Why not much talk about the 24-70 IS F4 ?? Experience ?

I am really starting to lean towards the F4, reasons being IQ, lightness and size which means the wife can carry it and I can boost my mk3 ISO to compensate for F4.. If I need Bokeh I can use my 50 or 85 1.8

I bought one about $900 used and very happy with it. I don't have 24-105 so unable to compared, the image quality is similar to my prime quality, performance is perfect and feel solid in my hand. I like close up so the Macro mode is very convenience if no macro lens with me. The IQ at macro mode is decent, but the working distance is shorter than real macro lens.

I think 24-70 F4 is the best general use and travel lens. If you no need Macro, go for 24-105, if you need f/2.8, go for Tamron 24-70. I think the majority complain is about the price!

it's a lens that nobody was asking for...and at a price that isn't going to lure in those that are curious about it

another lens option now is going to be the new sigma 24-105f4 OS lens

also, this softness at 50mm when it first came out certainly didn't help...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

DreDaze wrote in post #16514956
it's a lens that nobody was asking for...and at a price that isn't going to lure in those that are curious about it

another lens option now is going to be the new sigma 24-105f4 OS lens

also, this softness at 50mm when it first came out certainly didn't help...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

The softest part at 50mm is unusual for a general zoom lens, but the lens is sharper than 24-105 at 24mm and 70mm, that is good for me because I shoot either wide end or tele end.

This is the only Zoom lens can do magnification to 0.7x, 24-105 only 0.23x, tamron 24-70 is only 0.20x. This lens is for people need decent macro ability in general purpose zoom lens.

I Love Cats wrote in post #16511662
I don't know how anyone else thinks, but for that kind of money the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC is a no brainer. One more stop of light and $300 extra in my pocket? Ok. Give me the Tamron.

Agreed on the Tamron. That's a no brainer indeed.

I wasn't too sure about the 24-70mm f/4L IS at first and I would never have gotten one if I was going to be paying cash. I ended up trading my 1D3 for it and I'm actually really impressed with it. I was never too impressed with the 24-105L that came with the 5D2 package. The range seemed to fall a bit short (me being used to a 1D3 and a 28-135mm IS) and it just wasn't impressively sharp for me. I sold it for $850 and kept the 28-135mm IS. I don't really use this walk-around range anyway. After getting the 24-70mm f/4L IS (mostly due to curiosity about its abilities and the macro mode) I have to say that I really do like it. The macro mode especially stands out to me. It's great having a go-to macro ability that means I don't have to switch lenses in the wet, dust, or sand. I also don't have to carry another lens I otherwise wouldn't have brought, on hikes or walking around the city for example.

All in all, I'm very glad I have this lens in my bag.

I am generally in favor of F/4 versions of Canon lenses. I don't have the 24-70mm IS F/4, but I do have the 7-200 IS F/4 and the 24-105mm IS F/4.

The advantage to F/4 lenses over the F/2.8 lenses is lower weight and much lower cost. I think these are serious considerations. And the optics are usually much similar in overall quality between F/2.8 and F/4 lenses from Canon.

Given the fact that the new 24-70 F/2.8 also does not have IS, then I would opt for the 24-70 IS F/4 version in order to get the IS function. I have the older 24-70 F/2.8 now, but if I ever did decide to upgrade it I would definitely consider the 24-70 IS F/4 in order to gain the IS and lower weight.

I hardly shoot at F/2.8. In fact, almost never. So giving up that one stop on the aperture is never a concern for me anyway.

One other thing to consider is that IS usually allows you to shoot 2 stops slower and still hand hold than without IS. So if you buy the IS F/4 version you lose one stop on the aperture over the F/2.8 version, but you also gain 2 stops on shutter speed. A worthwhile consideration.

I hope that helps...

Ummmmmmmm..
Tamron 24-70 IS 2.8.. arse about face zoom ring and slower AF.
Or
Canon 24-70 non IS.. F4, Better IQ and pricey...
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16515626
Ummmmmmmm..
Tamron 24-70 IS 2.8.. arse about face zoom ring and slower AF.
Or
Canon 24-70 non IS.. F4, Better IQ and pricey...
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS has some advantages concerning the wide side (less distorsion at 24mm), the size & weight, the AF, the "macro" mode (but with focus shift...). But better IQ ??

Titi

titi_67207 wrote in post #16515644
The Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS has some advantages concerning the wide side (less distorsion at 24mm), the size & weight, the AF, the "macro" mode (but with focus shift...). But better IQ ??

Titi

According to Roger Cicala's Canon 24-70 f/4 IS Resolution Tests, where he compares it to the Tamron 24-70mm VC, the Canon beats the Tamron in resolution at both ends of the zoom range, even when then Tamron is stopped down to f/4.

I consider the 24-70mm f/4 IS a jack-of-all-trades type of lens. It covers the most common focal lengths, negates the need for a tripod, is a pseudo macro lens and has great IQ. Not to mention that it is smaller and lighter than the rest of the 24-70s. The only 'problem' that others have commented on is the higher price, but that will drop in the next year or two.

frugivore wrote in post #16515698
According to Roger Cicala's Canon 24-70 f/4 IS Resolution Tests, where he compares it to the Tamron 24-70mm VC, the Canon beats the Tamron in resolution at both ends of the zoom range, even when then Tamron is stopped down to f/4.

I consider the 24-70mm f/4 IS a jack-of-all-trades type of lens. It covers the most common focal lengths, negates the need for a tripod, is a pseudo macro lens and has great IQ. Not to mention that it is smaller and lighter than the rest of the 24-70s. The only 'problem' that others have commented on is the higher price, but that will drop in the next year or two.

The difference of resolution between these two zooms seem minimal. They are both better in all cases than the 24-70L f/2.8 Mk1. And you're true, the price of the 24-70 f/4 IS is too far from the "oldie but rangie" 24-105 f/4 IS...

Titi

frugivore wrote in post #16515698
According to Roger Cicala's Canon 24-70 f/4 IS Resolution Tests, where he compares it to the Tamron 24-70mm VC, the Canon beats the Tamron in resolution at both ends of the zoom range, even when then Tamron is stopped down to f/4.
..

The one thing that I find interesting is the huge variation between copies. Even tossing out the two clearly bad copies, the variation is quite large.

this lens may be more interesting when the price drops.

reminds me of the 35 f2 IS, was like 850? when it came out, which is obviously way overpriced, but now that it's 550, it's much more appealing.

once this lens drops to a more reasonable price, it will be interesting, but until then it finds itself in the awkward position of being priced close to the 2.8 and having to compete with the $6xx dollar 24-105.

I agree that price is the main reason this lens has been so unappealing -- with the secondary reason that it loses focal range versus the cheaper 24-105L. While I am quite happy with my 24-105L, improved optics and a smaller, lighter lens would make me at least consider an upgrade if the price was not so high. This lens needs to drop to around $900 street price before I would even consider swapping out the 24-105L, and even then it would not be a high priority.

isn't the macro working distance ridiculously small? i don't think it's usable on bugs for instance, because you need to get super close to the subject...

you could get a 24-105L, and a 100mm macro, and still have $200 left over in your pocket