24-70 f/4L IS?

I am quite intrigued by this lens. I currently have the 24-70 2.8L mark I and I do occasionally shoot weddings. Would the new lens be sufficient for wedding use being f/4? I would think during ceremonies the IS would help more since people generally don't move around a whole lot during a ceremony. The only drawback I could see is at receptions but I do set up speedlites around the room wireless to provide necessary light so f/4 might not set me back too much. I also hear the IQ of the f/4 lens is not far off from the f/2.8 mk II.

What do you think?

Also a feature I think is great for weddings is the macro so I don't have to waste time changing to a dedicated macro lens for detail shots.

I'm thinking about buying this lens for group work in tight spaces, and also for a wide landscape lens. I think when paired with a prime or 2 it could be the perfect standard zoom.

I won't know until I buy it (if I do) if it could mean selling my 100L, I don't use that lens for much 1:1 truth be told, it is mainly used for close focus rather than magnification for me.

kobeson wrote in post #15516765
I'm thinking about buying this lens for group work in tight spaces, and also for a wide landscape lens. I think when paired with a prime or 2 it could be the perfect standard zoom.

I won't know until I buy it (if I do) if it could mean selling my 100L, I don't use that lens for much 1:1 truth be told, it is mainly used for close focus rather than magnification for me.

I don't use my 100L much for that either and having a standard zoom capable of decent macro would be great for wedding because its a pain to switch to the macro lens for just a couple shots then switch back. I am just concerned with the limits of the f/4.

entrefoto wrote in post #15516513
I am quite intrigued by this lens. I currently have the 24-70 2.8L mark I and I do occasionally shoot weddings. Would the new lens be sufficient for wedding use being f/4? I would think during ceremonies the IS would help more since people generally don't move around a whole lot during a ceremony. The only drawback I could see is at receptions but I do set up speedlites around the room wireless to provide necessary light so f/4 might not set me back too much. I also hear the IQ of the f/4 lens is not far off from the f/2.8 mk II.

What do you think?

Also a feature I think is great for weddings is the macro so I don't have to waste time changing to a dedicated macro lens for detail shots.

What do you think? Are you using the MkI at f/2.8 to get the correct exposure? Or, are you shooting at f/2.8 for depth of field control. This is one of those "You are the best judge" questions.

If you are thinking about this lens, you have to take 24-105 f4 into consideration

It should be pretty similar to 24-105mm f4. Saw some side-by-side comparisons, doesn't look like optics improved that much. A lot of reviewer report less sharpness on 24-70.

AF performance is about the same...

Also 24-70 f4 has 4 stops IS, while 24-105 f4 has 3 stops. But 24-105 has extra 35mm on the tele range, making in more versatile.

For me, the price was the deciding factor - paid almost 2 times less for a new 24-105 that I would for 24-70. But even if they were the same price, I really doubt I would go with 24-70.

So yeah... if you weren't impressed by 24-105 you won't be impressed by 24-70 f4.

At the price difference between this and the 24-105 you have to wonder what Canon was thinking

Anthon wrote in post #15516882
If you are thinking about this lens, you have to take 24-105 f4 into consideration

It should be pretty similar to 24-105mm f4. Saw some side-by-side comparisons, doesn't look like optics improved that much. A lot of reviewer report less sharpness on 24-70.

AF performance is about the same...

Also 24-70 f4 has 4 stops IS, while 24-105 f4 has 3 stops. But 24-105 has extra 35mm on the tele range, making in more versatile.

For me, the price was the deciding factor - paid almost 2 times less for a new 24-105 that I would for 24-70. But even if they were the same price, I really doubt I would go with 24-70.

So yeah... if you weren't impressed by 24-105 you won't be impressed by 24-70 f4.

Most early reports show:

1. Canon 24-70 II
2. Canon 24-70 f4
3. Tamron 24-70
4. Sigma 24-70
5. Canon 24-105

I have rented the 24-70 II and 24-105 within 4 days of one another, and the difference between those 2 lenses is quite dramatic considering both are in the same L class.

There is a reason the 24-105 is so cheap, it is a lens that barely deserves the L status imo. If the 24-70 f4 is just as unimpressive, then I will eat my words and will be buying the Tamron - but I really don't think that will be the case, judging by the early reports. Once it drops to closer to the Tamron price, I think it will be a winner of a lens choice.

entrefoto wrote in post #15516776
I am just concerned with the limits of the f/4.

This is why I think it would be ideal to have a prime in your kit also - I don't already have the f2.8 zoom, but having a 35 and the 24-70f4 would allow perfect coverage for what I want the zoom for.

I own this lens and it is just a great all rounder. I actually sold my 24-70 f2.8 II in favor of it. The image quality (sharpness, color , contrast) was basically identical in the center, with the 2.8 being every so slightly sharper in the corners.

The upsides versus the 2.8 II are size, weight, IS, and macro. It is a great size, just right on a 5D or 6D body.

I previously owned a 24-105 f/4 IS. In my case at least, the 24-70 f/4 IS is a step up in image quality.

I sold the brick and went with the Tammy, although i haven't used the lens in anything "real" but it works well so far. Just my two cents, i dont think the 24-70 F4 IS is worth the price tag, instead that $1500-1600 should be the tag for the 24-70II. We'll see how they hold up their price in a couple years down the road.

blschaefer1 wrote in post #15516953
I own this lens and it is just a great all rounder. I actually sold my 24-70 f2.8 II in favor of it. The image quality (sharpness, color , contrast) was basically identical in the center, with the 2.8 being every so slightly sharper in the corners.

The upsides versus the 2.8 II are size, weight, IS, and macro. It is a great size, just right on a 5D or 6D body.

I previously owned a 24-105 f/4 IS. In my case at least, the 24-70 f/4 IS is a step up in image quality.

Wow, so you decided to sell the 24-70 II in the end? This is good to hear for the f4!

kobeson wrote in post #15516936
Most early reports show:

1. Canon 24-70 II
2. Canon 24-70 f4
3. Tamron 24-70
4. Sigma 24-70
5. Canon 24-105

I have rented the 24-70 II and 24-105 within 4 days of one another, and the difference between those 2 lenses is quite dramatic considering both are in the same L class.

There is a reason the 24-105 is so cheap, it is a lens that barely deserves the L status imo. If the 24-70 f4 is just as unimpressive, then I will eat my words and will be buying the Tamron - but I really don't think that will be the case, judging by the early reports. Once it drops to closer to the Tamron price, I think it will be a winner of a lens choice.

Don't know about that...
Have you actually compared them side by side? Because the difference is never quite dramatic - if it is, then it's probably your imagination or there are other factors involved.

My 24-105 hasn't arrived yet, but the first thing I'll do, is to compare it to 70-200 f4 L, 17-55 2.8 and 50 1.4 in a controlled environment.
If it clearly loses to mentioned lenses (which are proven to be good optically), then I'll eat my words and send it back.

I'll post it on this site.

Just because you don't need to sell a kidney to buy it, doesn't make it bad.

Anthon wrote in post #15517023
Don't know about that...
Have you actually compared them side by side? Because the difference is never quite dramatic - if it is, then it's probably your imagination or there are other factors involved.

My 24-105 hasn't arrived yet, but the first thing I'll do, is to compare it to 70-200 f4 L, 17-55 2.8 and 50 1.4 in a controlled environment.
If it clearly loses to mentioned lenses (which are proven to be good optically), then I'll eat my words and send it back.

I'll post it on this site.

Just because you don't need to sell a kidney to buy it, doesn't make it bad.

Yes, as I said in my post, I rented both lenses within 4 days of one another, and I found the differences really obvious. Ok, maybe 'dramatic' isn't the right word, but I can tell between the 2 lenses by looking at my images.

My main observations were:

- All around the edges the 24-105 was soft, and the mk II is pin sharp corner to corner at all focal lengths at all apertures.

- Centre sharpness was negligible, colours and contrast were a slight edge to the mk II.

- I noticed the lack of IS on the mk II sometimes, so this is one advantage of the 24-105 in regards to the mk II.

- from 70-105 I thought the 24-105 was quite weak really, not sharp enough for me to consider it an advantage.


Considering both lenses are in the same class, yes I was unimpressed by the 24-105. I think if all you want is a cheap zoom to cover the FL, then by all means it is a good buy. But when we are comparing it to the best Canon has to offer, it would be near the bottom of the L pile. I thought the 24-105 performed similarly (optically) to my old 10-22 on a crop, whereas the mk II really is like a bunch of primes in one lens.

kobeson wrote in post #15517010
Wow, so you decided to sell the 24-70 II in the end? This is good to hear for the f4!

I did. The 2.8 II is a world class lens. Even though it is lighter than its predecessor, it is still a beast and in the end I opted to keep the lighter, smaller 24-70 f/4 IS.

kobeson wrote in post #15517073
Yes, as I said in my post, I rented both lenses within 4 days of one another, and I found the differences really obvious.

My main observations were:

- All around the edges the 24-105 was soft, and the mk II is pin sharp corner to corner at all focal lengths at all apertures.

- Centre sharpness was negligible, colours and contrast were a slight edge to the mk II.

- I noticed the lack of IS on the mk II sometimes, so this is one advantage of the 24-105 in regards to the mk II.

- from 70-105 I thought the 24-105 was quite weak really, not sharp enough for me to consider it an advantage.


Considering both lenses are in the same class, yes I was unimpressed by the 24-105. I think if all you want is a cheap zoom to cover the FL, then by all means it is a good buy. But when we are comparing it to the best Canon has to offer, it would be near the bottom of the L pile. I thought the 24-105 performed similarly (optically) to my old 10-22 on a crop, whereas the mk II really is like a bunch of primes in one lens.

Sorry for my bad english, but "within 4 days of one another" is not side by side, is it?

Even if optical quality is weak compared to the rest of the L serie, you can't just ignore AF performance and the built quality (weathersealing, not all L lenses have it btw).
That alone makes it a worthy L lens: and optical quality is overrated anyways - we tend to pixel peep to much.
In what real life scenario could you tell these 2 lenses apart, honestly?