Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?

[jd7]

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.

In his TDP review of the 24-70 f/4L IS, Bryan Carnathan's conclusion in relation to wide open performance at 70mm and near MFD (in the lens's normal mode) was:

"With the macro capability this lens has (and the rather soft image quality at 70mm MFD with wide apertures), I suggest avoiding use of 70mm at the MFD. Shift into the specialized macro mode for these needs."

 

[aceflibble]

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

You've missed the point entirely. OP said their plan was to make a kit out of the 24-70 and 135mm together. Logic suggests that not having the 135mm is an unlikely situation when OP's plan hinges on having it.

 

[midluk]

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.

In his TDP review of the 24-70 f/4L IS, Bryan Carnathan's conclusion in relation to wide open performance at 70mm and near MFD (in the lens's normal mode) was:

"With the macro capability this lens has (and the rather soft image quality at 70mm MFD with wide apertures), I suggest avoiding use of 70mm at the MFD. Shift into the specialized macro mode for these needs."

I didn't seriously want to use 70mm at MFD, but I wanted to test the difference that macro mode makes. Perhaps they do this to make the macro mode look better. At first I was really impressed by the macro mode when I compared it to 70mm at MFD. Then I realized that the main difference was not due to the macro mode being exceptionally good (perhaps it is, but this was not the main contribution to the impression) but 70mm at MFD being exceptionally bad.

 

[Talys]

Perhaps the thought process should be a weighting of importance between quality of macro, when you need it, and telephoto focal length, when you need it.

If you are happy with a little less focal length (or ok with cropping a bit), a 100 f2.8L Macro instead of the 135 f2 solves a bunch of problems. The macro on the 100L is exceptional, when judging the things that typically matter most, like edge sharpness, distortion, CA, and ability to take sharp photos from wide open to maximum aperture; I don't think anyone could ask for more out of macro lens. It's miles better than macro from 24-70, especially if you when you want to shoot outside of the aperture sweet spot.

The 100L can also replace the 135L in most aspects, plus, it's a little wider, narrowing the missing focal range between 70 and 135 (which is a pretty big gap).

My small carry-around kit for a long time was usually 24-70/4 and 100/2.8L macro, or 24-70/4 and 70-200/2.8 -- depending mostly on whether or not I think I will use macro. Since I've gotten the 100-400LII, I've actually switched to 24-70/4 + 100-400LII, unless I think I will need 2.8 for bokeh (for me, practically, 100-400 does this well enough if I can get close to the subject).

Another bonus is that the 100L has IS and has gotten really cheap on sale recently. Or, if you want to save some money, get the non-L 100 macro, which is a wonderful lens, though personally, I don't think it's worth it anymore as the price difference is no longer a whole lot.

 

[ahsanford]

Another bonus is that the 100L has IS and has gotten really cheap on sale recently. Or, if you want to save some money, get the non-L 100 macro, which is a wonderful lens, though personally, I don't think it's worth it anymore as the price difference is no longer a whole lot.

+1. The affordability of very high quality '2nd tier' / older pro lenses in the EF lineup is such a huge asset for me as an enthusiast.

There are three big buckets of better-than-entry-level high quality EF lenses that won't put you in the poorhouse:

• Ancient L lenses that continue to slug away: 17-40L, 70-200 f/4L, 135L, 200L (i.e. f/2.8L II), 400 f/5.6L
  
• Recent-ish L lenses that are stellar values: 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS, 100L IS Macro, 70-200 f/4L IS
  
• Recent-ish non-L lenses that do not remotely suck: 24/28/35 IS (all three are 'sleeper tiny L lenses without gaskets' to me)
  

And I'm sure I've missed some, but this is the gold part of the lens performance/price curve I most eagerly look towards for future pickups.

- A