Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #8 · Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing |
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