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 22 Apr 2014 (Tuesday) 17:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Defending the 24-70mm F/4

 
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Apr 22, 2014 17:05 |  #1

I do not see why this lens is so unpopular, it has many advantages over the 24-105mm and other lenses.

    Lightweight and small. A mere 600 grams. It's the same size as crop standard zooms like the 15-85mm and 18-135mm!


    Lowest distortion. At 24mm it's just 2.4%. It beats even the 24-70mm II which comes in at 2.83%. Trounces the carnival mirror like 24-105mm which comes in at 4.28%.


    IS. It has 4 stops IS, beating the 24-105mm 3 stop IS. And unlike the 24-70mm II 2.8 which can't realistically be shot below about 1/125, you can shoot the 24-70mm f/4 all the way down to 1/10.



Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2011
     
Apr 22, 2014 17:12 |  #2

Why can't you shoot the 24-70mm II 2.8 below 1/125? I can shoot my 85mm 1.2L below that.

But you know what I can't do with the 24-70mm f/4? I can't shoot it at f/2.8.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,109 posts
Likes: 195
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Apr 22, 2014 17:18 |  #3

Mornb.
I am with you on the 24-70 f/4 L IS. Why no love?
Boy I wish Canon would give us the choice of IS on the 2.8 version.....but the don't. They do on the 70-200. Sure you hear people say you don't need it in this range, however they include IS on the wonderful 17-55 f/2.8 iS which certainly came in handy for many over the years.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Apr 22, 2014 17:21 |  #4

For a lower price, you get 105mm at f/4.

I think you forgot to mention the macro feature?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2011
     
Apr 22, 2014 17:21 |  #5

It's much easier to put IS in an EF-S lens of that size. If Canon put IS in the 2.8 version you'd have people pissing and moaning about size and weight.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ladera
Member
124 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: California
     
Apr 22, 2014 17:22 |  #6

For me, I'd rather have the extra range from 70-105 than the advantages offered by the 24-70 f4. I also have a sharp copy so the IQ upgrade would be limited in my opinion.


5D Mark III / 35L / 24-105L / 600ex-rt

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
VirtualRain
Senior Member
Avatar
541 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 22, 2014 17:25 |  #7

Mornnb wrote in post #16853682 (external link)
I do not see why this lens is so unpopular, it has many advantages over the 24-105mm and other lenses.

    Lightweight and small. A mere 600 grams. It's the same size as crop standard zooms like the 15-85mm and 18-135mm!


    Lowest distortion. At 24mm it's just 2.4%. It beats even the 24-70mm II which comes in at 2.83%. Trounces the carnival mirror like 24-105mm which comes in at 4.28%.


    IS. It has 4 stops IS, beating the 24-105mm 3 stop IS. And unlike the 24-70mm II 2.8 which can't realistically be shot below about 1/125, you can shoot the 24-70mm f/4 all the way down to 1/10.


I don't like it because it's no faster than the lens I have, offers less reach and costs more. It's a different mix of trade offs that don't appeal to me, and I'm guessing I'm not alone.


Sony a7rII / 24-240 / Zeiss 25, 55, 85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Apr 22, 2014 17:27 |  #8

frugivore wrote in post #16853742 (external link)
For a lower price, you get 105mm at f/4.

I care more about the wide end of the lens given what I shoot. When I need 105mm, I have the 70-200mm.

I think you forgot to mention the macro feature?

No I left it out purposefully, it's not very useful. ;)

VirtualRain wrote in post #16853752 (external link)
I don't like it because it's no faster than the lens I have, offers less reach and costs more. It's a different mix of trade offs that don't appeal to me, and I'm guessing I'm not alone.

I value image quality and size/weight more than reach.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,109 posts
Likes: 195
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Apr 22, 2014 17:30 |  #9

Numenorean wrote in post #16853745 (external link)
It's much easier to put IS in an EF-S lens of that size. If Canon put IS in the 2.8 version you'd have people pissing and moaning about size and weight.

Size and weight. I don't hear people complaining about the size and weight of the 70-200 IS compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 with out IS.
Tamron has VC in their 24-70 at a reasonable weight.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tapeman
Sliced Bread
Avatar
3,722 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 124
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Twin Cities
     
Apr 22, 2014 18:17 |  #10

Give it all the love you want. :)
Because you love a lens and it suits you, doesn't mean everyone is going to love that lens.:(

How many choices do you have in that focal range? 10? 15?:rolleyes:
You probably don't want to own them all. :p

I don't recall hearing bad things about it.

Nice use of smiley faces huh.:cool:


Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII, 2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2.
Gitzo 1228, 1275, 1558, Lensbaby 3G. Epson 3880, Bags that match my shoes.:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Apr 22, 2014 18:40 as a reply to  @ Tapeman's post |  #11

The price is what turned off most people. If it was $1000 it would get the love.
Sure, the 24-70/2.8 II is much more, but going from f/4-f2.8 does that to price/weight/complexit​y.

There aren't any other current "Canon" (zoom)lenses that can compete with the 2.8II, but there are a few other options to compare against the 4/L IS.


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Apr 22, 2014 19:52 |  #12

Numenorean wrote in post #16853745 (external link)
It's much easier to put IS in an EF-S lens of that size. If Canon put IS in the 2.8 version you'd have people pissing and moaning about size and weight.

With the 24-70mm II 2.8 all the compromises where made in favour of image quality. IS would add elements and bulk.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,283 posts
Gallery: 1696 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10665
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Apr 22, 2014 20:29 |  #13

Heya,

Canon EF 24-70 F4L IS

Or

Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC

Very, very easy choice.

Personally, the moment I see F4 on a premium lens, that isn't telephoto, I just move on. It cannot do F2.8, therefore, I don't want it. I don't want a premium zoom that can't do F2.8. I would only look at F4 and all, on a non-premium zoom. The 24-105 is typically $600, which makes it an obvious value, where you're spending the same for it, as the newer non-premium zooms, which is why it's still going to be a popular lens.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
panicatnabisco
Senior Member
Avatar
968 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 307
Joined Apr 2012
Location: san francisco, CA
     
Apr 22, 2014 20:43 |  #14

an f/4 lens at that price and focal rage doesn't make sense to me


Canon 1DX | 6D | 16-35/2.8II | 24-70/2.8II | 50/1.8 | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 85/1.4 | 100/2.8 IS macro | 200mm f/2 | 400/2.8 IS II | 2xIII
Leica M8.2 | Noctilux 50 f/1 | Elmarit 90/2.8
afimages.net (external link) | Facebook (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Apr 22, 2014 20:57 |  #15

VirtualRain wrote in post #16853752 (external link)
I don't like it because it's no faster than the lens I have, offers less reach and costs more. It's a different mix of trade offs that don't appeal to me, and I'm guessing I'm not alone.

Same reasons here.

I value IQ as well. The 24-105 has great IQ. Just because the 24-70 has slightly better IQ doesn't suddenly make the 24-105 horrible. I have absolutely no desire to trade off the flexiblity of the 24-105's range for a bit of extra IQ. If I wanted that, I'd go for the Tamron 24-70 which offers an additional stop of aperture on top of the extra IQ, not the Canon 24-70 f4.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

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

4,146 views & 0 likes for this thread
Defending the 24-70mm F/4
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 xemlicham
968 guests, 254 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.