Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 11 Nov 2014 (Tuesday) 12:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The Awkward Lens: 24-70 F4L IS Review

 
howiewu
Senior Member
Avatar
627 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Feb 2011
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:41 |  #31

There is nothing awkward about this lens. I acquired it after having gone thru 2 copies of 24-105. I think it is a superb lens that allows you to get wide-angle shots and macro shots with one lens. Occasionally I miss the reach of the 24-105 but I have other lenses to cover the ground.

I also think the purported weakness at 50mm is way overblown. I'm aware of the tests, but if you look closely, stopped down, at 50mm it is still quite good. In any case I shoot at whatever focal length I want and never worry about its "weakness".


5DII, 70D
17-40mm f/4 USM L, 24-70mm f/4 IS USM L, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM L, 24mm f/3.5 TS-E L, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 USM, 100mm f/2.8 IS USM L, 300mm f/2.8 IS USM II L, 430 EX II, 270 EX II, 1.4x TC III, 2x TC III, Kenko Pro 300 1.4x TC
Home Page: http://www.travelerath​ome.com (external link), Blog: http://travelerathome.​wordpress.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
SixDeeFan
Senior Member
287 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 154
Joined Aug 2014
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Nov 12, 2014 11:54 |  #32

gonzogolf wrote in post #17266625 (external link)
Nobody is having a hard time choosing between the f4 and f2.8, if they were it might sctually be selling.

Seriously? I guess you're right...hence selling the f/2.8 for the f/4 IS.


6D MARK II | EF 50 f/1.2L USM | Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC G2 | Tamron SP 2X Pro TC | Tamron TAP-in Console

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bikfoto
Alexander the Wannabe
Avatar
422 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Nov 12, 2014 12:00 |  #33

I personally felt this lens is a little awkward in terms of not having any specific purpose. For me, it's not great for travel, not great for portraits, not great for indoors. I couldn't find any use for it. 24-70 f/2.8 is much better imho.


bikfoto (external link)
Need a WEBSITE? (external link)
Gear & Feedback
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SixDeeFan
Senior Member
287 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 154
Joined Aug 2014
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Nov 12, 2014 13:05 |  #34

bikfoto wrote in post #17267571 (external link)
I personally felt this lens is a little awkward in terms of not having any specific purpose. For me, it's not great for travel, not great for portraits, not great for indoors. I couldn't find any use for it. 24-70 f/2.8 is much better imho.

???


6D MARK II | EF 50 f/1.2L USM | Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC G2 | Tamron SP 2X Pro TC | Tamron TAP-in Console

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LonelyBoy
Goldmember
1,438 posts
Gallery: 76 photos
Likes: 872
Joined Oct 2014
     
Nov 12, 2014 13:38 |  #35

SixDeeFan wrote in post #17267704 (external link)
???

I'm with you (if I interpret that correctly). Yeah, the more expensive lens is better. Ok...


https://www.flickr.com​/photos/127590681@N03/ (external link)
I love a like, but feedback (including CC) is even better!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SixDeeFan
Senior Member
287 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 154
Joined Aug 2014
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Nov 12, 2014 14:22 |  #36

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17267770 (external link)
I'm with you (if I interpret that correctly). Yeah, the more expensive lens is better. Ok...

You did...


6D MARK II | EF 50 f/1.2L USM | Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC G2 | Tamron SP 2X Pro TC | Tamron TAP-in Console

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,130 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1147
Joined Dec 2006
     
Nov 12, 2014 14:40 |  #37

SixDeeFan wrote in post #17267561 (external link)
Seriously? I guess you're right...hence selling the f/2.8 for the f/4 IS.

The 2.8II?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOS-Mike
Goldmember
Avatar
1,030 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 212
Joined Oct 2013
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
     
Nov 12, 2014 14:49 |  #38

If price were equal it would never make sense to turn down IS. It really works well. So having it on any lens is a plus. Unfortunately, it can cost significantly more to have it.

I'd like to see the 85 1.8 with IS. That would be sweet. I love the lens, but at 1.8 it's not very forgiving for me until I crank that shutter speed really high (while shooting handheld).

I like IS on anything.


Sony A7 III and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SixDeeFan
Senior Member
287 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 154
Joined Aug 2014
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Nov 12, 2014 15:08 |  #39

gonzogolf wrote in post #17267865 (external link)
The 2.8II?

yep...too many things missing on it...4 stop IS, too heavy, too large, no macro capabilities. The only positive being 2.8 at twice the price.


6D MARK II | EF 50 f/1.2L USM | Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8 DI VC G2 | Tamron SP 70-200 f/2.8 Di VC G2 | Tamron SP 2X Pro TC | Tamron TAP-in Console

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
2,983 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Likes: 730
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Nov 12, 2014 16:53 |  #40

howiewu wrote in post #17267534 (external link)
I also think the purported weakness at 50mm is way overblown. I'm aware of the tests, but if you look closely, stopped down, at 50mm it is still quite good. In any case I shoot at whatever focal length I want and never worry about its "weakness".

+1. My copy is very sharp at 50mm even wide open at f/4. Maybe the reviewer's tests show that it is slightly less sharp than at 70mm, but I don't see it. Even so, I would say this lens has as good or better IQ than the 24-105 at any shared focal length or aperture.


Fujifilm X-T3, 16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2, 80mm f/2.8 OIS Macro, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OIS, 1.4x TC, Flashpoint R2 Strobes/Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
14,531 posts
Likes: 7743
Joined Oct 2009
     
Nov 12, 2014 19:41 |  #41

I picked up the new 7D2 and pre-order Canada lens deal. I sold it to a friend and he is pretty happy with. Told me tonight it was worth every penny, just like his 70-200 2.8 II. He said the Macro was great. I did not know it had it as I never took the lens out of the box.

He borrowed my 24-105 once and never asked for it again. He has borrowed my 100L F4 IS several times. He is pretty picky. I can't back any of that because I have never shot with it but I just thought I'd pass that on. Not trying to run down or promote any lenses.


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BrandonSi
Nevermind.. I'm silly.
Avatar
5,306 posts
Gallery: 62 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 143
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
     
Nov 12, 2014 20:13 |  #42

digital paradise wrote in post #17268479 (external link)
I picked up the new 7D2 and pre-order Canada lens deal. I sold it to a friend and he is pretty happy with. Told me tonight it was worth every penny, just like his 70-200 2.8 II. He said the Macro was great. I did not know it had it as I never took the lens out of the box.

The macro mode is awesome. The only downside is that you can get so close you block the light to whatever it is you're shooting (unless you're using a proper ring flash). The lens is easily as sharp as the 24-70 Mk I, which I always thought was pretty darn sharp.

The prices people are selling these at (like yourself, who get them with the 7D2's) make this lens a really, really good value.


[ www (external link)· flickr (external link)]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,271 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 7881
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Nov 12, 2014 21:51 |  #43

EOS-Mike wrote in post #17267895 (external link)
If price were equal it would never make sense to turn down IS. It really works well. So having it on any lens is a plus. Unfortunately, it can cost significantly more to have it.

I'd like to see the 85 1.8 with IS. That would be sweet. I love the lens, but at 1.8 it's not very forgiving for me until I crank that shutter speed really high (while shooting handheld).

I like IS on anything.

I agree IS is always nice. And it used to impose a heavy premium on lens prices, but lately Canon prices suggest it's no longer the case (as much).


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, CV 40mm, FE 50mm ZA, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tat3406
Senior Member
Avatar
275 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2013
     
Nov 13, 2014 01:27 |  #44

The macro mode is not gimmick. After I have this 24-70 F4, I seldom bring my 100L other than going out for just Macro purpose. The macro mode didnt replace the dedicate macro lens but this is useful when you only have one lens.
Which lens in the market have 84 degree diagonal field of view and 0.7 max Magnification?
The only shortcoming is RRP price, but street price now is only little more than 24-105L.


6D, 100L,24-70 F4L, 40mm pancake, 70-300L
Carl Zeiss MP 50
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tat3406/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Neilyb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,191 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 438
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Munich
     
Nov 13, 2014 03:57 |  #45

SixDeeFan wrote in post #17265888 (external link)
Why? Why does the new 16-35 have IS? I thought one of the big selling points of the Tamron 24-70 was its VC. Why is Image Stabilization not needed or wanted on this lens?

Because the IS badge sells lenses, even if usefulness is limited at the wide end. On 200mm plus it makes more sense (IMO).


http://natureimmortal.​blogspot.com (external link)

http://www.natureimmor​tal.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

10,158 views & 0 likes for this thread
The Awkward Lens: 24-70 F4L IS Review
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is bsipka
1006 guests, 354 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.