# Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS



## Quasimodo (Mar 4, 2013)

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4


----------



## bchernicoff (Mar 4, 2013)

I don't know if I would call that a spanking. The review is mostly very positive with one big gotcha. That big gotcha plus the high cost of this lens means I would expect few to choose it over the 24-105. Maybe that does add up to a spanking.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 4, 2013)

This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.


----------



## robbymack (Mar 4, 2013)

Not a wholly unflattering portrait of a lens. Yes price seems a little high for what you get but I am sure the little Japanese guys at canons advertising and marketing department know more than I do so they obviously think there is a market for this lens. I also assume the 24-105 will soon go the way of the dinosaurs or well see an update to that lens (I'd actually be really interested in that) probably at a much higher price point. Fwiw there seems to be little reason to buy this lens unless you have red ring envy or really care about weight, the tamron is cheaper, faster, and also has IS.


----------



## Quasimodo (Mar 4, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> I don't know if I would call that a spanking. The review is mostly very positive with one big gotcha. That big gotcha plus the high cost of this lens means I would expect few to choose it over the 24-105. Maybe that does add up to a spanking.



Well... Residual Spherical abborations, focus shift, soft @ F 4, and a not so compelling price.. I'll hold on to my 24-105 for a while longer. A lens that continue to deliver.


----------



## Quasimodo (Mar 4, 2013)

robbymack said:


> Not a wholly unflattering portrait of a lens. Yes price seems a little high for what you get but I am sure the little Japanese guys at canons advertising and marketing department know more than I do so they obviously think there is a market for this lens. I also assume the 24-105 will soon go the way of the dinosaurs or well see an update to that lens (I'd actually be really interested in that) probably at a much higher price point. Fwiw there seems to be little reason to buy this lens unless you have red ring envy or really care about weight, the tamron is cheaper, faster, and also has IS.



+1


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 4, 2013)

By their own numbers, resolution is excellent at every aperture. Just be sure to stop down for macro shots ... Standard operating procedure for any macro work.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 4, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> By their own numbers, resolution is excellent at every aperture. Just be sure to stop down for macro shots ... Standard operating procedure for any macro work.



Agree. If the focus shift only happens in macro mode, then it's not too big of a concern to pick the f-stop first. It would behave like a MP-E 65 where focus and magnification are linked. It is a quirky lens though.

It'd make more sense closer to 1k as opposed to 1.5k. I'm guessing the price will fall faster for this lens than other recent Canon releases since its initial pricing is so out of whack.


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 4, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.


+1
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...

Cheers!


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 4, 2013)

well_dunno said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.
> ...



Or even

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2

or

24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 4, 2013)

Quasimodo, even though this is a lens I have zero interest in buying, the analysis on Photozone was fascinating. Thanks for bringing this to CR forum!

An earlier post referred to the brilliance of the marketing team at Canon. Was that tongue-in-cheek? I hope so. This is a lens looking for a market, we didn't need it, and it would be a horrible shame if it turns out to be a replacement for the more useful ef 24-105mm. Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance. Seems like a sad new kit lens, especially with the focus shifting problems reported in the review. 

Some day, a better version of the 24-105mm would be welcome, say with better IS, less distortion at 24mm, and less "nervous" bokeh. (Love that term, "nervous," as that is exactly the feeling it generates.) But don't chop off 35mm from the zoom range and say you are done!


----------



## AJ (Mar 4, 2013)

and why does this lens have a red ring?


----------



## charlesa (Mar 4, 2013)

AJ said:


> and why does this lens have a red ring?



Because of the red ring price


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 4, 2013)

YuengLinger said:


> Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance.



The cheaper one is better? I don't think so. As I read the resolution numbers on Photozone, the new 24-70/4L is _mostly_ better than the 24-105/4L. And it offers a much closer minimum focusing distance. And it's smaller and lighter. Except for the initial price, it would make a very attractive kit lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 4, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance.
> ...


 
Any kind of definitive testing would involve 10-20 lenses from different batches. Its unfortunate but true, lenses vary significantly from unit to unit and batch to batch.

I like Photozone and read their reviews, but I also read other reviews, and sometimes they are drastically different. Klaus has to rely on owners or camera stores to lend him a lens, and if it has obvious decentering or other readily discovered fault, he gets another, but even then, there can be large differences.

So read and enjoy, but its just the results from one lens, a different lens will almost certainly be different.

When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 4, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> well_dunno said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro? None. There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.

Image quality wouldn't matter at $1499? Then the 24-70/2.8II was DOA at its introductory price of $2299. But it wasn't.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 4, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > well_dunno said:
> ...



Its funny you say "Built in Macro" because my old powershot has a "Built in macro" feature. Just because it can focus really close doesn't mean its a macro lens just as my powershot lens isn't really a macro.

And yes, the IQ didn't matter @ 1499$, Because this lenses IQ is laughable for said price. Its marginally better than the 24-105L for twice the price. 

While the 24-70II is the very best 24-70 ever made by any manufacturer, thus worth the 2300$ price tag.

Jack of all trades, Master of some, and chosen by none. IE: DOA.


----------



## curby (Mar 4, 2013)

Interesting results, to be sure. This lens, along with the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, are frontrunners for replacing my 17-55/2.8 IS if I end up going full frame later on this year. Seems like I'd be trading focus shifting and smaller aperture for portability (smaller lens, and I probably wouldn't need a dedicated macro). 

Odd that the review didn't really mention macro performance too much, and none of the sample shots show a close focus situation. I guess the LoCA section is meant to cover that.

RLPhoto: Macro means a large magnification, and for a non-dedicated Macro lens this qualifies handily. The "all-in-one" nature of this lens means I can carry a smaller, lighter kit, and that's precisely why it's even in the running besides the otherwise superior Tamron. 

In the end, the focus shift issues and price are *two sides of the same problem*. With great resolution, amazing versatility, compact size, and durable construction, I wouldn't mind paying the asking price if it focused more reliably at macro ranges. On the other hand, I could allow for such quirks if they asked less. The combination of the two makes it a hard pill to swallow though.


----------



## jthomson (Mar 4, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.



I would doubt that lensrentals would get 50 copies of this lens. I would guess that most renters would go for a 2.8 lens either the Canon or the Tamron.

Still I agree with your basic point that Photozone occaisonally gets a poor copy while Lensrentals gives more statistically meaningful data.


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 4, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro? None. There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.



Good reasoning but does being a unique one-lens option provide that sort of value? One could think of it in the opposite direction too; it is only f/4, not a true macro at 0.7, and neither much (if) better than the competition optically. 

After all, I guess we all agree, it is worth for those who purchase and not worth for those who do not. If the market consists mainly of the latter, the price goes down and vice versa... This lens might become the kit lens replacing the 24-105 eventually which would be unfortunate for us who like the 24-105 and would like to see a v2 of it. I recall even calls for a f/2.8 version of it...

Cheers!


----------



## infared (Mar 4, 2013)

I think Photozone performed a major spanking...they even got the wooden spoon out! 
I do not think I have ever read a review of an L lens where the reviewer recommended two other lenses instead of the one reviewed...not with an L lens. That focus shift is really a deal breaker for a lens that expensive..and brandy newly designed and introduced...um..Canon needs to do something about that.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 4, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Agree with the single specimen problem, but focus shifts usually have more to do with the lens structure than with sample variation. On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.



> even the lower performance Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS instead



This clearly says the 24-70 IS is better all around. I think it is more comfortable for owners (and potential owners) to imagine the 24-105 to be better because they have a "better and cheaper" lens. 

I know from personal experience the 24-105 is an excellent lens, but people seem to just enjoy hating the 24-70 IS. I'd say that is totally uncalled for. If it was a bad idea to make this lens (and sell it at this price), the market will let Canon know for sure. But as it happens, only a very small fraction of that market is populated by the Canonrumor-mongers.


----------



## curby (Mar 4, 2013)

So does anyone remember the wide open LoCA shot for the Photozone review of the Tamron? It shows the same softness that plagues the Canon:

http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_2470_28_eosff/loca_f28.jpg

Why was that not called out as a fault during the Tamron review? I think I'm missing something here because it seems like a very similar problem, but it wasn't discussed as such in the Tamron review.



sagittariansrock said:


> On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.



Oh, is that all it was? I thought that when you stop down to say f/8, the camera is still doing focusing with the lens wide open. It's not until you click that the lens stops down to f/8, effectively changing the aperture after focusing. What's really going on here?



sagittariansrock said:


> people seem to just enjoy hating the 24-70 IS.



That just makes it the perfect kit lens for the well-hated 6D. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 4, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.



Unless you're shooting wide open or focusing manually with the DoF Preview button pressed, you're stopping down after focusing *every time you shoot*. AF is always performed with the lens wide open, regardless of the aperture selected. The lens stops down just before the shot, and that's when focus shift occurs. 

Do you see a bigger issue now?


----------



## curby (Mar 5, 2013)

OK, I'm getting really confused now. Here are some reviews and hands-on previews, *all* of which fail to mention any sort of fous shift issue with the lens. Is everyone else's testing methods so non-rigorous that they miss this problem, is it in fact not a problem during real life use of the lens, or did photozone get a bad lens?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests *
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f4l-is-usm/
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_24_70mm_f4_l_is_usm_review/
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-4l-usm-lens-review-21291
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-70mm-f4.htm **

* Roger mentions that his writeup specifically did not deal with focusing issues, but I imagine he would have mentioned something if he discovered a glaring problem.

** :-X


----------



## Eagle Eye (Mar 5, 2013)

I'd like to recommend that some people open up their minds a little as to what people will and will not add to their kits. I added the EF 24-70 f/4L IS to my kit to replace my EF 24-105mm f/4L. What? How can this be? Why would anyone...? A few reasons. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter. I shoot almost exclusively landscape, so I'm stopped down. As soon as I hit f/8 on my 24-70, it's sharper than the 24-105 at every focal length. I carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS in my kit, so I have 70-105 covered by a lens that is also sharper than the 24-105 at every corresponding focal length. The 24-70mm gives me the ability to take macro shots while I'm carrying a two lens kit on backcountry trips. And yes, they are macro shots. Don't knock the feature until you take a look at some of the images. Is it as good as my EF 100mm f/2.8L IS? Heck no. Is it taking macro shots that are good enough to print/publish/sell? Heck yes. Unlike, the reviewer, I haven't noticed any focus shift with mine. Bottom line, if ounces count, which they typically do for landscape photographers, this lens is much more attractive that the 24-105mm. I chose the Canon system in 2005 almost exclusively because of the f/4L zoom line. This lens is a great addition to that line and an excellent alternative to the 24-105mm (which I've hung onto for single-lens trips).


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 5, 2013)

well_dunno said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro? None. There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.
> ...



+1

I've been around some other photogs in my area, and not a single one of them had any interest in this lens. It's not a bad product, its just bad @ 1499$. If it was around 649$, along with a 70-200 f/4, then yes it would make sense. 

At its current price, a 100L + 24-105L is what you could get used for the same monies. 

There is no ideal one lens solution, afterall that's the whole point of SLRs.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2013)

Wow it tested quite well. Blows away the 24-105 IS and even beats the 24-70 II at the edges and even more corners at times although I think never in the center or at f/4 for the most part. Super low distortion and excellent lateral CA.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if I would call that a spanking. The review is mostly very positive with one big gotcha. That big gotcha plus the high cost of this lens means I would expect few to choose it over the 24-105. Maybe that does add up to a spanking.
> ...



Huge distortion, tons of lateral CA, lots of LoCA, blurry eges and corners, mediocre center sharpness, yeah glad I got rid of all my 24-105 fast! The 24-70 II and seemingly this new are and appear to be much better.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2013)

AJ said:


> and why does this lens have a red ring?



???

Maybe because it blows away the 24-105???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.



He did and the 24-105 was worst of the bunch and 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS best of the bunch with tamron 24-70 VC in the middle.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 5, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance.
> ...



I have to agree. It is overpriced, but it's too early to call it DOA.

Those folks who say that range + speed + IS define the value proposition of a lens are potentially missing something. I am not buying this new lens, but consider:

[list type=decimal]
[*]The sharpness clearly shows that the new 24-70 F/4 beats the 24-105 F/4. The new F/4 is better nearly across the board both wide open and stopped down to F/8, at both 24 and 70. As much as people treasure their 24-105s, it's a good lens and not a great one.
[*]Lighter and smaller is great if it doesn't hurt IQ. 
[*]Macro 0.7x is a huge upgrade for a kit lens. The working distance is FUBAR (http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-24-70mm-f-4l/NzIxMzE1NDU_A --> see at 7:12 or so in the video), but for some folks, it beats buying and/or packing a dedicated macro lens.
[/list]

In fairness, Photozone often only tests one lens, so I trust Roger's data at LR much more as a result. And _there_ (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests), the new F/4 was flagged as a solid step behind the new F/2.8 Mk II. That data plus this price made this a _currently DOA to me_ kind of lens.

Again, I'm not justifying the new offering, its reduction in range, high cost, etc. -- I'm just saying there are people who will buy this lens and enjoy it tremendously.

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2013)

infared said:


> I think Photozone performed a major spanking...they even got the wooden spoon out!
> I do not think I have ever read a review of an L lens where the reviewer recommended two other lenses instead of the one reviewed...not with an L lens. That focus shift is really a deal breaker for a lens that expensive..and brandy newly designed and introduced...um..Canon needs to do something about that.



Ignore what Klaus says and look at his raw numbers and you'll do a lot better. He also said the 24-105 was better than the 24 1.4 II LOL!!!!! Just because the 24 1.4 II was blurry at the edges under f/2.8!!! LOL
And yet all his numbers showed it utterly spanking the 24-105 aperture for aperture!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 5, 2013)

jthomson said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.
> ...



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

- A


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 5, 2013)

It will be an attractive lens to someone who wants the "all in one" approach such as for travel. The price gets bashed by everyone, but that is the introductory price. The price of the fantastic much-in-demand 24-70/2.8II is already down a few hundred dollars, so this one will likely head the same way.

The focus shift should be investigated further. They only tried it at 70mm and without autofocus. Apparently, the lens is not sharp for close-up work at 70mm at f/4, but who buys a macro for wide-open aperture work? Their example shows a much sharper lens in the f/8 example (not just more depth of field). Someone should test whether the focus shift is a genuine problem at smaller apertures, or whether depth of field covers it. It's possible that at 50mm and f/8 and smaller there is no problem at all.

It may not meet some people's strict definition of "macro", but at 0.7X it is _more_ macro than the 50/2.5 compact macro. For some photographers this is a win: it means one less lens to carry, one less lens to change.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.
> ...



How big a deal is it in practice though? The 24-70 II also has a huge focus shift near MFD but does anyone complain about it regular shooting?


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 5, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> It will be an attractive lens to someone who wants the "all in one" approach such as for travel. The price gets bashed by everyone, but that is the introductory price. The price of the fantastic much-in-demand 24-70/2.8II is already down a few hundred dollars, so this one will likely head the same way.
> 
> The focus shift should be investigated further. They only tried it at 70mm and without autofocus. Apparently, the lens is not sharp for close-up work at 70mm at f/4 anyway, but who buys a macro for wide-open aperture work? Their example shows a much sharper lens in the f/8 example (not just more depth of field). Someone should test whether the focus shift is a genuine problem at smaller apertures, or whether depth of field covers it. It's possible that at 50mm and f/8 and smaller there is no problem at all.
> 
> It may not meet some people's strict definition of "macro", but at 0.7X it is _more_ macro than the 50/2.5 compact macro. For some photographers this is a win: it means one less lens to carry, one less lens to change.



Agree agree agree. 

This is a single lens for travel kind of option. I'm telling you, as weird as the minimum focusing distance is, the 0.7x macro will be a hit with certain users. Make fun of them all you want, but this thing will resonate with some users.

- A


----------



## K-amps (Mar 5, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.



Love your new Avatar... Striking! Kudos Ramon.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 5, 2013)

Ok, before this thread goes on any further. Lets define what DOA is and isn't. 

If a 14-24L were released tomarrow, I can guarantee that lens will not be DOA. No matter the cost. It's a lens everyone wants. Orders would line up for months. 

The 24-70 f/4L was released, and I haven't seen or heard much about it up to now. Many of my photogs buddies don't care and I don't see a lot of them at local rental stores or camera shops. I heard that almost nobody bought one. 

That is DOA to me, but, but, it could be resurrected if its price is cut significantly. I want to like this lens but my copy of the 24-105L is just so good, why canon?

Edit: I use my 24-105 a lot for eBay shots. It's a tack.


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ignore what Klaus says and look at his raw numbers and you'll do a lot better. He also said the 24-105 was better than the 24 1.4 II LOL!!!!! Just because the 24 1.4 II was blurry at the edges under f/2.8!!! LOL
> And yet all his numbers showed it utterly spanking the 24-105 aperture for aperture!


Good point. Look at the numbers, not the interpretation. The numbers show an excellent lens in a compact size. 

Reviewers are often biased against a product because of its introductory price. Give them the price a year after release, and they may give a different interpretation. Reviewers also have a bias based on their personal needs for a lens. If they don't want it, they figure no one else wants it. There is one reviewer always lauding the Sigma 35/1.4 over the Canon 35/2 IS because he prizes sharpness at f/1.4 and doesn't seem to care how big/heavy the lens is or whether it has IS. Each lens has its value, but maybe to a different photographer.


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> How big a deal is it in practice though? The 24-70 II also has a huge focus shift near MFD but does anyone complain about it regular shooting?


I've never noticed it with the 24-70 II. Now I'll have to look for it!


----------



## infared (Mar 5, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I think Photozone performed a major spanking...they even got the wooden spoon out!
> ...



Hmmmm... That may explain why is review is not compatible with the others....I would love to see Roger at Lens Rentals take on this topic..then we would see if it has any merit....


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 5, 2013)

Interestingly, someone on the Fred Miranda Canon forum read the same Photozone review and started a thread titled: "24-70 f/4 IS tests really well on photozone" ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 5, 2013)

jthomson said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.
> ...


 
You are right, I'd rent a 24-70mm f/2.8L first myself. However, I'm very happy with my 24-105mmL and would not be even looking at the 24-70 f/4.
I keep thinking of getting the 24-70mm L f/2.8 version, but the zoom range is not what I'd like, I now use primes from 35mm to 135mm and at f/2 or wider apertures. For the cases where I need wider, I have the 16-35mmL, but would like a faster aperture.
I would definitely like a 28-135mm f/2, but its not coming so I'm not waiting for it.


----------



## mbpics (Mar 5, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> Interestingly, someone on the Fred Miranda Canon forum read the same Photozone review and started a thread titled: "24-70 f/4 IS tests really well on photozone" ...



That's because it did... I'm really confused as to why everyone here is so bitter, but then again it is a Canon forum so this is quite in character for you guys.

Aside from the focus shift issue which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else thus far, it tested significantly better than the 24-105 and only slightly worse than either Canon or Nikon's current 24-70s stopped down to f/4. And it can focus at macro distances to boot! The price is a bit high, but that's par for the course with Canon lenses at launch these days; we'll be seeing CR guy post about deals on this very site in no time, don't worry


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.
> ...



Ah, thanks for the edification. 
Indeed, then it would be a VERY BIG ISSUE, and then I wonder why that hasn't been all over the internet already! Maybe sample variation did play a role here? ???
BTW, not that I am personally interested in this lens, but would this be true even if one is back-button focusing?


----------



## Etienne (Mar 5, 2013)

This lens was a hard sell from the beginning. 

I was waiting for the reviews to come in , and i would have considered it IF it was a stellar performer: sharp everywhere, great contrast, resistant to flare, low distortion etc etc. But it has very little to offer over my 24-105 and it's only 70g lighter, ... so it's dead to me.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, I cannot imagine a situation where I set the aperture AFTER focusing, so I don't see a big issue here.
> ...


If you manual focus in Live View, then the focus shift is irrelevant.

It's a deal breaker for me. I have zero interest in a lens with focus shift problems.


----------



## curby (Mar 5, 2013)

Etienne said:


> It's a deal breaker for me. I have zero interest in a lens with focus shift problems.



Sure, but does the lens have focus shift problems? A refresher:



mbpics said:


> the focus shift issue which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else thus far





sagittariansrock said:


> I wonder why that hasn't been all over the internet already! Maybe sample variation did play a role here? ???





curby said:


> Here are some reviews and hands-on previews, *all* of which fail to mention any sort of fous shift issue with the lens. Is everyone else's testing methods so non-rigorous that they miss this problem, is it in fact not a problem during real life use of the lens, or did photozone get a bad lens?
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests *
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
> ...


----------



## RGF (Mar 5, 2013)

Besides the RSA in macro mode at 70 mm, what else is work this lens? Nothing. I seldom use macro mode on many of my lenses, so this is a none issue for me. 

I would like to have seen a comparison between the 24-70 F2.8II, 24-105 and this lens for IQ in non-macro situations.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 5, 2013)

RGF said:


> Besides the RSA in macro mode at 70 mm, what else is work this lens? Nothing. I seldom use macro mode on many of my lenses, so this is a none issue for me.
> 
> I would like to have seen a comparison between the 24-70 F2.8II, 24-105 and this lens for IQ in non-macro situations.


Again, this has all been published by LR, which unlike most reviewers, runs many copies of a given lens.

As linking the data isn't enough for some readers... 

LR data attached -- this all came from LR at http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests. 

I'll just link the F/4 data -- see attachments. It's pretty clear that the new F/4 IS lens is very good, but I believe the world will disregard it for petty reasons (i.e. this lens isn't new compared to the 24-105) and legitimate value-based reasons (i.e. overpriced).

Again, I'm not supporting this lens as offered -- it's clearly overpriced. But to bash it just on three specs (range/speed/IS) is a little nearsighted, IMHO. This lens will be used, it will be loved, and it will build a following just like the 24-105, though perhaps for different reasons.

- A


----------



## Quasimodo (Mar 5, 2013)

While I trust their methods and unbiasedness at Photozone, as several have pointed out, the sheer number of lenses not tested is also an important aspect to consider when reading the different reviews. 

How many lenses does TDP, DPReview, DXO use for tetsing lenses? 

For me personally I like my 24-105 and my copy delivers sharp pictures and is a great lens (apart from a sliding movement of the inner barrel when carrying it around (easily fixed by strapping on a plastic/rubber ring that girls wear around their arms, bought in accesorize)). I also believe that the F4 vs. F2.8 is somewhat less of a showstopper now that the latest cameras have had great improvements in ISO, which also speaks for the new 24-70 IS. To me, the incrimental improvement in sharpness vs. the one I know and like is too small to justify such an investment. If the 24-70 II were to drop in price.....


----------



## mbpics (Mar 5, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Besides the RSA in macro mode at 70 mm, what else is work this lens? Nothing. I seldom use macro mode on many of my lenses, so this is a none issue for me.
> ...



Why is nobody talking about 1.7% barrel distortion at 24mm vs 5% for the 24-105??? Photozone rates it as 2.4% vs 4.3%, respectively - a HUGE difference.

If you want to correct the 24-105's distortion, you'll end up with resolution far less than that of the new 24-70/4 IS. That by itself shows that this is a much better lens all around than the aging 24-105, and you can also focus much more closely.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 5, 2013)

mbpics said:


> Why is nobody talking about 1.7% barrel distortion at 24mm vs 5% for the 24-105??? Photozone rates it as 2.4% vs 4.3%, respectively - a HUGE difference.
> 
> If you want to correct the 24-105's distortion, you'll end up with resolution far less than that of the new 24-70/4 IS. That by itself shows that this is a much better lens all around than the aging 24-105, and you can also focus much more closely.



I did mention it. This one has the lowest distortion of them all. MUCH less than the tamron at 24mm, much less than 24-105 at 24mm, less than the 24-70 II at 24mm, only the 24mm primes do better for distortion at 24mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 5, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Yes, true no matter how you autofocus.


----------



## skitron (Mar 5, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Maybe they are dealing with it in the lens AF firmware? Basically an "on the fly AFMA based on aperture" of sorts perhaps? Would be interesting to compare the observed shift doing manual chart shot vs AF chart shot at various apertures.


----------



## jrbdmb (Mar 5, 2013)

mbpics said:


> Why is nobody talking about 1.7% barrel distortion at 24mm vs 5% for the 24-105??? Photozone rates it as 2.4% vs 4.3%, respectively - a HUGE difference.
> 
> If you want to correct the 24-105's distortion, you'll end up with resolution far less than that of the new 24-70/4 IS. That by itself shows that this is a much better lens all around than the aging 24-105, and you can also focus much more closely.



But at least the distortion of the 24-105L is correctable. Out-of-focus shots caused by the focus shifting of the 24-70 f4L is not.

BTW, I wouldn't consider the focus shift an automatic deal breaker for me, since I don't use macro that often and typically shoot close to wide open. But it is another small reason why I'm not expecting to "upgrade" from the 24-105L, with price / loss of 35mm on the long end the main reasons. The 24-105L is a great walkaround lens, the 24-70 not as much (to me at least).


----------



## Etienne (Mar 5, 2013)

RGF said:


> Besides the RSA in macro mode at 70 mm, what else is work this lens? Nothing. I seldom use macro mode on many of my lenses, so this is a none issue for me.
> 
> I would like to have seen a comparison between the 24-70 F2.8II, 24-105 and this lens for IQ in non-macro situations.



I agree, if the focus shift is only in macro mode, then it's a non-issue. Macro shots mean manual focus, usually with live view. There will be no focus shift in live view with manual focus because the aperture will be at your selected setting while you focus.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 5, 2013)

BTW ... I'd still go for the 24-70 2.8 over the f/4. It's not that much extra.

Crystal ball: Canon releases a 24-70 2.8L IS at $2400, and the non-IS version settles in at $1600 - $1800


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 5, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> While I trust their methods and unbiasedness at Photozone, as several have pointed out, the sheer number of lenses not tested is also an important aspect to consider when reading the different reviews.
> 
> How many lenses does TDP, DPReview, DXO use for tetsing lenses?



You make a fair point. From the reviews I've read, it appears that each site has strengths and weaknesses:

*Roger at LR* is king of sharpness data from my perspective, b/c he tests all of LRs stock of the same lens (in some cases, dozens of the same lens). That trumps most everyone out there for data, but he's not the thoughtful tips/feedback/insights guy that Bryan Carnathan is. Roger also has (IMHO) massive street cred on being a camera nerd first and a fanboy last. He'll blow any design out of the water if it underperforms.

*TDP *-- Carnathan does test multiple copies but not a huge number. He brings up copy to copy variation when something odd occurs and obtains new glass to verify odd findings. See his Tamron 24-70 IS and new Mk II 24-70 reviews -- fishy stuff came up and he itemized the differences. 

Further, his site is more of a broad read of useability and his personal (though admittedly expert) take on things. His site excels at fun image-level comparisons of all the lenses taking the same shot (or test page) from a tripod, and then allowing you to mouseover to see what's going on: L vs. non-L vs. Sigma, aperture, ISO, etc.

I read his site fairly religiously for all-around reasons. It's thoughtful, useful commentary from a knowledgable user. But his is a world of insight and _adjectives_ -- it's not a lab-like mountain of details.

*Photozone *has the most nicely broken down sharpness data that I can read easily. They have middle/border/extreme resolution data for many focal lengths on a zoom, and they report it for most common apertures selected. Very helpful. This is a site opens your mind a bit as you tend to comparison shop. At a site like this, you see non-L glass punching its weight brilliantly against L glass if you stop it down just a shade. Big limitation? I believe it's only one lens they test.

*DXO*s interesting angle is having combinatorial data of bodies + lenses. No idea how many lenses they actually test. I don't read this site much as DXO has (groan) their own metrics on their own hardware that I haven't bothered to learn how to read. I still don't understand their data fully.

I don't read *DPreview *reviews as they require a dozen page turns to get ad views. Fail. They are wasting my time versus their competitors.

I don't read *Ken Rockwell* much, but my goodness, if you want a fine detail about metal vs. plastic, if the front element rotates during focusing, how many points on the sunstar created when stopping down, etc. then he's your guy. Absurd little details for the nerdy camera lover. TDP has some of this, too, but it's inconsistently reported from review to review.

For me, I trust:


TDP for everything but data -- it's just there, easy to find, and thoughtfully explained.
Roger at LR for hard sharpness numbers. End of story.
Photozone for quick, easy comparison of two lenses I might be considering

- A


----------



## Quasimodo (Mar 5, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > While I trust their methods and unbiasedness at Photozone, as several have pointed out, the sheer number of lenses not tested is also an important aspect to consider when reading the different reviews.
> ...



Thank you for answering the question, and in such an informed manner. 

G


----------



## curby (Mar 5, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> See his Tamron 24-70 IS ... review



Do you have a link? This page doesn't seem to have many details. Thanks!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 5, 2013)

curby said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > See his Tamron 24-70 IS ... review
> ...



I forgot -- he didn't post it as a formal review because of his quirky findings. He posted it under news:

Initial story in May of 2012: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=2357

Follow-up in Jan 2013: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=4053

He has a pre-loaded mouseover compare chart here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&Sample=0&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

- A


----------



## psolberg (Mar 5, 2013)

FINALLY reviewers are starting to take note of focus shift, a topic which had been buried as a footnote as all everybody cares these days is 100% crops of some stupid black and white chart. 

it is however surprising to see such absurd amount of focus shift on a slow zoom lens. I kind of expect that behavior on f/1.8 glass or faster.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 6, 2013)

I don't know about focus shift, but what supporters of this lens are terribly overlooking is that the 24-105 has a range and a price that leave room for compromise, whereas a 24-70 f/4 sold for 1600$ has to be epitome of optical perfection itself - and it's not.


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 6, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> ... whereas a 24-70 f/4 sold for 1600$ has to be epitome of optical perfection itself - and it's not.



It was introduced at $1499. It is now $1449. It will likely be less in the months ahead, and even less if included as part of a kit.

No one has ever made a perfect zoom for $1449. The epitome of optical perfection itself would cost a lot more than $1,449. For $1449 you get an improved lens, not the epitome of optical perfection.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 6, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > ... whereas a 24-70 f/4 sold for 1600$ has to be epitome of optical perfection itself - and it's not.
> ...



The fact is that it's not an improvement because it left as much as 35mm of range behind its predecessor. It's likely that most of the optical advantages derive from this alone.

What you get is a lens whose specs and performance hardly justify its price. And in fact I don't see many owners of a 24-105 throwing it out and running to buy this 24-70. 

So yes, when you charge 1450$ for such a lens it'd better be flat-out amazing.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 6, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> I don't know about focus shift, but what supporters of this lens are terribly overlooking is that the 24-105 has a range and a price that leave room for compromise, whereas a 24-70 f/4 sold for 1600$ has to be epitome of optical perfection itself - and it's not.



I am sure many if not most people who own a 24-105 wouldn't feel the need to upgrade to a 24-70 IS. I am also sure that most people looking for a standard zoom for FF will still prefer a 24-105. I don't think that a comparison between the two lenses is the big question here. 
The so-called "supporters" of the 24-70 are merely trying to reason that it doesn't make sense to "spank" a lens without *basis*. However, a justifiable *basis* would be if the lens consistently demonstrates the problem of focus shift (something that I recently learned about) or if Canon decides to replace the 24-105 with the 24-70 without lowering the price or fixing the issue (assuming it really is an issue across many samples).


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 6, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



Sure, it's not an improvement because of the reduced 35mm of range ... if focal length range is your measure of improvement. In that case, 10X or 20X super-zoom would be the ultimate improvement. But focal range is not the usual measure of improvement. The facts are as shown by the numbers in ahsanford's post above. Those numbers clearly show an overall improvement in IQ.

Of course, owners of the 24-105 aren't "throwing it out" to buy this 24-70. That doesn't reflect on the 24-70 at all. The 24-105 is a fine lens in its own right and remains a good value. So no one is crazy enough to throw it out. The 24-70 is an alternative with some improvements and differences, not an obvious replacement. Many people will find the 24-105 meets their needs and budget better. That doesn't mean that other people won't find that this new 24-70 meets _their_ needs and budget better. That's the beauty of alternatives. They meet the needs of different people with different needs and applications.

Optical perfection is a very high standard. You don't get it for an extra $400-$600 from any manufacturer.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 6, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if I would call that a spanking. The review is mostly very positive with one big gotcha. That big gotcha plus the high cost of this lens means I would expect few to choose it over the 24-105. Maybe that does add up to a spanking.
> ...



+1 I don't see the point of the 24-70 F/4


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 6, 2013)

Etienne said:


> BTW ... I'd still go for the 24-70 2.8 over the f/4. It's not that much extra.
> 
> Crystal ball: Canon releases a 24-70 2.8L IS at $2400, and the non-IS version settles in at $1600 - $1800



I don't see it. If and when that pickle jar of a 2.8 IS lens is offered, those jerks will want extortion money for it -- I'd say $3k. It's a holy grail sort of lens.

_That said_, if Nikon offers one first, Canon will only punish us with a nasty markup, and then your prediction will be right in line.

- A


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 6, 2013)

psolberg said:


> FINALLY reviewers are starting to take note of focus shift, a topic which had been buried as a footnote as all everybody cares these days is 100% crops of some stupid black and white chart.
> 
> it is however surprising to see such absurd amount of focus shift on a slow zoom lens. I kind of expect that behavior on f/1.8 glass or faster.



FWIW, this poster on the FM forum says he tried to replicate the focus shift with his new 24-70/4L and could not find it:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1194688/1#11395622

... but of course, that's not the last word on the topic, as others may get different results.


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 6, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > BTW ... I'd still go for the 24-70 2.8 over the f/4. It's not that much extra.
> ...



Sure, everyone one wants optical excellence and great durability at bargain prices. Who wouldn't? But is that realistic? Are they "jerks" for not offering that? Are photographers who charge high prices for excellent photography and service also "jerks"? 

Try buying the real estate for a lens factory, building your own lens factory and hiring your own highly skilled workforce, and paying for all of the materials, training, benefits, upkeep, taxes, etc. that go with that, and then see how cheaply you'll want to sell your professional grade lenses. My guess: not very cheaply.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 6, 2013)

It is sometimes worrisome that people maintain negative feelings towards a brand they are loyal to, but it's not a really bad thing altogether. We should be able to criticize and praise at the same time. So, while I generally think Canon makes excellent photography equipment, it is refreshing to see people criticize genuine mistakes. Take a look at the Apple forum, and the excess of fanboyish behavior will disturb you. You say one negative word, and ten people will pounce on you advising you to switch to PC (or Android) immediately or just deal with it.
I think there are both good and bad things about the criticism of the 24-70 IS- comparing it with the 24-105 or making a big deal out of a yet unproven (except for one flying pig till now) issue is not so good. Criticizing people who have bought, used and liked the lens- also not good. Criticizing Canon's pricing policy- not so bad, actually. Not just Canon- Nikon came up with a very expensive 80-400 VR (II?) as well. Are these companies trying to mark their items up to make up for their losses due to natural disasters, bad economy, etc.? That is bad, considering they are taking advantage of brand commitment rather than charging a product based on its performance alone. And that is unfair, as it is unfair for Apple to charge $ 30 for a lightning connector adapter, taking advantage of people who have already purchased Apple-compatible products that are suddenly no longer compatible.


----------



## curby (Mar 7, 2013)

I agree with the above, with two caveats/clarifications:

1) Apple has more than its share of rabid fans, but it's not just the media that has insanely high expectations of them; their users howl about every real and perceived fault. I'm a long-time Mac user, and have caused many friends and family to purchase them too, but boy do I hate their mice, cloud services, and every laptop screen they've ever put out before the retina.

2) The market will bear what the market will bear. Going back to Apple, everyone said the iPad mini was overpriced, but they still couldn't keep them in stock. Lowering the initial price would have just been a bad business decision that would have left money on the table. $30 for a Lightning cable is a lot, but now there are cheaper options available. $1500 for this lens is a lot, and will either plummet in price if the naysayers here are right, or will stay high if it does turn out to be as popular as Canon bet on.

Ultimately, I hope the performance problems Photozone found are limited in nature, as supported by other reviews not mentioning the problem and other users who can't reproduce the problem. If not, then Canon truly made a misstep not only in the pricing, but in releasing a lens that simultaneously offers high-magnification performance as a headlining feature yet suffers from critical issues when using that feature.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 7, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> Sure, it's not an improvement because of the reduced 35mm of range ... if focal length range is your measure of improvement. In that case, 10X or 20X super-zoom would be the ultimate improvement. But focal range is not the usual measure of improvement. The facts are as shown by the numbers in ahsanford's post above. Those numbers clearly show an overall improvement in IQ.
> 
> Of course, owners of the 24-105 aren't "throwing it out" to buy this 24-70. That doesn't reflect on the 24-70 at all. The 24-105 is a fine lens in its own right and remains a good value. So no one is crazy enough to throw it out. *The 24-70 is an alternative with some improvements and differences, not an obvious replacement.* Many people will find the 24-105 meets their needs and budget better. That doesn't mean that other people won't find that this new 24-70 meets _their_ needs and budget better. That's the beauty of alternatives. They meet the needs of different people with different needs and applications.
> 
> Optical perfection is a very high standard. You don't get it for an extra $400-$600 from any manufacturer.



That's the problem. 

Your logic clashes with the reality of facts being that this lens is going to replace the 24-105 as FF kit lens. And I can see why people react with a loud WTF.

Also, achieving optical improvements at the expense of zoom range is hardly something to rave about. At its best, these two lenses are equal. Then why is the new one supposed to cost so much more?

By the way, this lens is also hardly any sharper than the Tamron 24-70 @f/4 - which is one full stop faster, if you need it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Your logic clashes with the reality of facts being that this lens is going to replace the 24-105 as FF kit lens. And I can see why people react with a loud WTF.



Can I ask...what is the basis for your statement of 'fact' that the 24-105/4L IS will be _replaced_ by the 24-70/4L IS as the FF kit lens, i.e. the 24-105L will be discontinued? Did I miss an announcement from Canon?


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Your logic clashes with the reality of facts being that this lens is going to replace the 24-105 as FF kit lens. And I can see why people react with a loud WTF.
> ...


¨

No, you didn't, but hopefully we can agree that everything points in that direction? The 5D2 wasn't discontinued the day the 5D3 became available, but we all knew it was going to happen. The 24-105 was due for a refresh, and the 24-70 is very much similar: standard L zoom, f/4, IS, etc. I also remember reading that it was going to be offered as a kit lens as well and I doubt there will be an overlapping. 

Hopefully we can also agree that this new lens will not sell half as much as Canon would like as long as the more versatile, much cheaper 24-105 is around.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



Time will tell. When the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS was introduced in 2010, it was a commonly held belief that the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-L) lens, which was 10 years older and much cheaper, would soon be discontinued. Three years later, the non-L 100mm macro is still part of the current Canon USA lineup. 

While prices of lenses have certainly gone up, I see a continued need for Canon to have a kit lens that's 'reasonably' priced. For example, the $700 EF-S 15-85mm lens is offered as a kit lens with the 7D, whereas the >$1000 EF-S 17-55mm lens is not.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1





> While prices of lenses have certainly gone up, I see a continued need for Canon to have a kit lens that's 'reasonably' priced. For example, the $700 EF-S 15-85mm lens is offered as a kit lens with the 7D, whereas the >$1000 EF-S 17-55mm lens is not.




I didn't know the 15-85 was offered as a kit, although I agree with your point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> I didn't know the 15-85 was offered as a kit, although I agree with your point.



Perhaps not in every market globally, but definitely in some...


----------



## jon_charron (Mar 7, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> 24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)
> 
> or
> 
> ...



Hahahaha! Awesome. ;D


----------



## jon_charron (Mar 7, 2013)

Eagle Eye said:


> I'd like to recommend that some people open up their minds a little as to what people will and will not add to their kits. I added the EF 24-70 f/4L IS to my kit to replace my EF 24-105mm f/4L. What? How can this be? Why would anyone...? A few reasons. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter. I shoot almost exclusively landscape, so I'm stopped down. As soon as I hit f/8 on my 24-70, it's sharper than the 24-105 at every focal length. I carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS in my kit, so I have 70-105 covered by a lens that is also sharper than the 24-105 at every corresponding focal length. The 24-70mm gives me the ability to take macro shots while I'm carrying a two lens kit on backcountry trips. And yes, they are macro shots. Don't knock the feature until you take a look at some of the images. Is it as good as my EF 100mm f/2.8L IS? Heck no. Is it taking macro shots that are good enough to print/publish/sell? Heck yes. Unlike, the reviewer, I haven't noticed any focus shift with mine. Bottom line, if ounces count, which they typically do for landscape photographers, this lens is much more attractive that the 24-105mm. I chose the Canon system in 2005 almost exclusively because of the f/4L zoom line. This lens is a great addition to that line and an excellent alternative to the 24-105mm (which I've hung onto for single-lens trips).



Sorry if this has been addressed later in the thread as I haven't finished reading, but can you post some pics taken with the 24-70? I'm very interested to see a few and would greatly appreciate this.


----------



## jon_charron (Mar 7, 2013)

I know the IS will help with the Macro mode for hand held work, but I still think you are better to keep the long end with a 24-105L and buy something like a 50mm 2.5 compact macro for $250 to keep for macro. This is what you get with the 50mm:






Okay to be fair, that shot is with the 50mm plus kenko extension tubes.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't know the 15-85 was offered as a kit, although I agree with your point.
> ...



heck of a lot more useful than the 18-135 or 28-135 they bundle in the US!


----------



## Zlatko (Mar 7, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, it's not an improvement because of the reduced 35mm of range ... if focal length range is your measure of improvement. In that case, 10X or 20X super-zoom would be the ultimate improvement. But focal range is not the usual measure of improvement. The facts are as shown by the numbers in ahsanford's post above. Those numbers clearly show an overall improvement in IQ.
> ...



My logic clashes with your prediction of the future, not with reality or facts. If you look at Canon's lens lineup, there is lots and lots of duplication. How many versions of the 70-200? And of the 70-300? There are four 50's. It's not a stretch to conceive that maybe the 24-105 is not being replaced by this 24-70.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 8, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> My logic clashes with your prediction of the future, not with reality or facts. If you look at Canon's lens lineup, there is lots and lots of duplication. How many versions of the 70-200? And of the 70-300? There are four 50's. It's not a stretch to conceive that maybe the 24-105 is not being replaced by this 24-70.



Yep, why stop a bestseller? 

How about this marketing scenario: Sell the 24-70 F/4 with a camera kit. People buy it and later if they want some extra range in one zoom, they have to buy the 24-105 also. Double money


----------

