24-70 f4 tests along with surprising 24-105 result

I have seen it stated here by more than a few folks who felt the 24-105 was as sharp or sharper than the 24-70.
Usually it's scoffed at but here ya go.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …70-f4-is-resolution-tests

Comments.

So according to the result, the Tamron is cheaper, sharper and can do f2.8.

Why should I even consider 24-70f4 IS then?

kin2son wrote in post #15523590
So according to the result, the Tamron is cheaper, sharper and can do f2.8.

Why should I even consider 24-70f4 IS then?

Because it is Canon and it has a red ring?

Seriously, people will still jump at the original Canon lenses (ironically, mostly professionals), even if they are inferior and have 2 times bigger price tag.

On the other hand, there are other factors, like built quality, customer support, AF performance and weather-sealing. I can understand that for some people it's by far more important than "sharpness" or even 1 stop of aperture.

Let's say you are a news reporter - all you need is a reliable all around lens, with fast AF and weather-sealing, also something that could be repaired very fast if it gets broken.
They really don't care much about sharpness.

kin2son wrote in post #15523590
So according to the result, the Tamron is cheaper, sharper and can do f2.8.

Why should I even consider 24-70f4 IS then?

The Tamron is not sharper according to this test, and the Canon is smaller, lighter, has macro mode, less barrel distortion, and arguably a better IS system. All valid reasons to consider it. What you give up is 2.8.

I own this lens and thus far think it is excellent. A perfect travel and event lens.

For what it's worth, I sold a 24-70 Mk II in favor of it. Size and weight being the primary decision point, as I viewed image quality virtually equal between the two. Same can't be said of the 24-105 I used to own.

I look at this way too....why would Canon invest the R&D and manufacturing tool up for this lens if the intent was not to raise the bar in the category? They have other things they could be working on if not for this.

I thought the 24-105 results versus the 24-70 version 1 were surprisin the.
Regardless of what is there the 24-105 is a very nice lens.

If I understood it right Tamron beats out the mk1 in everything but not as good as the m2. The canon f4 and tamron are so close that I dont see why you would buy the f4. Its essentially the same except with the tamron you also get 2.8. So that makes a very good case for tamrons new 2.8 vc.

But like the article said at the end they didnt test bokeh or autofocus speed or anything like that. So there is still more to consider. But in this test I would recommend the tamron.

blschaefer1 wrote in post #15524005
I look at this way too....why would Canon invest the R&D and manufacturing tool up for this lens if the intent was not to raise the bar in the category? They have other things they could be working on if not for this.

Well, you can invest in R&D to set a new standard, but the R&D can fail to deliver - happens all the time. After that they can still go with bringing it out on the market, and try to sell it to cut losses, even if it wasn't a good investment in the first place.
Also, big companies (like Canon) sometimes make decisions that make 'no sense', because it's being run by business men, not photographers. Shareholder wealth maximization is the goal - a good product in their eyes, is a product that sells - and with good marketing department, you can pretty much sell anything. Also, even if the intentions were good - the final decision can be distorted by the complex bureaucracy system.
So the logic "they know what they are doing, so it must be good" doesn't apply here - that's exactly what the marketing department tries to achieve.

Studying economics at the university - have an exam on this stuff tomorrow


Not saying it's a bad lens, but it is kinda pricey, so it's not easy to accept it.

I personally love my 24-105, and use it often for walkaround and studio work.

On the 5D3, given its high ISO performance, I have never found myself in need of 2.8. Different strokes for different folks, but I can tell you that in terms of build quality and reliability, I am certain biased in favor of my L glass over third-party manufacturers.

Anthon wrote in post #15523835
Because it is Canon and it has a red ring?

Seriously, people will still jump at the original Canon lenses (ironically, mostly professionals), even if they are inferior and have 2 times bigger price tag.

On the other hand, there are other factors, like built quality, customer support, AF performance and weather-sealing. I can understand that for some people it's by far more important than "sharpness" or even 1 stop of aperture.

Let's say you are a news reporter - all you need is a reliable all around lens, with fast AF and weather-sealing, also something that could be repaired very fast if it gets broken.
They really don't care much about sharpness.

the difference in sharpness isn't that huge. if you're in it for a living reliability is much more important. if a lens is missing focus or the front element falls out it's not going to do you much good .

"Obviously this hasn’t told us a thing about autofocus accuracy, bokeh, or a dozen other things that have to be considered when choosing a lens. Just like you, I’ll be waiting for more complete reviews to tell us about that."

Anthon wrote in post #15524335
Well, you can invest in R&D to set a new standard, but the R&D can fail to deliver - happens all the time. After that they can still go with bringing it out on the market, and try to sell it to cut losses, even if it wasn't a good investment in the first place.
Also, big companies (like Canon) sometimes make decisions that make 'no sense', because it's being run by business men, not photographers. Shareholder wealth maximization is the goal - a good product in their eyes, is a product that sells - and with good marketing department, you can pretty much sell anything. Also, even if the intentions were good - the final decision can be distorted by the complex bureaucracy system.
So the logic "they know what they are doing, so it must be good" doesn't apply here - that's exactly what the marketing department tries to achieve.

Studying economics at the university - have an exam on this stuff tomorrow


Not saying it's a bad lens, but it is kinda pricey, so it's not easy to accept it.

Valid points - I work for a large publically traded company with a very large R&D budget. Our weak point is marketing, so the products need to stand on their own to succeed. If we've got a 'pig', it stays stuck in the lab and never makes it to market. I liken Canon to my company a bit. Not brilliant marketing, but generally good products with strong R&D behind them. If Canon was more marketing driven, as an example, they'd be playing the megapixel race with Nikon at all costs. Further, Canon has been methodically updating several lenses recently, such as the 24-70 f/2.8II and 35mm f/2IS, with very good results. I believe the 24-70 f/4 falls into this category.

Price is another matter...and another discussion.

blschaefer1 wrote in post #15524005
The Tamron is not sharper according to this test, and the Canon is smaller, lighter, has macro mode, less barrel distortion, and arguably a better IS system. All valid reasons to consider it. What you give up is 2.8.

I own this lens and thus far think it is excellent. A perfect travel and event lens.

For what it's worth, I sold a 24-70 Mk II in favor of it. Size and weight being the primary decision point, as I viewed image quality virtually equal between the two. Same can't be said of the 24-105 I used to own.

I look at this way too....why would Canon invest the R&D and manufacturing tool up for this lens if the intent was not to raise the bar in the category? They have other things they could be working on if not for this.

this is the first I've heard of this... is weight really that much of a factor? When I carry the 50L (lighter than the 24-70F4IS) vs the Tamron 24-70VC(similar to the 24-70mk2 size), weight is one of the last things that I care about because both are in the "I'll deal with it" category. Total weight goes from 1590 to 1830 grams total with body... it's hardly worth talking about IMO as the lens is fairly large still. Now going with something like the 35F2IS or other smaller primes, it does make a noticeable difference since it's another notch below AND not as long so less tipping weight.

Anthon wrote in post #15523835
Let's say you are a news reporter - all you need is a reliable all around lens, with fast AF and weather-sealing, also something that could be repaired very fast if it gets broken.
They really don't care much about sharpness.

That seems like a good advertisement just to get the 24-105, then.

KarlGB77 wrote in post #15523548
I have seen it stated here by more than a few folks who felt the 24-105 was as sharp or sharper than the 24-70.
Usually it's scoffed at but here ya go.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …70-f4-is-resolution-tests

Comments.

This article is almost 3 weeks old now, and has been discussed already, and is one of the main sources why prople scoff at the 105 being sharper than the new lens! From what I gather, the new lens is 2nd to Canon's mk II, just ahead of Tamron and those 3 are a distance ahead of the older Canon zooms.

Price and range are the only advantages, and IMO from 70-105 it is at its weakest.

I don't know what people expected from this lens, but it is priced in between the 24-105 and the 24-70 II, and I think once it's price settles all 3 of Canon's 24-X zooms will be priced perfectly based on performance.

I am contemplating selling my 100L for this lens, I want:

Sharp 24mm landscape lens with minimal distortion
Small zoom sharp from f4-f11 for group work
Macro lens that allows close focus as opposed to 1:1

And this lens is exactly what I need.

I buy the 24-105, I save cash but I am not happy with it's performance (have used a fair bit via rental).
I buy Tamron, I still need my 100L, and have bad 24mm distortion.
I buy 24-70 II and I have absolute perfection, but for my needs I still keep 100L and would rather have IS over f2.8 in standard zoom.

So from where I sit, I can see why they came out with this lens. It is perfect for wedding/event photographers to cover group work and detail shots.

as long as I brag about only the advantages and totally ignore the disadvantages then every lens is a winner!

HyperYagami wrote in post #15525254
as long as I brag about only the advantages and totally ignore the disadvantages then every lens is a winner!

Resume writing 101!