Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS

Does anyone on the forum currently use the 24-70 f/4 L IS or had it and then sold it?

I generally like my 24-105L, but am interested in a general use upgrade. I could care less about the macro feature, but other things that I think the 24-70 would improve on:

a) Image quality - The Lensrentals large sample size data shows it to be better everywhere: 24mm, 70mm and even the maligned 50mm.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/201...olution-tests/
b) Much faster t-stop - I understand t-stop does not effect depth of field, but much less light is lost through the lens. It is 2/3 stop better.
c) Slightly smaller
d) More modern IS system

The primary cons on the web appear to be:

a) Cost -- Was $1500 which was clearly an absolute no go for my budget, but is now $849 with 10% reward
b) 50mm softness - This isn't that big of a deal to me, Lensentals data shows 875/700 versus 24-105L 840/680 @ 70mm, it's still better or at worst equivalent
b) Focus shift - This is a legitimate concern in my eyes

Any other thoughts, comments? 24-70 V II is way too expensive and I don't want to give up IS.

Thanks
Dave

Having never used the 24-70 f/4 IS I can't really speak its performance. But your post made me recall a couple of news articles from Bryan and probably more relevant here. So he is a fan.

About the only other thing I would suggest is considering the EF 16-35 f/4 IS. Depending on what else you have, something like the EF 16-35 f4 IS, 50 mm prime, and 70-xxx L is a very solid and flexible kit.

That said, there are a lot of times when the 24-70 II just stays on my camera and doesn't leave. All depends on what and how you want to shoot.

I got one along with the 7D2, since it was only $300 or so more to get the two lens bundle. I only have a few shots on Flickr that used it ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/15493374@N03/tags/2470mm/ ). All the shots are either outdoor or w/ flash. I don't tend to use it, as when I'm outdoors, I'm shooting dogs or wildlife at telephoto distances, and when indoors F/4 doesn't cut it without flash, so I use a prime, usually the Sigma 35mm Art.

If you just want overall 'how do you like the lens', then, as I said, it doesn't work for me. Portrait shooters, landscape shooters, heavy flash users, they all might find uses for the lens.

If you know anybody picking up a body, see if they can get the lens bundled dirt cheap. I know my price was a Canadian 7D2 launch promo deal, but I'm sure Canon offers deals like that all the time.

I was going to give away my 24-105 to a distant nephew but then it stopped working and it wasn't worth fixing - anything above 70 seemed just too soft.

I have used the 24-70 f4 and really liked it - I rented it - really liked it, but bought the 50 and 24 Arts instead (yea it is more money but f stops happy)

my 2 cents

The 24-105 is a lens that I thought I would sell off after picking up a 24-70 f2.8 some time ago. Never did sell it off. Keep using it as a single lens solution for light weight walk around and explore with minimal gear. Take many images with it, post them online, and print for clients as well as fine art sales. Not once has anyone commented saying that they really like the image but it just wasn't sharp enough, nor made mention of any of the other flaws of the lens as a detraction from the final image or print.
I see that you are considering another f4 lens as a replacement and are citing image quality as the first item on your list. Is this based on feedback from clients looking at their images or is it perhaps a combination of pixel peeping and reading too many gear reviews that makes you think your gear is not adequate? I totally get the urge to upgrade, having done too much of it in the past, but think it might be worth considering what is creating and feeding that urge. When the driving force is that the gear is limiting your ability to create the image that you want because the aperture is not wide enough you will know what you need to get to commit the image in your mind's eye to print. When the focal length is not long enough to abstract the details cleanly from a cluttered background it is easy to know how to fix that.
I ask the questions and make the points I do as I am not seeing a presented reason to upgrade that is based on creative process but rather technical details that come from gear reviews and advertising. What images will a 24-70 f4 lens allow you to make that a 24-105 f4 is preventing you from creating?

I have had the 24-105 for quite some years. I got to all primes after that and when I switched back to zoom-lenses I made the choice between the 24-70 f4, 24-105 f4 and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 IS.

In the end I chose the Tamron and I don't regret it at all. Things that bug me is the zoom-ring rotation direction. However that is quite easy to get used to. And also the fairly large size filters that it requires. Although the Canon 24-70 f2.8 has that as well.
To be fair I also sometimes miss my old 24-105. It was my lens that could do everything. Perfect travel lens. I was never unhappy with it.

The 24-70 f4 is a nice lens, however and I don't see this point anywhere. I personally don't like its ergonomics. The zoom-ring is positioned at the base of the lens and is very close to the camera. I personally had the problem that my left and right hand where blocking eachother while holding the camera in the right hand and zooming with the left hand. Perhaps I have weirdly long fingers(I don't think so) or a terrible motoric-system, but at least i wanted to point this out:o

If I still had the 24-105 I personally would not "upgrade" to the 24-70 f4. Image quality might be a little better on paper, but in real-life use probably not really noticable. So unless you take a lot of photos on the wide end(less distortion), you need the "macro" capabilties or really care about the slightly smaller size and weight, upgrading seems unneccesary to me. But that's just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrw

... I ask the questions and make the points I do as I am not seeing a presented reason to upgrade that is based on creative process but rather technical details that come from gear reviews and advertising.

---

I have the luxury of taking photographs for my own enjoyment as a hobby. There are no clients.

The 24-105L is a pretty good lens, but has become middle of the road as lens designs have advanced. There's massive barrel distortion on the wide end. Despite being f/4 it has a large t-stop number. Corners at all focal lengths are just ok. Image stabilization has come a fair ways since the 24-105L release. My copy suffers from zoom creep.

I appreciate the point of view of objective criteria, but that's not really the point here. Would the average viewer notice a "better" image with the 24-70 f/4 vs 24-105L? No, probably not. Then again the average viewer is not very perceptive. I'd wager it'd take an ENORMOUS difference in technical quality for the average viewer to notice anything. I'm talking moderate size prints with 5DSR with 24 TSE versus XT with original non-stabilized 18-55 here.

The purpose of the thread was to ask of anyone's experience using the 24-70 f/4. 2 people have: Mike liked it while renting and Dave didn't care for its fit with his photography style. Real users, especially experienced and talented users like on this site, can bring great observations to the table.

Whether 24-70 f/4 is enough improvement for ME to spend the extra money to acquire it versus my 24-105 is a question I have to answer for myself. I'm on the fence. But, falling victim to an advertiser's sale pitch is definitely not the reason I'm considering it.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

The purpose of the thread was to ask of anyone's experience using the 24-70 f/4. 2 people have: Mike liked it while renting and Dave didn't care for its fit with his photography style. Real users, especially experienced and talented users like on this site, can bring great observations to the table.

Whether 24-70 f/4 is enough improvement for ME to spend the extra money to acquire it versus my 24-105 is a question I have to answer for myself. I'm on the fence. But, falling victim to an advertiser's sale pitch is definitely not the reason I'm considering it.

---

I've never used the 24-70/4IS. All I can say is I started with a 24-105L on a 1D3 back in the summer of '6...no, '07. ;) I'm glad I started there, but once I added the 70-200/2.8IS and discovered the magic of the 24-70/2.8, I had to have it and never touched the 24-105L again (it became a hand-me-down to my wife, which moved her kit 28-135 to shelf duty and was later donated away with her 40D). On the off chance that I get forced down to a single diverse lens and I absolutely cannot take my Shootsac with at least one other lens, I might grab her 24-105L, but it's been maybe once per year. It's a good lens, but never had the "magic air" that the 24-70/2.8 had (and I say that in a particularly past-tense context, as I'm pretty sure my 24-70 developed a case of the shredded plastic bushings on the pins used to zoom. Hence, I now own a v2 copy, and the v1 has become our shelf spare/remote camera lens.)

I had to go look up prices so I had a sense of reality. 24-105L is priced at $999 (B&H), but I truly consider it to be a $600 lens since that's the typical price differential when it's tossed into a kit. They're a dime a dozen at the $599 price point on Craigslist as "new out of a kit", and anything priced higher than that just never sells. 24-70/4IS is $999 - $150 = $849. 24-105 STM is $599 (and that's a crock, but perhaps it's taking over the kit role and I sure hope not at a $600 price premium). 24-70/2.8 v2 is $1899 - $150 = $1749 and that's certainly a pretty penny; understandable why you wouldn't go for it. So...would I ever spend $850 for a lens with less range than the 24-105 I had currently? I probably wouldn't. However, I feel like the 24-70/4IS has some unique performance behaviors I'd have to experience to really answer that honestly.

There's something to be said for enjoying the tools you use for fun and hobbies. I'm still a hobbyist, though I suspect I may be on the verge of dipping a toe into the portrait/headshot market. I love shooting with "good stuff", and ANYONE would instantly say "Pete's got a broad range of truly fine stuff". Would that be enough to pull the trigger on a 24-70/4IS? Yeah, if that's the right lens for you, that's probably all you need to make the leap.

Dave,

Sorry, I have never used the 24-70 f/4 IS, so cannot contribute an answer.

But you did prompt a question--where can you find reliable info about the t-stop of a lens? When light is low I could see the advantage of lower ISO for a lens with better light transmission.

Danny

Yeah, I was curious about that too. I've only seen T stops listed for a couple lenses, and it was always somelike like .1 slower than f/stop. If some lenses are significantly different, that would be good to know. Perhaps something to add to the lens measurements pages.

DXOMark has them listed. For example, the two lenses compared in this thread:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/...urements__1009
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/...urements__1009

Click "transmission" when the links open for each.

Dave

Thanks Dave. It looks like most of my lens are 0.3 to 0.4 stops from their f, with the 24-70mm f/4L IS one of the rare exceptions.

Thanks, Dave.

Good to know.

Danny

My wife was looking a full frame standard zoom lens and we decided to get another 24-105L. I'm going to keep mine. Thanks everyone!

The primary reason why is the range. Having 71-105mm is a great edge. I also think I was probably being a bit unfair to the 24-105L. Most of my best shots in the last year came from it.

Dave

Congrats. She should know what to expect. It really is a very good lens and, perhaps, one of the more underappreciated lens.

Dave,

Not sure if this weighs in on your purchasing choice or not, but I had the 24-70mm f/2.8 v1. I never really enjoyed the 24-70. I sold it and purchased the 24-105 and couldn't be happier. Not sure if the t-stop difference is anything, but I for one prefer the extra zoom of the lens. I have lots of primes and zooms and this is on my camera more than any other lens. I know you think it would be an upgrade, but look back on your shots with this lens and see what is the majority of mm you have used it with. If it is above the 70mm range, I wouldn't change. I always found the 70mm limiting, especially on a full frame.

Congratulations! I often use the 24-105. For the 35-105 mm range I never find that the lens IQ is the limiting factor. When I can stop down to f8 even the 24-35 mm range seems fine.