p.2 #2 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
I think for people that are into landscape/cityscape that really want the excellent IQ (sharper edges, good distortion/vignetting control, 9 blades that produce beautiful 18 point sunstars) and the versatility of a zoom, this is a excellent option (better IQ than the 24-105 and cheaper than the 24-70 2.8 II). Smaller size is also nice as well. I personally was waiting for vendors to bundle this lens up with the 6D or 5D3, but I guess they are keeping the 24-105 as the true kit lens. I agree that the price needs to drop down, especially when you can practically get a new 24-105 in the $700 range in the resell market or even cheaper bundled (for example the recent 6D + 24-105 deals).
I really wanted to get this lens, but I just can't do it for the price and a zoom in this range ranks quite low on my priority list.
p.2 #3 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
robbymack wrote:
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.
p.2 #4 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
robbymack wrote:
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
The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS does show noticeably sharper far edges on PZ though at 24mm and less distortion there as well. Still, the Tamron does look good too, especially if near 24mm isn't the key spot in the range for you and you prefer f/2.8 to the built-in pseudo-macro. I wonder how AF compares. The 2.8 II has the ultra-precision AF for 5D3/1DX.
p.2 #5 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
The Tamron zooms do not focus close like the Canon 24-70 f/4. The new Canon is the only modern midrange zoom I know of that goes much past 1:4 reproduction ratio. That feature is valuable to me.
p.2 #6 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
Vox Sciurorum wrote:
The Tamron zooms do not focus close like the Canon 24-70 f/4. The new Canon is the only modern midrange zoom I know of that goes much past 1:4 reproduction ratio. That feature is valuable to me.
Use a Kenko tube on the Tamron if needed for close-up shots. Not a deal breaker IMO.
p.2 #8 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
I've been using the 100L IS since early December and really like the hybrid IS, the 70-200 f4L IS I love has the older non-hybrid IS and tho both are fantastic lenses, the 100 macro 'seems' to have an edge IS wise. This new 24-70 f4L's IS uses the same hybrid IS design and for a walk around lens this might be pretty damn useful.
The price sucks, at under $1k it would be doable...just gotta wait for the price to drop
p.2 #9 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
Vox Sciurorum wrote:
The Tamron zooms do not focus close like the Canon 24-70 f/4. The new Canon is the only modern midrange zoom I know of that goes much past 1:4 reproduction ratio. That feature is valuable to me.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think the working distance for max magnification on the new f4 zoom is something like 2 inches from the front element. That just seems silly to me and speaks to the gimmicky nature of the feature. While I certainly appreciate the time and effort the Japanese fellows at canon rd spent putting this into the lens, it's really not all that useful as a macro unless you have a ring flash. If you already have a ring flash you probably have a dedicated macro lens.
p.2 #10 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
Breitling65 wrote:
I see no reason for this lens especially with this price and reviews. One who need slow F4 zoom with IS could buy twice cheaper 24-105L.
That is bigger, heavier, lower IQ, worse IS. Wait for the price to start coming down or the lens to be bundled with a camera. The 24-105 has saturated the market due to it being a kit lens for so long, prices are very low right now. The 24-70 f4 will come down in price and it won't be double for very long. It also isn't double if you are someone that purchases new from a store. Not everyone wants to buy 2nd hand from an online forum like FM or Craigslist. Retail price on a 24-105 is still $1150 or something like that in the US.
p.2 #11 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
jctriguy wrote:
That is bigger, heavier, lower IQ, worse IS. Wait for the price to start coming down or the lens to be bundled with a camera. The 24-105 has saturated the market due to it being a kit lens for so long, prices are very low right now. The 24-70 f4 will come down in price and it won't be double for very long. It also isn't double if you are someone that purchases new from a store. Not everyone wants to buy 2nd hand from an online forum like FM or Craigslist. Retail price on a 24-105 is still $1150 or something like that in the US....Show more →
I own 24-105L before and found no issues with it besides it is with slow F4. It is quiet longer that 70mm as well and initial price was around $900 when I used it. You could get it much cheaper new, who cares it is with kit or not? Important is - you can get it much cheaper and it is great L lens.
p.2 #12 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
Breitling65 wrote:
I own 24-105L before and found no issues with it besides it is with slow F4. It is quiet longer that 70mm as well and initial price was around $900 when I used it. You could get it much cheaper new, who cares it is with kit or not? Important is - you can get it much cheaper and it is great L lens.
Not everyone buys used camera gear, so the price for those people is 1100 vs 1500. I would guess that a significant majority of people buy gear from actual stores.
I have had 2 different 24-105 lenses and would say they are certainly adequate. That said, I'm seriously thinking of selling my current one to get the 24-70. I have other lenses for any longer FL needs and updated optics and IS would be appreciated. The zoom lock is also nice.
Canon makes gear for the target market, according to their research. I think a lot of people will be very happy with this lens, even if the 50 or so FMers don't think it makes sense.
p.2 #13 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
jctriguy wrote:
Not everyone buys used camera gear, so the price for those people is 1100 vs 1500. I would guess that a significant majority of people buy gear from actual stores.
I have had 2 different 24-105 lenses and would say they are certainly adequate. That said, I'm seriously thinking of selling my current one to get the 24-70. I have other lenses for any longer FL needs and updated optics and IS would be appreciated. The zoom lock is also nice.
Canon makes gear for the target market, according to their research. I think a lot of people will be very happy with this lens, even if the 50 or so FMers don't think it makes sense....Show more →
Sure it is great to have larger selection, everyone having their own needs and personal opinion. To me it is not phenomenal nor unique anyhow, besides far from cheap ...
p.2 #16 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
Paul Mo wrote:
Exactly. That's very astute of you. Now, how many versions of 24mm zooms do we have? When in reality all we need is one - but a stunner.
All you need is one, but others have different needs. A 24-105 2.8 would be big and expensive, not ideal for everyone. Four versions of the 70-200 is great, everyone has something that fits their needs and budget.
p.2 #17 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
jctriguy wrote:
All you need is one, but others have different needs. A 24-105 2.8 would be big and expensive, not ideal for everyone. Four versions of the 70-200 is great, everyone has something that fits their needs and budget.
While the 24-105L 2.8 IS lens might be big and expensive I cannot imagine that it would be bigger and more expensive than a 70-200 2.8 IS. The 24-70 mm 2.8 is not inexpensive by any means.
There are always primes which are a wonderful way to go and do produce stunning results. As you know it all depends on how many lenses you are willing to carry and keep up with versus IQ, cost, size, and weight.
There are always going to tradeoffs. Everything depends on what the individual photographer can live with.
p.2 #18 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
The focus shift is really a problem, especially for macro shots. From the review, the focus shift is almost 3cm at MFD! (approx 50mm:36mm -> 1:0.7x) This is totally unacceptable. Thanks for saving me $1500.
p.2 #20 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS reviewed at Photozone
jctriguy wrote:
.....Not everyone buys used camera gear, so the price for those people is 1100 vs 1500. I would guess that a significant majority of people buy gear from actual stores.
....
Well, then those individuals will have to continue to suffer from their "gotta buy a new lens" snobbery I suppose. I've bought most of my lenses used - here, of course.
