Defending the 24-70mm F/4

I chose 24-70 f/4L IS mainly because it's my most used focal length, weight, IS for still or video, optional macro, zoom lock.. no problem @f/4 on 6D based on my experience, it produces cleaner and sharper images than shooting with my 7D and my 2.8 lenses.

Charlie wrote in post #16855860
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.

Didnt know about a macro feature but yes, for macro you surely need a small aperture..

Like what most others have stated, the 24-70 f/4 IS does not offer me enough over the 24-105L to justify the price difference. While the 24-105L has some flaws (vignetting and distortion at the wide end), those are easily fixed in Lightroom, and I like having the extra reach to 105mm for a general purpose walk around lens. If I am giving up that added reach, I want an f/2.8 maximum aperture. Yes, I have a couple of telephoto lenses that can get me that reach, but that means carrying an additional lens and needing to change lenses more often. Often I want to walk around with a single lens, and the 24-105L is a great lens for that.

Had Canon made a 24-105L Mk II, I think you would have seen more excitement over the lens.

Just purchased the 24-70 f/4--my take

I recently "gifted" my six year old 5D to my stepson along with the 24-105 L. This left me without a walk around so I picked up a "white box" 24-70 f/4 since I would still have access to the 24-105 if I needed it. I am a former owner of the version I 24-70 f/2.8 (the brick) which I gifted to another son after acquiring the 24-105. I get the usefulness of 24-105 over 24-70 for general use and the new 24-70 (while more compact) isn't noticeably lighter to me than the 24-105. With that out of the way, here are my observations:

1. My example of the 24-70 f/4 is optically superior to my 24-105. It is virtually as sharp at 35 mm as my 35 L and seems a tad sharper at 50 mm than my 50 L.
2. The macro function is handy, and more than acceptably sharp.
3. The newer IS and smaller size over the f/2.8 versions make it a delight to use.

On the negative side, a new 24-105 "white box" can be had for as little as $649; if I did not have access to my gifted 24-105 I would have simply purchased another and passed on the 24-70 f/4. The added reach and price differential make the 24-105 a "better" choice. I am somewhat surprised Canon didn't produce an upgraded version instead of the pricier 24-70 f/4. Pixel peepers will love the new 24-70 f/4 if my example is typical but otherwise the 24-105 still has the edge.

I just find it amusing that the more options Canon/the photo industry/life gives us, the more threads like this come up.

-Options are good.
-Not everyone shoots the way you do.
-Not everyone wants the same lens you do.
-You may hate hatchbacks and minivans, but thank god you don't get to decide if I can have one.
-I may hate Alpha Romeos, but I don't get to decide if you should have one.

lastly,
-People use the internet as a pulpit to proclaim how much they hate or are angry at; foreigners, women, gays, liberals, C.E.O.s etc. I suppose it should come as no surprise they use it to put forth their animosity towards the latest lens they don't want to buy. Still sucks though.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16936150
I just find it amusing that the more options Canon/the photo industry/life gives us, the more threads like this come up.

-Options are good.
-Not everyone shoots the way you do.
-Not everyone wants the same lens you do.
-You may hate hatchbacks and minivans, but thank god you don't get to decide if I can have one.
-I may hate Alpha Romeos, but I don't get to decide if you should have one.

lastly,
-People use the internet as a pulpit to proclaim how much they hate or are angry at; foreigners, women, gays, liberals, C.E.O.s etc. I suppose it should come as no surprise they use it to put forth their animosity towards the latest lens they don't want to buy. Still sucks though.

Reasonable well thought out logical posts like this is gonna kill off the internet

I have this lens, I shoot with it often and prefer it over the 24-105 as I feel:

Its sharper and less distorted
Its the right size for ME
The macro is fun to have and often usefull
I've shot and entire wedding with it once, worked just fine
I just like it.

Why do you feel it needs defending, a company that managed to sell 100 million lenses knows far more about lenses that sell than any internet "expert"

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16936150
I just find it amusing that the more options Canon/the photo industry/life gives us, the more threads like this come up.

-Options are good.
-Not everyone shoots the way you do.
-Not everyone wants the same lens you do.
-You may hate hatchbacks and minivans, but thank god you don't get to decide if I can have one.
-I may hate Alpha Romeos, but I don't get to decide if you should have one.

lastly,
-People use the internet as a pulpit to proclaim how much they hate or are angry at; foreigners, women, gays, liberals, C.E.O.s etc. I suppose it should come as no surprise they use it to put forth their animosity towards the latest lens they don't want to buy. Still sucks though.

I had a feeling I'd be sorry if I resurrected this thread. I was going to post my ramblings about the 24-70 f/4 in a new post but I searched, found this thread and addd on at the end. I love the new 24-70 f/4 and it will work well for me in conjunction with my 70-200 f/2.8 L. I offered an OPINION that the 24-105 still represents a great choice. Others have been more forthright about their feelings and I think that is actually what makes this forum useful. Obviously, there are some who think the 24-70 f/4 is a red headed stepsister; I'd encourage those posters to give it a second look. I'm still going to miss that extra reach, though.

I have owned 2 copies of the 24-105. I was never satisfied with either copy at 24mm -- too much distortion, vignetting (asymmetrical vignetting at that). I recently bought the 24-70 f/4 for $800 from Adorama (there was a sale and with the $200 MIR it came out at that price).

To me the advantages of this lens over the 24-105:
1. better performance at 24mm -- it still vignettes, but at least for my copy it is easier to fix in PP than the 24-105. Distortion seems to be better controlled too.
2. It is a little more compact and a little lighter -- not by much, but when you travel every ounce matters.
3. The macro feature is certain a good bonus. Not many lenses can do a sharp background-to-foreground wide angle shot and nearly-true-macro shot at the same time! All the following pictures were taken with this lens handheld. Sure, a dedicated macro lens works better (I do have the 100L), but more often than not when I am hiking that one sits at home.