II.

Personally, I love using a 24-70 in combination with the 135 f/2 as a 2-lens mini kit.

I've tried using the 16-35 f/4 IS along with a short telephoto like the 100 f/2.8L macro, 135 f/2 or 70-200, but I find I miss having 36-69mm coverage.

+1 to finding the 36-70 range more useful than 16-23. UWA can be fantastic in some situations, but at least for me I use 36-70 much more often.

Also agree the 24-70/4L IS is a very good lens, especially for travel. Of course compared with the 2.8L II you give up a stop and bit of sharpness (except in situations where IS makes the difference between sharp/blurry due to camera shake), but in return you get IS, lighter weight, smaller size, common 77mm filter size (useful for sharing filters between lenses) and the (semi) macro mode ... and save money. I also see an earlier post suggesting the mechanics/build quality of the 24-70/4L IS is not up to the standard of some other L lenses, but I have never had any reason to think that. I have taken mine hiking/camping for days at a time in some rough and at times sandy or wet conditions and it has never faltered.

I periodically think about switching from the 24-70/4L IS to the 2.8L II for the extra stop, but so far haven't done it because in the end I find the 24-70/4L IS to be a very good and practically useful lens ... and even though an extra stop would be nice, 2.8 is still not that wide an aperture for the 24-70 range and I am not thrilled by the idea of the extra weight and no IS. One day I might buy the 2.8L II and own both for a while and see which one I end up using more.

 

[jd7]

As the guys before me mentioned, it's a good lens at a good price. I bought mine at 1/3 of the price of 2.8 version.
My copy is very sharp (I don't have 2.8 for comparison, but I ran a couple of tests and it's on par with 16-35 F4 IS at 24mm and 35mm).

As already mentioned, the IS works well; here's a handheld shot 1/4 secs

Nice shot ... and that sort of shot when travelling is one of the times when the 24-70 4L IS seems a better option than the 2.8L II, because of the IS. Obviously different if you can set up a tripod, but of course that sometimes isn't a practical option if you are a tourist.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I love mine. I got it to replace the 24-105 f4L (version 1) that I dropped, making the filter ring unusable. Before I gave it away I did a test shot at 24mm with both lenses with a large metal door. The 24-70 f4L had less barrel distortion (meaning the edge of the door was straighter and less bowed).

As a couple people have mentioned, it has a macro mode that I find incredibly useful. I don't do a lot of macro so I have no need for a dedicated macro lens. Having a switch built into my existing standard zoom is just so handy for the few times I do need it. I can't believe how underappreciated this feature is.

The size and weight are perfect for balancing with my 5D series camera (I imagine a 6D or 7D series would be similar). If you use a Rebel series it might feel a bit front heavy. I also like the 77mm filter size (I think the f2.8 version has at least 82mm). All four of my lenses take 77mm filters, allowing me to own just one polarizer and one neutral density.

There are times when I would like the shallower depth of field of f2.8. But all things considered I love this lens and it will continue to be my standard zoom.

If you have not done so already, look through the CanonRumors lens gallery for this lens: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13938.0

 

[ahsanford]

As a couple people have mentioned, it has a macro mode that I find incredibly useful. I don't do a lot of macro so I have no need for a dedicated macro lens. Having a switch built into my existing standard zoom is just so handy for the few times I do need it. I can't believe how underappreciated this feature is.

100% agree, but it strongly depends on the type of macro work you do. If it's unplanned, quick 'drive-by' macro work on a hike or walkabout, it's immense because your dedicated macro lens is probably at home. It's a great, great feature for that, so I love it and I agree it's a big deal that few talk about.

But if you are a more composed macro shooter -- possibly using ring-lites, external lighting, shooting on rails, etc. -- you'll want more working distance as with the 24-70 f/4L IS you have to get much closer to the subject. In that case, consider a dedicated macro instrument for that, likely 100mm or longer.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

As a couple people have mentioned, it has a macro mode that I find incredibly useful. I don't do a lot of macro so I have no need for a dedicated macro lens. Having a switch built into my existing standard zoom is just so handy for the few times I do need it. I can't believe how underappreciated this feature is.

100% agree, but it strongly depends on the type of macro work you do. If it's unplanned, quick 'drive-by' macro work on a hike or walkabout, it's immense because your dedicated macro lens is probably at home. It's a great, great feature for that, so I love it and I agree it's a big deal that few talk about.

But if you are a more composed macro shooter -- possibly using ring-lites, external lighting, shooting on rails, etc. -- you'll want more working distance as with the 24-70 f/4L IS you have to get much closer to the subject. In that case, consider a dedicated macro instrument for that, likely 100mm or longer.

- A

Bingo!

On a canoe trip, I carry 3 lenses.... the 100L does not make the cut. If I see an interesting bug, I am not going to paddle out and drive home to get the “real” macro lens.......

 

[Talys]

As a couple people have mentioned, it has a macro mode that I find incredibly useful. I don't do a lot of macro so I have no need for a dedicated macro lens. Having a switch built into my existing standard zoom is just so handy for the few times I do need it. I can't believe how underappreciated this feature is.

100% agree, but it strongly depends on the type of macro work you do. If it's unplanned, quick 'drive-by' macro work on a hike or walkabout, it's immense because your dedicated macro lens is probably at home. It's a great, great feature for that, so I love it and I agree it's a big deal that few talk about.

But if you are a more composed macro shooter -- possibly using ring-lites, external lighting, shooting on rails, etc. -- you'll want more working distance as with the 24-70 f/4L IS you have to get much closer to the subject. In that case, consider a dedicated macro instrument for that, likely 100mm or longer.

- A

Bingo!

On a canoe trip, I carry 3 lenses.... the 100L does not make the cut. If I see an interesting bug, I am not going to paddle out and drive home to get the “real” macro lens.......

Ironically, the macro lens I use when I'm out and about... 100-400LII! Because of the relatively short MFD (a bit more than a meter) combined with 400mm, you can get monster magnification without a lens swap. Plus, you're further away from your subject than with a 100L.

Regarding the 24-70/4 IS -- I absolutely love mine.

The other lenses that I have had in the category are 24-70/2.8 Mk 1 and 24-105 IS Mk 1. I picked up the 24-70/4 IS because of the IS and the because it is short, small, and light compared to the 2.8. On my older 2.8, I often (usually?) stopped down to f/4 anyhow, and AF on the f/4 has never been a problem even with relatively little light. Compared to the 24-105 Mk1, I find that the 24-70/4 is noticeably sharper near 24mm, and, I prefer the lens size.

It could just be my copy, but my 24-70/4 is very, very sharp, and has less chromatic aberration than any other lens that I own that general focal range, including 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 (the 1.4 has a lot of CA in the corners anyhow).

 

[ahsanford]

On the topic of a 24-70 f/4L IS, I just reeled this in with it. Don't pixel peep as I took this pano handheld at ISO 3200.

But it's not bad for a Wednesday, eh?

- A

 

[Don Haines]

On the topic of a 24-70 f/4L IS, I just reeled this in with it. Don't pixel peep as I took this pano handheld at ISO 3200.

But it's not bad for a Wednesday, eh?

- A

Nice picture! I have also had success using that lens handheld with panoramas

 

[midluk]

I considered getting the f/4 IS for its advertised macro capability, then read that it was not very good at close work.

I have not seen a problem with the macro mode in my copy. But in normal mode at 70mm and wide open it is unusable near MFD. It is completely blurry. The plane of least blurriness moves when stopping down and it seems OK from f/8 onward. So this seems to be spherical aberration (or an overcorrection of it). I told CPS about it when I dropped my gear off for check&clean a few months ago, but the situation did not change. So I guess this is normal.

 

[BillB]

I considered getting the f/4 IS for its advertised macro capability, then read that it was not very good at close work.

I have not seen a problem with the macro mode in my copy. But in normal mode at 70mm and wide open it is unusable near MFD. It is completely blurry. The plane of least blurriness moves when stopping down and it seems OK from f/8 onward. So this seems to be spherical aberration (or an overcorrection of it). I told CPS about it when I dropped my gear off for check&clean a few months ago, but the situation did not change. So I guess this is normal.

Have you tried focussing in Liveview ,or manual focussing? If Liveview is sharper, microfocus adjustment might help.

 

[ahsanford]

I considered getting the f/4 IS for its advertised macro capability, then read that it was not very good at close work.

I have not seen a problem with the macro mode in my copy. But in normal mode at 70mm and wide open it is unusable near MFD. It is completely blurry. The plane of least blurriness moves when stopping down and it seems OK from f/8 onward. So this seems to be spherical aberration (or an overcorrection of it). I told CPS about it when I dropped my gear off for check&clean a few months ago, but the situation did not change. So I guess this is normal.

Huh. First I've heard of this. But for a single (non-stacked) macro frame, I usually have to stop down quite a bit anyway so perhaps I've driven right by this. I'll give some wide open MFD macro shots a go soon and see what I get.

- A

 

[aceflibble]

The 24-70's 'macro' mode suffers from several problems. It loses light transmission quicker than any 'proper' macro lens, it utilises focus breathing to actually get the close focusing distance, and generally the image quality isn't very good. You're actually better off just carrying a +2 close-up filter or a decent-sized extension tube and screwing that on the front at regular 70mm than moving into the 'macro' zone.

It's not totally unusable, but it's making more compromises than any other way to shoot macro. It's no replacement for a 'proper' macro lens. The fact OP already has the 135mm f/2, which works well with both close-up filters and extension tubes, kind of renders the 24-70's macro functionality a bit useless.

(And I say all this even as someone who still has the old FD 35-105 semi-macro and loves it dearly; look, these things have their uses, but you have to accept they have their drawbacks, too.)



And yes, OP, adding a 50mm to close the gap between the 16-35 you already have and the 135mm will do you fine. The 24-70 and 24-105 zooms, while useful at first glance, are covering the 'easiest' range possible. With a 16-35 overlapping the wide end, you're only looking at the zoom to cover 35-70, and that range is very easily replicated by a 50mm. (In fact, in the FD days, it was standard that all bodies came with two kit options of either a 50mm or a 35-70mm zoom; they are so interchangeable that nobody bothered having both.)

The 24-105 makes sense as a kit lens or specifically for a travel lens where you really can only take one lens with you. The 24-70 makes sense for event photographers where you don't have time to swap and you want one lens covering it all. If you're going to use a two-lens kit anyway, the value of the 24-x zooms drops dramatically.

 

[ahsanford]

The fact OP already has the 135mm f/2, which works well with both close-up filters and extension tubes, kind of renders the 24-70's macro functionality a bit useless.

Disagree strongly. That's tantamount to saying 'Since I also own a Ferrari, the 1984 Toyota Tercel that I am currently driving does not require peppy acceleration.'

We don't always have what we need in our bag at that moment.

If the OP's 135L and tubes are not in their bag at the time, the 24-70 f/4L IS macro mode is solid gold. No one said it was for serious / illuminated / stacking sort of macro work. It is not. But if you pass a bug or flower on a hike, vacation, etc. you will reel that in far better than cropping at MFD with any other non-macro lens. That's what it's for.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

We don't always have what we need in our bag at that moment.

If the OP's 135L and tubes are not in their bag at the time, the 24-70 f/4L IS macro mode is solid gold. No one said it was for serious / illuminated / stacking sort of macro work. It is not. But if you pass a bug or flower on a hike, vacation, etc. you will reel that in far better than cropping at MFD with any other non-macro lens. That's what it's for.

- A

+1

 

[jd7]

We don't always have what we need in our bag at that moment.

If the OP's 135L and tubes are not in their bag at the time, the 24-70 f/4L IS macro mode is solid gold. No one said it was for serious / illuminated / stacking sort of macro work. It is not. But if you pass a bug or flower on a hike, vacation, etc. you will reel that in far better than cropping at MFD with any other non-macro lens. That's what it's for.

- A

+1

+2

If you expect to use the 24-70 f/4L IS for "serious" macro work you will be disappointed, but if you see it as a lens for casual close up photography when out and about, it's great.

I saw a post above saying the image quality is not very good when the 24-70 f/4L IS is in its macro mode, but I disagree. It probably does degrade a little the closer if you are pushing it right to its maximum magnification (x0.7), but I guess you can't have everything.

 

[ahsanford]

I saw a post above saying the image quality is not very good when the 24-70 f/4L IS is in its macro mode, but I disagree. It probably does degrade a little the closer if you are pushing it right to its maximum magnification (x0.7), but I guess you can't have everything.

I'll look into the f/4 macro performance -- I do appreciate the prior comment -- but I rarely shoot macro wide open as the DOF is razor thin at those distances.

- A