Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2013 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing
  
 
Legion5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


I had the opportunity to test a copy of the new 24-70mm F/4.0 IS with MTF and back to back tripod visual comparisons with test charts, live view focusing and using the best of 10 test shots at each focal length between the 24-70mm F4.0 IS and the 24-105mm f/4.0 IS

The new lens was supposed to have much better image quality in theory, and I was very excited about this prospect. It does not deliver, especially in the visual comparison, and I'll explain why this lens was misleading in a bit.

Here's the technical comparison:

Focal Length, Winner

24mm - 24-70mm Macro, is as sharp at f/4.0 as the 24-105mm is at f/6.3

35mm - they are close enough to be equal

50mm - 24-105mm, is as sharp at f/4.0 as the 24-70mm is at f/7.1

70mm - they are close enough to be equal


It seems that this lens simply delivers the same image quality overall as the old 24-105mm, but with different focal lengths getting different advantages and disadvantages.

This lens looks better on charts than it really is because the min and the max zoom are favored at the cost of the mid-range being worse. The charts only show the 24 & 70mm results, so you are left to assume the mid-range is the same.


So what are you really getting for your $500 and 35mm of lost zoom range over the 24-105mm? Well Macro of course, and lots of mark up! These lenses should really be the exact same price. I wouldn't buy this until Canon drops the price 30% like they have been doing for every single new lens or body release for the last year within 7 months of release (they used to mark the price up only 13% initially but this is an example of how much more aggressive they are being). The 24-70mm IS then is just a different flavor of 24-105mm where you trade the extra range for Macro capabilities, and get a ton of mark up if you really want to buy it right when it's released.

Hope that was helpful.



Jan 11, 2013 at 09:45 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


Legion5 wrote:
I had the opportunity to test a copy of the new 24-70mm F/4.0 IS with MTF and back to back tripod visual comparisons with test charts, live view focusing and using the best of 10 test shots at each focal length between the 24-70mm F4.0 IS and the 24-105mm f/4.0 IS

The new lens was supposed to have much better image quality in theory, and I was very excited about this prospect. It does not deliver, especially in the visual comparison, and I'll explain why this lens was misleading in a bit.

Here's the technical comparison:

Focal Length, Winner

24mm - 24-70mm Macro, is
...Show more

Interesting. Could be copy variation too, maybe a bottom run 24-70 IS and top rung 24-105? Canon MTF and LR results had the 24-70 IS better at 70mm too.

I'd also note that the 24-30mm range was a real weak spot of the 24-105 and made it not work so well as an all-around lends for the very picky landscape shooter. So if that alone were fixed, that would be a huge deal. I often use these sorts of lenses a LOT at the wide end, some at the long end, and in lesser amounts in the mid middle of the range.

Also it sounds like you looked at center frame only, the 24-105 really fell apart at the wide end at the edges (of course really fell apart is in the eye of the beholder, I know many are 100% fine with it there even for detailed landscape work).

But it does sound a bit underwhelming though, you'd have expected it to be more like the 24-70 II than the 24-105. And to be so far behind at 50mm is a bit.... interesting. in a bad way.

I guess that was my split 24-105 kit lens you compared it to.

If you care a lot about edge to edge at the wide end and don't shoot around 50mm too much then it might still be good thing once the price drops a bit. (it does seem a bit steep at the moment, especially with the tamron out there too)

Oh and don't forget that it has a lot less distortion at the wide end, a lot, lot less and it might be a lot more LoCA/PF resistant (or one would hope).


Edited on Jan 12, 2013 at 12:22 AM · View previous versions



Jan 11, 2013 at 09:53 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


Please post some of your 'best of 10' images and MTF data. That would be even more helpful.


Jan 11, 2013 at 09:57 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


skibum5 wrote:
... the 24-105 really fell apart at the wide end at the edges.


+1



Jan 11, 2013 at 09:58 PM
stargazer78
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


Legion5 wrote:
Here's the technical comparison:

Focal Length, Winner

24mm - 24-70mm Macro, is as sharp at f/4.0 as the 24-105mm is at f/6.3

35mm - they are close enough to be equal

50mm - 24-105mm, is as sharp at f/4.0 as the 24-70mm is at f/7.1

70mm - they are close enough to be equal



Isn't there more to lenses than just sharpness?

From what I've heard, the new 24-70 f4L has significantly lower distortion levels (chromatic, geometric, and vignetting). There's the macro feature. And also, the lens is noticeably smaller than the 24-105L. Its size is comparable to the 28-135 and 15-85 lenses, which would be advantageous with the new breed of smaller full frame cameras like the 6D.

Having said that, I would still choose the 24-105L over the new 24-70 f4L. If the new lens had sharpness comparable to the 24-70 f2.8Lmk2, it might've been worth sacrificing 50% of my zoom range. But early reports indicate that the lens isn't a huge step up from the 24-105L...



Jan 11, 2013 at 11:02 PM
Killergoalie
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


Why the heck didn't they make the lens a f/2.8 lens? STUPID CANON!!


Jan 11, 2013 at 11:06 PM
Wahoowa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


What did you use for MTF comparisons? I'm interested in knowing how you did it. Thank you.


Jan 11, 2013 at 11:09 PM
Legion5
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


skibum5 wrote:
Interesting. Could be copy variation too, maybe a bottom run 24-70 IS and top rung 24-105? Canon MTF and LR results had the 24-70 IS better at 70mm too.


I know my 24-105mm is better than the last 24-105mm I had, so it's up there as far as copies go. Only one random copy of the 24-70mm was tested.

I did see some benefit at 70mm with the 24-70m IS, but it wasn't really anything to write home about, less than a half or 2/3rds of a stop advantage in select parts of the frame.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk. II slammed the 24-70mm f/4.0 IS for the record at identical apertures though. It's not a mini version of it's bigger brother.


I'd also note that the 24-30mm range was a real weak spot of the 24-105 and made it not work so well as an all-around lends for the very picky landscape shooter. So if that alone were fixed, that would be a huge deal. I often use these sorts of lenses a LOT at the wide end, some at the long end, and in lesser amounts in the mid middle of the range.

I was really excited when I saw the much better 24mm too because that is one of my biggest complaints about the 24-105mm, but I shoot quite a bit around 45-60mm.

Also it sounds like you looked at center frame only, the 24-105 really fell apart at the wide end at the edges (of course really fell apart is in the eye of the beholder, I know many are 100% fine with it there even for detailed landscape work).

I actually mainly (though not exclusively) look at a point that's half way between the edge of the shortest side of the frame and the center. This is between the mid frame and center. I feel that this is the most reasonable way to compare a lens.

But it does sound a bit underwhelming though, you'd have expected it to be more like the 24-70 II than the 24-105. And to be so far behind at 50mm is a bit.... interesting. in a bad way.

I guess that was my split 24-105 kit lens you compared it to.


Actually, yes I'm using the lens that you sold me definetly a keeper it seems.

If you care a lot about edge to edge at the wide end and don't shoot around 50mm too much then it might still be good thing once the price drops a bit. (it does seem a bit steep at the moment, especially with the tamron out there too)

I would say that the 24-70mm F/4.0 has varying advantages and disadvantages in different parts of the frame. For example:

70mm there's a somewhat noticable advantage in the center and edges, but little to none in the mid frame. If you look at the MTF chart for the 24-70mm F/4.0 on the Canon website you can see a dip in the mid-frame of the chart at the tele end too.

50mm is just a train wreck for the 24-70mm

35mm the 24-105mm has a slight advantage in the mid frame and edges

24mm is a miracle improvement in the mid-frame and edges of the 24-70mm, but the center is about the same (which is to say good).

If 50mm was just as good as the 24-105mm you'd have a good argument for getting this lens, but other than that you have to really figure out what you shoot, and match it to your needs carefully.

Oh also it's worth mentioning the 24-70mm IS is tiny compared to the 24-105mm. So that's a benefit outside the image quality.


Edited on Jan 11, 2013 at 11:20 PM · View previous versions



Jan 11, 2013 at 11:11 PM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


This is interesting to me. A reviewer just emailed me because he's been testing a 24-70 f/4 IS that I sent him after testing it at 24mm and 70mm and finding it was excellent at both. He, too, says at 50mm (which I did not test) the lens is exhibiting decentering.


Jan 11, 2013 at 11:14 PM
Hulot
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


Killergoalie wrote:
Why the heck didn't they make the lens a f/2.8 lens? STUPID CANON!!


I think they didnt make it a single 2.8 IS lens because people wouldn't see the need to buy any f2, f1.4 lenses. In the midrange they sell you f4 IS zooms and f 2 or f2.8 IS primes as well as their f 1.4 lenses. That is not stupid from a business stand point



Jan 11, 2013 at 11:15 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


Legion5 wrote:
blah blah blah



interesting comments


(the actual ones not my condensed 'version' of your comments above done to save re-quoting a giant block of text)



Edited on Jan 12, 2013 at 08:08 AM · View previous versions



Jan 12, 2013 at 12:42 AM
scottam10
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


Killergoalie wrote:
Why the heck didn't they make the lens a f/2.8 lens? STUPID CANON!!


Because then it would be bigger, heavier, more expensive and would leave no reason for the 24-70mm 2.8 L II to exist



Jan 12, 2013 at 12:53 AM
Killergoalie
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


scottam10 wrote:
Because then it would be bigger, heavier, more expensive and would leave no reason for the 24-70mm 2.8 L II to exist


They should have made the 24-70 f/2.8L II an I.S. lens in the first place!!



Jan 12, 2013 at 12:58 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


del

Edited on Jan 12, 2013 at 08:09 AM · View previous versions



Jan 12, 2013 at 01:10 AM
thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


RCicala wrote:
This is interesting to me. A reviewer just emailed me because he's been testing a 24-70 f/4 IS that I sent him after testing it at 24mm and 70mm and finding it was excellent at both. He, too, says at 50mm (which I did not test) the lens is exhibiting decentering.


I suspect all these decentering issues happen because of the additional macro design.

Killergoalie wrote:
They should have made the 24-70 f/2.8L II an I.S. lens in the first place!!


Heard this lens is coming soon.



Jan 12, 2013 at 01:14 AM
Killergoalie
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


thw2 wrote:
I suspect all these decentering issues happen because of the additional macro design.

Heard this lens is coming soon


It's about freakin' time!

As far as the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 V.C. lens is concerned, I've seen a lot of images from it, and IMHO they all look very dull, flat, and virtually colorless! Maybe it was the PP, but not very impressive at all. You get what you pay for!



Jan 12, 2013 at 01:34 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


I can't speak to the validity of your results for a variety of reasons, including that I have not used the new f/4 24-70mm lens. It might be a bit presumptuous to make sweeping generalizations about the lens as a breed after conducting a personal test of one copy and comparing it to a personal test of one copy of another lens.

From my experience (with one lens!) the 24-105 is perhaps roughly at its best at 50mm, so if it would exceed the other lens at some focal length it seems reasonable that this might be it. I find that it is quite good in sharpness terms across its focal length range, but the 28mm or 35mm to 85mm range or so it probably its sweet spot.

Of course, there is more to lens quality than being the very sharpest lens on the block. In this case you are talking about two lenses that can produce very excellent image quality. I suppose a more interesting question might be where each lens is stronger/weaker in functional capabilities as well.

Dan

Legion5 wrote:
I had the opportunity to test a copy of the new 24-70mm F/4.0 IS with MTF and back to back tripod visual comparisons with test charts, live view focusing and using the best of 10 test shots at each focal length between the 24-70mm F4.0 IS and the 24-105mm f/4.0 IS

The new lens was supposed to have much better image quality in theory, and I was very excited about this prospect. It does not deliver, especially in the visual comparison, and I'll explain why this lens was misleading in a bit.

Here's the technical comparison:

Focal Length, Winner

24mm - 24-70mm Macro, is
...Show more



Jan 12, 2013 at 02:27 AM
EB-1
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


Where is the link to the review?

EBH



Jan 12, 2013 at 02:47 AM
spdntrxi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


contrary to others reviews and images I've seen.. weakest was 24mm but still better then 24-105.. 50mm them 70 images got sharper and better contrast from f4 to f5.6


Jan 12, 2013 at 03:01 AM
jorkata
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing


Legion5 wrote:
50mm is just a train wreck for the 24-70mm


Poor thing. After a lukewarm reception, all that this lens needed was some bad rep.



Jan 12, 2013 at 03:03 AM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password