Defending the 24-70mm F/4

everyone else sees it, not sure why you cant..... there are better options out there.

even if priced the same, I'de go with the 24-105 everytime.

I have the 24-105. Love it minus the distortion at the wide end. Both the 24-70's have less at the wide end. Love the 2.8, love IS, but can't have both in one lens........Why?

Sirrith wrote in post #16854214
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.

I find the 24-105 quite disappointing image quality wise. The distortion at the wide end is quite bad, as is how it handles bright lights and highlights in long exposures. I'll go with a 24-70mm every time to avoid the 24-105mm's short comings. It's also excessively bulky for a lens that's merely an f/4. I care more about bulk and weight than price.

Mornnb wrote in post #16854374
I find the 24-105 quite disappointing image quality wise. The distortion at the wide end is quite bad, as is how it handles bright lights and highlights in long exposures. I'll go with a 24-70mm every time to avoid the 24-105mm's short comings. It's also excessively bulky for a lens that's merely an f/4. I care more about bulk and weight than price.

Need to justify your waste of money much?

24-105 disappointing IQ? I mean...what?

Your care about bulk and weight and you shoot dslr? why not mirrorless?

24-70 f4 IS
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.28 x 3.66" (83.4 x 93 mm) Weight 1.32 lb (600 g)
24-105 f4 IS
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.3 x 4.2" (8.38 x 10.67 cm) Weight 1.47 lb (670 g)
OMG, 70g difference and a half inch in length. How can anyone manage to carry that beast?

so you can buy a new 24-105 for half the price as the 24-70 with negligible increased performance and less reach, and you cannot comprehend why people skip it? Not sure anyone can help you.

Mornnb wrote in post #16854374
I find the 24-105 quite disappointing image quality wise. The distortion at the wide end is quite bad, as is how it handles bright lights and highlights in long exposures. I'll go with a 24-70mm every time to avoid the 24-105mm's short comings. It's also excessively bulky for a lens that's merely an f/4. I care more about bulk and weight than price.

It's too bad you've had such a bad experience with the 24-105. It produces absolutely stunning images for me even at 24mm. And the added focal length can be a huge benefit in a walk around lens.

Here's an example of where that 105mm reach really came in handy (shot at the long end). It's even more helpful for taking a portrait of the GF from time to time while touring about.

The 24-105L makes more sense to me... but I can see why people like the 24-70/4L too.

The distortion on my copy was pretty ridiculous at 24-28mm, and so was the vignetting. It also had some odd flares in long exposures sometimes, so I stopped using mine for that. Eventually I realized that the only thing I liked using it for was as a travel or as a one lens solution, which made me realize it made more sense to just replace it with a smaller camera with similar zoom range... so I got the X-E1 and I gotta say, I think the 18-55mm XF lens is a better lens in every way except range. That said, I do miss the extra range sometimes.

Mornnb wrote in post #16854374
I find the 24-105 quite disappointing image quality wise. The distortion at the wide end is quite bad, as is how it handles bright lights and highlights in long exposures. I'll go with a 24-70mm every time to avoid the 24-105mm's short comings. It's also excessively bulky for a lens that's merely an f/4. I care more about bulk and weight than price.

Ok, but I, and many others, don't, which is why the 24-70 f4 is so unpopular.

As for excessive bulk, Jerobean has shown you that is rather a moot point.

I care more about a noticeably greater amount of convenience in what is a general purpose zoom, than a little bit of extra IQ which no one who isn't comparing images side by side at the pixel level is going to notice. I also care a lot about the comparative value of lenses because I'm not in a position to be able to treat a few $'00 as pocket change. And for someone in my position, the 24-70 f4 just doesn't make any sense.

So if you like the 24-70 f4, great, use it and enjoy it. I don't, and I won't.

Everyones opinion is valid to them.

For me the 24-105mm was the best lens I ever had until it failed (I bought it secondhand from a guy who sold me a 1d mark 2 with 60,000 shots which turned out to be 438,000 shots, so I got conned , and don't know the lenses history).

A lot of people here say Shoot raw, only raw, I dont use picture styles, just raw. Adobe and I am sure other sotwares have the profile for this lens so the issues didn't pose any problems for me. 1 click and They were (to my eyes) fine. With a 5d the pictures were sharp vibrant. I am more of a distance shooter so the 105mm meant a lot more to me than 70mm and a little weight.

To Op, enjoy your lens, it is great to have something that is making you happy. However I would not try to figure out why others don't share your opinion

Virtual Rain- thats a great shot of I assume Venice

You won't have to defend the 24-70 F4 from anything I'll say about it but calling the 24-105 F4 "excessively bulky " is just plain wrong.

Enjoy your 24-70, don't put other lenses down.

I had that lens on my wish list initially, but I scratched off due to the focus shift problem:

http://www.photozone.d​e …f/798-canon2470f4?start=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Jerobean wrote in post #16854448
Need to justify your waste of money much?

24-105 disappointing IQ? I mean...what?

Distortion, flare and highlight handling etc... I found it a disappointing lens.

In practise the difference is bigger than it sounds given the relative sizes.

And why not mirroless? Less flexible lens options, weaker AF.

It can be had for just $950 these days, at a $200 premium over the 24-105mm I consider it well worth it.

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

The main problem is the price... Here in Europe it's the same price of a '17-40L + 50mm macro + 70-200L f4' kit. And there are many competitors (including the 24-105L) in this standard range.

Titi

Alveric wrote in post #16854768
I had that lens on my wish list initially, but I scratched off due to the focus shift problem:

http://www.photozone.d​e …f/798-canon2470f4?start=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Lol not to be on anyones side but focus shift means you have to stop down. And as a walkaround i dont think one will stop down an f4 lens a lot...

I once had a lens with focus shift (Tokina 100mm macro) and hated it. Few things worse than to use AF, receive the focus confirmation that your chosen focal point is IN FOCUS and have the picture come out with the bird blurry and the background centimetres behind it in perfect focus. No thanks; especially when there are better choices available.

davidfarina wrote in post #16855719
Lol not to be on anyones side but focus shift means you have to stop down. And as a walkaround i dont think one will stop down an f4 lens a lot...

actually, you will if you're using this lens for it's macro feature.

it's one of the key selling points of this lens.