Defending the 24-70mm F/4

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.

Sharpness. It's noticeably sharper than the 24-105mm. See this comparison: http://www.slrlounge.c​om …ens-wars-series-episode-9

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.

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.

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

I think you forgot to mention the macro feature?

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.

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.

Mornnb wrote in post #16853682
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.

Sharpness. It's noticeably sharper than the 24-105mm. See this comparison: http://www.slrlounge.c​om …ens-wars-series-episode-9

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.

frugivore wrote in post #16853742
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.

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

VirtualRain wrote in post #16853752
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.

Numenorean wrote in post #16853745
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.

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?
You probably don't want to own them all.

I don't recall hearing bad things about it.

Nice use of smiley faces huh.

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.

Numenorean wrote in post #16853745
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.

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,

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

VirtualRain wrote in post #16853752
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.