Upload & Sell: Off
| p.2 #3 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone |
I would say it wasn't an overall trashing of the lens but they weren't all that excited either especially for the $. Here's the problem with the lens, the tamron is faster, also offers IS and is cheaper. Honestly unless you have sever red ring envy you won't be buying the f4 IS
Here's the thing: I'm not sure Canon is marketing it the way they should. Everyone is viewing it as a kinda-sorta upgrade normal zoom over the 24-105, or as a cheaper alternative to the 24-70 II, or even as a slower, more expensive version of the Tamron.
After a fair bit of research, I like the way Roger Cicala described it in his tear-down blog post: It's two lenses in one. Think of it like a sharper version of the 24-105 AND also a near-100 2.8 IS macro. Now I'm not saying it does everything the 100 can do, but it comes so close in an area where no other zoom has dreamed of competing (and with hybrid IS!). Hell, it's more magnification than the 50 2.5 macro or any of the Zeiss macros, which are superb.
But just like the 24-105 does not fully replace having 24, 35, 50, 85, and 100mm lenses, the 24-70 IS isn't necessarily supposed to replace all of those plus a dedicated macro. But for everyday use and especially travel, it does make packing easy. It's one less lens in the bag. $1400 vs $800 + $850. Not bad.
Personally, I'd consider it higher on my list than the 24-105 or the Tamron if I were trying to pack simple or ultra-light. But I love my primes, so I always carry at least 4 lenses, haha. I'm not sure I'd return to a normal zoom unless Canon makes a 24-70 2.8 IS as sharp as the 24-70 II.