CANON 24-70mm F/4 L

[Dr Croubie]

The $408 question for me is:
24-70 f$ L IS @ 70mm and cropped vs 24-105 f4 L IS @ 105mm and down-rezzed.

[Busted Knuckles]

The $408 question for me is:
24-70 f$ L IS @ 70mm and cropped vs 24-105 f4 L IS @ 105mm and down-rezzed.

Great way to ask the question.....Hmmm,

As I am looking to replace my 24-105 (a story not worth telling) and had pre-ordered the 24-70 2.8 but then cancelled to see if it would be really worth $2,300.

So I am spending basically a $1,000 out of the blocks as a constants - so the pricing is from "0" for the 24-105, +300 for the Tammy, +500 for the f4 24-70, and plus $1,300 for the 2.8. in round numbers.

$500 buys something that could be useful, and certainly $1,300 does as well. My perception of the $300 to the tammy is not mental "step" of $500 and the resolution looks pretty darn good. Better than the 24-105 through the range 24-70.

I may very well just replace the 24-105 with the Tammy (never thought I would ever get non Canon) and get something more specifically purposed like the 180 macro for macro work with the differential of going all the way to the 2.8 .... or the 100L + 35 f2 or, or, or, or,.... What a wonderful set of choices to have...

[HDNitehawk]

As I am looking to replace my 24-105 (a story not worth telling) and had pre-ordered the 24-70 2.8 but then cancelled to see if it would be really worth $2,300.

Lenses in general are not worth what we are paying for them. But I think the 24-70 II is priced right in comparison to Canon's offering. It is the best and should be priced as the highest.

Comparing technical specs of these lenses do not fully tell the story. On the surface the technical specs would make the step from the 24-105mm to the 24-70mm II a gradual step. Now that I own the 24-70mm II I can tell you it is a big jump not small. It gives near prime quality in a zoom which IMO makes it the first zoom in this range Canon has made worth carrying as my walk around lens. Before this I would have rather used primes and switched lenses.

[Busted Knuckles]

Just read Bryan's review. I rented this lens over the weekend and took some shots - very impressed over the 24-105 - or at least my copy of the 24-105.

Somewhat surprised that it held up as well against the 24-105. hmmm

[eldarhau]

Comparing technical specs of these lenses do not fully tell the story. On the surface the technical specs would make the step from the 24-105mm to the 24-70mm II a gradual step. Now that I own the 24-70mm II I can tell you it is a big jump not small. It gives near prime quality in a zoom which IMO makes it the first zoom in this range Canon has made worth carrying as my walk around lens. Before this I would have rather used primes and switched lenses.

I can only agree. I originally intended to keep the 24-105 for a walk around lens, because of the extended zoom range and IS, but since I got the 24-70 2.8L II, the 24-105 has been stuck in my bag until I sold it last week. I even sold the 50mm f1.2L, for the same reason (I still have the Sigma 35 f1.4 and the Canon 85 f1.2L II though).

At first I thought the price for the 24-70 II was outragous, but having worked with it for a couple of months, it is difficult not to say that it is worth it. Complementing it with a 50mm f1.2L IS II and/or an 85mm f1.2L IS III would be high on my wish list though ...

Eldar