Thoughts on the EF 24-70 F4L IS

Price tag aside I find this zoom very attractive. Sure, if you already own a 24-105 you won't have many reasons to upgrade. The optics of the 24-70/4 won't be THAT much improved. The macro function and the size-weight ratio are very interesting to use with the new 6D however. For my part I'm very interested in the macro function. For the desired 0.7x magnification you must get 2 cm close to the front-lens. Your motive will most likely be shadowed. However, 0.5x magnification will be very usable - and that's where the infamous EF 50/2.5 stops which I still use quite frequently. If optics allow reasonably sharp results I'll surely buy this lens. But I'll wait a little for prices to fall. I really hope Brian from the-digital-picture updates his review soon.

i've been so happy with my 24-70 2.8L. I don't know if I could take the hit down to f/4.

that new pinch Tamron style lens cap is cool too! I wish the 24-70ii had that.

My guess is, with 24-105L's going for $750 basically new (on B & S boards) all day long, this thing is going to need to have killer IQ to even be considered an option for many.

I mean- sure, it's smaller, but I'd be interested to see the IQ of this 24-70 f/4L vs. the 24-70 f/2.8L v1 stopped down to f/4....

I am sure by now folks have seen the Lensrentals.com test of this lens, but here's the link anyway:
http://www.lensrentals​.com …70-f4-is-resolution-tests

Although the conclusion is somewhat subdued, I think this lens actually looks pretty darn good in the resolution and distortion departments, and it is very sexily compact. The added benefit of macro capability cannot hurt.

The big question for me is how does it do with vignetting? If it scores well there, I will buy it once the price comes down a bit (say, ~$1,200).

i'm not saying it wont be a stellar lens with many positives, but the price point (as usual with canon) is a bit inflated.

Sorry, but if your 35L is "too soft", you prob have a bum lens. My copy was sharp at 1.4 and critically sharp by 2.2.

Resolution-wise, it seems to be almost smack in the middle of the 24-105 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8 mkII (except for the two bad copies), and more-or-less even with the Tamron 24-70.

Which seems to more-or-less confirm what lots of us assumed about this lens - versus the 24-105, you trade the extra 35mm for sharper glass, less distortion, newer IS, and some macro capability in a smaller and lighter lens.

Whether or not that's worth the extra cost right now is debatable, it's currently too rich for my blood. But I'd take this 24-70 at $1200 (or, here's hoping, $1000 in a kit with a 6D) over a $700-$800 24-105 no question.

Oh, and clearly the Tamron is an amazing deal for those comfortable with third-party glass. For those that aren't, or for those that value the macro mode and small size over the F/2.8 aperture, clearly this 24-70 F/4 is no slouch.

Such a wacko lens to release by Canon. I suppose that there is an interest in lighter FF lenses but with that price tag I would buy something with an aperture of atleast 2.8. Unless I was certain that my subjects would be still and in a controlled enviroment (studio/daytime).

With those resolution tests it has panned out pretty much as I suspected. First obvious one is just like all of Canon's newer lenses (whether it be the 70-200 II or cheapie pancake) it has great resolution figures.

The main prediction I had was it would be a pretty good wedge decision for the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, or this 24-70/4 IS. Now I realise the price of the Canon as usual for its recent releases doesn't do any favours, but I always guessed it would be a "cleaner" Canon f/4 vs faster. Now I am not sledging the Tamron at all, I certainly don't give a crap about onion bokeh, but I suspect the Canon won't have it to that extent, has less distortion, and I suppose you could argue "1st party reliability" (like QC and autofocus accuracy).

But yeah until it gets past "debut premium price" easily prefer the Tamron.

This lens is now available at B&H
$1499.00

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …EF_24_70mm_f_4_​0L_IS.html


I have had my 24-70 mk1 for a couple of years. I have taken thousands of images with it, generally at f8 and smaller. A few times at f5.6, never wider. So, this is a nice lens for possibly someone like me. I love my lens, so it will take a bit of doing to separate it from me - I had tried to sell it prior, but it never made it to the market because I use it so much. Maybe this lens will finally do it.

Wow $1500!

So Nikon comes out with the 24-120 to one up Canon's 24-105 giving more reach. Then Canon responds, "We'll show them and release a new lens 50mm shorter than the Nikon and charge people $200 more."

HA!! I changed my mind at the last second. I ended up buying the 24-7O F2.8 MK11.

Geez.... took it out today for some shots of my wife getting Chemo. Great focal range for indoors. I am really glad I got the larger aperture lens. I would have had some really long exposures today at F4.

So here is what I see when comparing the 24-70mm f/4 to the 24-105L.

It has a newer design and newer coatings. So it is sharper with less distortion and probably less prone to flair.

It is smaller. In length it is only about half an inch, but in weight it is about three quarters of a pound.

One stop more IS and it is the hybrid type.


At the moment the part that seems like a gimmick to me (but is still a plus) is at 70mm (only) provides 0.7X magnification. But it takes holding a button and rotating to get it into macro mode. How long does it take to mount a true macro lens? The zoom loses infinity and so you have to repeat pattern (in reverse) to get back to “normal” range focus. Also does anyone know if this is a true flat-field macro? If not, that is the first compromise for the macro portion of the lens. Regardless the f/4 is less light for focusing at macro distances (more light is what you want) – a compromise for the macro portion.

It has 35 less millimeters in focal length. This is the only, but a big negative that I see.

It costs more than the 24-105.

The 24-70mm f4.0 L IS has some compelling reasons to get it over the 24-105mm if (IMO only if) you do not already have the 24-105L and don’t need/want f/2.8.

I really kind of think that is this lens is some sort of compromise (or a way to placate people) by Canon to provide a 24-70mm IS lens. Since they didn’t put IS on the f/2.8 - like so many Canon consumers were waiting/hoping for. They also made this more modest in price, but only when compared to the f/2.8’s (that they bumped up price of $2300) – otherwise it is overpriced (surprise). It had to be sharper than the 24-105L or few would buy it compared to the 24-105L or any other lenses in or near that range.

Personally I’d rather have the extra 35mm on a general walk around lens than the button and twist zoom, so I’d probably go with the 24-105L (and a achromatic two element close-up filter). Since I don’t typically just walk around with only one lens, I’d rather have an f/2.8. For me that leaves both lenses out. I want stabilization, so that leaves Canon out.

Right now for me the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC seems like the better buy.

FEChariot wrote in post #15445933
Wow $1500!

So Nikon comes out with the 24-120 to one up Canon's 24-105 giving more reach. Then Canon responds, "We'll show them and release a new lens 50mm shorter than the Nikon and charge people $200 more."

I really don't know what problem this lens is solving. I don't hear a lot of complaints about the weight, size, or optics on the 24-105 or a lot of people wishing it was double the price either.