Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: 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 this 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 when it's released.
Hope that was helpful.
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)