RCicala wrote:
I'll have 20-25 copies to test in the morning. I've already done f/4 comps on the 24-70 f2.8 mkI and II, Tamron 24-70 f/2.8, and 24-105 all at f/4 so I should have some resolution results blogged by noon (slow time of year so I have lots of help).

I agree with basically everyone: if it can resolve like the Mk II at f/4 I'll be interested. If it's not better than the others than it has nothing but the semi-macro thing going for it. We shall see. . . .

Roger, thanks in advance. Appreciate your work here.

My opinion - it needs to be considerably better at the wide end to get me to buy one. I'm pretty content with my old 24-70/2.8 and my 24-105 is a decent copy. Granted, the vignetting at the wide end can be a problem in the 24-105, but it is a very versatile lens for event photography.

I'll echo what has already been said:
The lens looks very interesting, for its smaller size... but the images produced by it will need to be greatly better than the cheaper 24-105 already available for it to be worth it.
I'm in the market for a "everyday" zoom, and the 24-105 is at the top of my list. Wish I would have bought the 6D kit instead of just body.

timbop wrote:
I'd much rather have the 2.8 v2 24-70....


Same here and I had high hopes that Canon would put together a 5DMKIII kit with that lens but I doubt that will happen now Canon is making the f4IS.

That looks to me like yet another redundant product which is aimed at capturing a larger market share by increased splitting of the existing lens types, while offering little new of substance to a serious photographer.

Sorry boys, you will not get my money on this lens model either.

Exactly.

If it has the same IQ as the 70-200 f4 it will sell. If it doesn't it will have to compete with the versatility of the 24-105 and not do so well. The added mechanical complexity of macro is a disadvantage for me.

pipspeak wrote:
spdntrxi wrote:
really show me where I can by a mkII for 1800.. I'm interested

Not sure if that was directed at me, but my point was there's no way I could find a 24-70 II for $1800

$2049 is the cheapest I've seen them from legit sellers, except perhaps a tad cheaper on the B&S here

no harm.. actually there is one in the BST for 1850 right now... someone needs to buy it before I do. I've kinda already set my mind on the F4.. I have 400 dollars of crutchfield credit to use.

Can't wait to hear from Roger of LensRental...

Blog post is up:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

I'm pretty ambivalent about it - good (not great) lens, higher price than I think appropriate.

Thanks very much for your hard work Roger. So far I don't see much of a reason to "upgrade" my 24-105.

RCicala wrote:
I'm pretty ambivalent about it - good (not great) lens, higher price than I think appropriate.

Thanks again for your efforts.

The lens seems quite good, actually.
Glad to see such a low distortion on the wide end.
The macro feature looks more and more like a gimmick.
The small lens size is very appealing to me.
At $999, this lens would have been a steal but at $1500 it's getting a strong HOLD recommendation from me .

Thanks Roger, same straight forward review and unbiased opinion you always give.

I'm still a bit confused about the need for this lens and how it slots in with the f2.8II and the 24-105L. I wonder why Canon didn't just update the 24-105 with a bit better res and distortion and be done with it? Maybe it couldn't be done at the price point they needed under the 2.8.

Good numbers though Roger, thanks.

I bought and sold the 24-105L twice. Never liked it. F4 just doesn't do it for me like 2.8 does. So while I was never really interested in this 24-70 F4L, Rodger's review just reinforces for me the desire for the 24-70 2.8LII or bust. I just would prefer the price to settle below $2K before June and it pisses me off to think that Canon will release an IS version sometime late this year/early next when they should have released it in 2012!

How's the close-up magnification compared to the 24-105L?

My walkaround for a couple of months was the C/Y 35-70, which provided a "macro" extension at 35mm. After selling that lens, I really miss having a close-focusing, good-performing walkaround zoom. I guess I'm a bit apprehensive about going to Canon with Zeiss expectations, but I feel the closeup feature completes a walkaround zoom lens to make it more well-rounded. If I had to choose between reach and macro, I may go for macro…

Hi, Roger, thanks for the effort!

This actually looks good except for the price ..
Resolution and distortion both look very good.

What about vignetting (light fall-off)? Are you planning to test that? This is my biggest issue with the 24-105.

Thanks,
Howard

The 24-70 f/4 IS does intrigue me too. I do waterfall photography, which means a lot of hiking with elevation involved. I have the Zeiss 15 and 21....I can only carry so much weight going the prime route. I realize the zoom won't be a Zeiss prime...but having 24-70 covered (along with a poor man's macro) at 600 some grams of weight does have some pluses. I'm curious to see how it performs stopped down against the 24-70 II. If it's a wash, then it really might be the ticket for me.

-Tim

Hi Roger,

Thanks for sharing your test results. Yesterday, I was very happy with my decision to be an early adopter of the 24-70/2.8L II. Today, I'm still very happy with that decision.

The new 24-70/4L IS shows excellent distortion performance, and it has usefully better resolution than the venerable 24-105/4L IS at common focal lengths. In fact, it has the best distortion and next-best resolution (to the 24-70 II) in all test conditions.

I'll be keeping my 24-105L for walkabouts, because of its extra reach, and decent resolution, but if I didn't already have the '105L, and I wanted a high quality, light weight, normal zoom, I'd seriously consider the 24-70/4L IS.

It would be very interesting to compare effective reduction in resolution involved with distortion correction in PP for the 24-70/2.8L II and 24-70/4L IS, given the 24-70/2.8L II higher resolution and the 24-70/4L IS lower distortion. I'm just sayin'...

Cheers, Jim

P.S. Fred, thanks for keeping us up-to-date on this kind of info.

Jim, that's an excellent point about resolution loss with distortion correction. I'm going to see if I can figure out a way to do that.

I had a fellow today who'd bought a Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR (AKA the Nikon Fisheye Zoom) from us screaming about the horribly soft corners at 16mm. He sent it back, I tested it twice and it was superb. Turns out he was correcting that 6% barrel distortion and then evaluating the corners, which did, indeed, then suck .

Sounds pretty good although it doesn't match the 24-70 II (as expected from the MTF charts), at least not at f/4 (although it's very close wide open to wide open). I'd really be curious how it does f/8 though or even f/5.6 too. It's hard to say much more without knowing that. This sort of lens, in particular, may be used stopped down a lot.

Better than the 24-105 IS (or 24-70 I if you don't need f/2.8) though. I suppose it is possible that the 24-105 catches up as you stop down and then the 24-70 IS would not look so good though. OTOH if the 24-70 IS becomes like the 24-70 II stopped down then it would be a much better lens than the 24-105 by miles.

If the Tamron didn't exist I guess it might make sense at the price it was launched at, although it really depends how well it compares to the 24-70 II stopped down. Considering the Tamron though it seems a bit pricey (although, again, it's hard to say without seeing how it does stopped down, maybe it does better for 24mm landscapes?). It only tested a tiny bit better across the range and lacks f/2.8, but again what about stopped down? We only get to see the 24-70 II wide open vs Tamron stopped down in this test.

It appears to deserve to cost more than the 24-105 IS but the Tamron does make the price seem a little rough, depending (on whether it is a trade of for getting access to f/2.8 vs. better stopped down landscape performance or something).

Of course large scale contrast and AF and such remain to be seen.