Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS

any shots at the 50mm mark for this lens, be great to see some examples, thanks

Sirrith wrote in post #15705366
When you AF, the camera does not stop down, so what you see is the lens focused wide open. If you then take a photo, the lens stops down, the focus shifts, and then the shutter opens and closes and you have an OOF shot. That is why it affects you.
The process is like this:
set aperture on camera ----> half press shutter button ----> focus ----> fully press shutter button ----> aperture closes down and focus shift happens ----> shutter opens ----> shutter closes

OK, but I don't get why is the focus shift happening? When the lens is focused wide open, stopping it down for exposure would only increase depth of field, right? I mean, once the focus is locked at shutter button half-press, it doesn't move anymore, so smaller aperture at the time of exposure would just get more stuff in focus range?

blue_dragon wrote in post #15881797
OK, but I don't get why is the focus shift happening? When the lens is focused wide open, stopping it down for exposure would only increase depth of field, right? I mean, once the focus is locked at shutter button half-press, it doesn't move anymore, so smaller aperture at the time of exposure would just get more stuff in focus range?

That is beyond my limited knowledge to explain

Have a read through this:
http://photographylife​.com/what-is-focus-shift

Tnx, this explains it rather well... so now the question is how bad is the focus shift on 24-70 ACTUALLY. I haven't analyzed reviews on this lens in much depth, but photozone.de is the only one to complain as yet if I am not mistaken? It might be one of the flaws that are obvious shooting test charts but do not matter much in real life.

beachgardener wrote in post #15872224
any shots at the 50mm mark for this lens, be great to see some examples, thanks

Here are three shots from the 24-70 f/4 at 50mm. Plenty sharp in real world use for my needs. Larger versions can be viewed on my flickr page.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

lookin' good so far

Canon 6d

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/fozzie66/906470​8994/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/fozzie66/906470​3798/

Took my newly purchased 6D & this lens to a photog group meetup this morning to the Dezer Collection. It performed very well IMO at all focal ranges and the built in macro mode came in quite handy. Higher resolution available via flickr links.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/97908474@N06/9​109372533/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/97908474@N06/9​109371929/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/97908474@N06/9​109369377/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/97908474@N06/9​111591894/

Sample shots are looking nice.

So has anyone had any problems with the lens? I recall reading something about focus shift, lensrentals I believe.

I just can't make my mind up if 24mm is wide enough for what I want it for, or if I need to look at a 17-40 or 16-35.

kobeson wrote in post #15549217
Subscribed. Keeping an eye on this lens, could be perfect for me!

How are the corners stopped down at 24mm? And the distortion (which I believe is minimal)?

The 24-70 II definitely does better at 24mm f/4, center, mid, edges and corners but by f/8, a good copy of the 24-70 f/4 IS (and it seems there is some variation, especially closer to wide open where copy to copy they can be quite different sorry to say) is often pretty darn close to the mighty 24-70 II, my VERY early impression at least.

I haven't tried the Tamron 24-70 VC so perhaps that one also could, but I feel that so far the only zooms that deliver 24mm edge to edge on FF with top quality are the 24-70 II and now (provided a good copy) the 24-70 f/4 IS (and perhaps the tamron 24-70 vc??). It's surely better 24mm f/8 than the 24-105L and even the 24-70 I, tamron 28-75 28mm, sigma 28-70 28mm, sigma 24-70. As for primes I'd say the 24 T&S II and the 24 1.4 II can also deliver that but the 24 2.8 non-IS and 24 1.4 I and 24 T&S I can't. The 24 2.8 IS probably can but I've never tried one.

24-70 II and 24 T&S II probably have the least LoCA/PF/higher order CA of them all. Then some ways back is the 24-70 f/4 IS and then some ways back still is the tamron 28-75 and then finally the 24-105. The 24-70 II and 24 T&S II fight that junk off better than the 24 1.4 II, the 24-70 f/4 IS is maybe ball park 24 1.4 II in that regard. Under certain nasty conditions, especially near 50mm the 24-70 f/4 IS might get some halation though anywhere near edges, not quite sure.

24-70 II seems to be sharper center frame across the focal range at f/4 than the 24-70 f/4 IS and at the edges as well other than nearing 70mm where it actually might have worse edges at f/4.

Among five lenses where I checked, the 24mm distortion is lowest with the 24 T&S II and then 24 1.4 II and then 24-70 f/4 IS a ways back and then 24-70 II a little bit back and then the 24-105 back again yet still more.

Bianchi wrote in post #15674222
So hows this lens different from the 24-105 F4 Lis other than the macro ability.

Better IS, much sharper with less distortion at or near 24mm with less longitudinal CA/purple fringing in general. A fair amount smaller.

I'd say it's a bit pricey at the $1500 list, but a few major dealers have had them on special for $1025 or so (no more than the 24-105L used to cost for a long time).

Sirrith wrote in post #15705366
When you AF, the camera does not stop down, so what you see is the lens focused wide open. If you then take a photo, the lens stops down, the focus shifts, and then the shutter opens and closes and you have an OOF shot. That is why it affects you.
The process is like this:
set aperture on camera ----> half press shutter button ----> focus ----> fully press shutter button ----> aperture closes down and focus shift happens ----> shutter opens ----> shutter closes

exactly correct

that said, at reasonable, typical distances I'm not sure it's so bad, I feel like photozone went a little nuts with the downgrade. I need to look into it more though but my initial thoughts are it's likely overblown a good deal on PZ. I

IMO photozone is easily the most trustable when it comes to their lens numbers (although do keep in mind that when they measure extreme they mean extreme, that is buried in the deep corner and border is not like mid-frame but far long edge so I pay much more attention to the their center and mid #s and much less to their extreme numbers which are really numbers taken from the deep corners and not quite as important IMO, although I do factor them in blended with border numbers a bit) but I think the final rating stars and text often has a lot of bizarreness to it all, he seems to get fixated on certain things, like this has some RSA at really close distances oh no oh no I now recommend the 24-105 despite all the test numbers being worse or the 24 1.4 II oh no it doesn't have sharp edges on FF at f/1.4!! I now rate it worse optically than the 24-105 despite it smashing the 24-105 at 24mm aperture for aperture across the board.

beachgardener wrote in post #15861340
anyone else have samples from this lens please?

here is a full 22MP sample at 24mm f/8, pretty darn good for 22MP FF and 24mm f/8 IMO:
http://farm3.staticfli​ckr.com …07151892_61db83​7a2a_o.jpg

beachgardener wrote in post #15868876
is it a bit soft at 50mm as some reviews suggest?

my very initial feeling is that probably so, at least anywhere away from the center, I'd rather something like this have it's weak spot at 50mm than 24mm though!! as all the old 24-70 I, 24-105I, etc. did.

blue_dragon wrote in post #15881797
OK, but I don't get why is the focus shift happening? When the lens is focused wide open, stopping it down for exposure would only increase depth of field, right? I mean, once the focus is locked at shutter button half-press, it doesn't move anymore, so smaller aperture at the time of exposure would just get more stuff in focus range?

Yes and the extra DOF can often make up for it, but not always and even if it does at the critical plane of maximum focus that might not fall on the intended target so it might be just a trace soft if not soft. At macro distance I think it may be a bit of an issue, I'm not yet convinced it would be at more normal distances once you get into subjects a few feet away, have to check it out more.

Wide open if there is a lot of spherical aberration it can sort of make a false focal point all those rays swamp out the main rays enough to make some point that is not the true focal plane of all the main central rays seem to be it and then when you stop down and block off all those outer rays that are suffering from SA you only see the true focal plane but since it focused when it was wide open and got tricked it might not be right on the right place anymore.