24-70 f/4L IS?

Anthon wrote in post #15517210
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?

While I didn't have them on the same day, but I did use them at the exact same venue for the exact same use, and as I said when I look back at the images I can tell which lens was used for which shots.

Tell me, what is the basis for your comment: "So yeah... if you weren't impressed by 24-105 you won't be impressed by 24-70 f4"? At least I have actually used the 2 lenses I am comparing...

Look, I don't want to argue with you, you are looking forward to your new lens and by all means I hope you enjoy it.

Just realise though, on your 600D the differences between both lenses would probably go unnoticed, but on my 5D3 the differences were obvious in all areas mentioned above. Some lenses don't cover the full-frame corners well, and the 24-105 suffered considerably compared to the 24-70 II. No side-by-side comparisons required.

kobeson wrote in post #15517267
While I didn't have them on the same day, but I did use them at the exact same venue for the exact same use, and as I said when I look back at the images I can tell which lens was used for which shots.

Tell me, what is the basis for your comment: "So yeah... if you weren't impressed by 24-105 you won't be impressed by 24-70 f4"? At least I have actually used the 2 lenses I am comparing...

Look, I don't want to argue with you, you are looking forward to your new lens and by all means I hope you enjoy it.

Just realise though, on your 600D the differences between both lenses would probably go unnoticed, but on my 5D3 the differences were obvious in all areas mentioned above. Some lenses don't cover the full-frame corners well, and the 24-105 suffered considerably compared to the 24-70 II. No side-by-side comparisons required.

Can you share some pictures please.

ifi wrote in post #15517344
Can you share some pictures please.

Yes please, I would like to see what you mean.

the digital picture comparison at 50mm between the 24-105L, and 24-70IS show the older lens performing better...and that's against three different copies...

Anthon wrote in post #15517352
Yes please, I would like to see what you mean.

I don't have any hi-res examples, and I only have a few low-res online which don't represent my opinion. I dunno, maybe I got a bad copy of the 105 and a perfect copy of the mk II, but in my experience the gap is noticeable enough between the 2 lenses for me to be interested in the 24-70 f4 instead of the 24-105, even at the difference in price (once it drops a bit). As I said, the 105 is a good cheap lens, and on a crop is probably a very good lens (although the focal length isn't ideal on crop).

kobeson wrote in post #15517556
I don't have any hi-res examples, and I only have a few low-res online which don't represent my opinion. I dunno, maybe I got a bad copy of the 105 and a perfect copy of the mk II, but in my experience the gap is noticeable enough between the 2 lenses for me to be interested in the 24-70 f4 instead of the 24-105, even at the difference in price (once it drops a bit). As I said, the 105 is a good cheap lens, and on a crop is probably a very good lens (although the focal length isn't ideal on crop).

What happened to the hi-res images?

kobeson wrote in post #15517556
I don't have any hi-res examples, and I only have a few low-res online which don't represent my opinion. I dunno, maybe I got a bad copy of the 105 and a perfect copy of the mk II, but in my experience the gap is noticeable enough between the 2 lenses for me to be interested in the 24-70 f4 instead of the 24-105, even at the difference in price (once it drops a bit). As I said, the 105 is a good cheap lens, and on a crop is probably a very good lens (although the focal length isn't ideal on crop).

If you look at "objective" test sites like photozone.de they would concur with your opinion - the 24-105L is really weak in the corners and not that great of a full frame lens, but performs much better on a crop camera where the corners are not used. That's why I'll probably keep my 24-105L as long as I use my 7D, but may consider an upgrade if I ever go FF.

jrbdmb wrote in post #15518180
If you look at "objective" test sites like photozone.de they would concur with your opinion - the 24-105L is really weak in the corners and not that great of a full frame lens, but performs much better on a crop camera where the corners are not used. That's why I'll probably keep my 24-105L as long as I use my 7D, but may consider an upgrade if I ever go FF.

Which is the case with most lenses they've reviewed. Lets wait till they review the new 24-70 f4.