# who is using the EF 24-70 f4 L IS



## TeT (Mar 21, 2015)

When this lens was last discussed some of you were considering making use of this lens for professional purposes.

How is that going?

Who is using it and what did it replace for that purpose.

I just got my first copy of this lens and I think I really like it... (general purpose + product pics) Less distortion + close focus are the real plus for me.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 21, 2015)

It has about the same IQ as the 24-105mmL. I considered getting one anyway for near macro closeups of my products until I saw all the reviews and users who found it to be of poorer quality than expected at close range.

I have the f/2.8 version which is also weak at mfd, so I'm just using it for now.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 21, 2015)

I use mine mainly for video, especially hand-held at wider side. At the longer end I prefer and it complements the 100L 2.8 for the same purpose.
For photos, I mainly use the 85 1.2 and 35 1.4 ART on two separate bodies, but I guess because I prefer shallow DOF.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 22, 2015)

Someone was selling one for $750ish... maybe more... maybe less... and I thought about swapping it out and selling my 24-105 for around $600-650ish... but I really didn't want to lose the additional range for not much more value...


----------



## TeT (Mar 22, 2015)

on a few days comparison... I am seeing same to slightly better images from the 24 70, sharpness is about equal (24 70 sharper at 24) 24 105 everywhere else, (most notably at 50) Since I am often at f 7 to 8 it is a wash for me...

It will boil down to is the closer focus + macro worth the 71-105 extra reach...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 22, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Someone was selling one for $750ish... maybe more... maybe less... and I thought about swapping it out and selling my 24-105 for around $600-650ish... but I really didn't want to lose the additional range for not much more value...



Right now, the CPW street price from a authorized dealer is $660 after the $200 rebate. Its a very good price, and reflects the poor sales.


----------



## tpatana (Mar 22, 2015)

I bought one in Jan for $800 after the $200 rebate, and sold my 24-105 after that.

Not sure if my 24-105 was worse than average, but my sharpness went up for sure, especially at corners.

Not going back to 24-105, although it served me well for couple years.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 22, 2015)

Huh... I want to upgrade solely for the value. But I'm cash pour right now because of some misappropriation of my camera funds by my wife.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Someone was selling one for $750ish... maybe more... maybe less... and I thought about swapping it out and selling my 24-105 for around $600-650ish... but I really didn't want to lose the additional range for not much more value...
> ...


----------



## TeT (Mar 22, 2015)

Wow, that is cheap.... I bought mine on eBay for $690; New but not brand new with warranty...

Surely it cannot go lower....


----------



## jd7 (Mar 22, 2015)

tpatana said:


> I bought one in Jan for $800 after the $200 rebate, and sold my 24-105 after that.
> 
> Not sure if my 24-105 was worse than average, but my sharpness went up for sure, especially at corners.
> 
> Not going back to 24-105, although it served me well for couple years.



I have never owned the 24-105L but I have used one a a few times. I would have a 24-105L instead of a 24-70/4L if I thought the 24-105L was as good optically, as the extra zooom range would be useful. I have the 24-70/4L because my feeling is that when you factor everything in - sharpness, distortion, CA, T-stop, etc, the 24-70/4L is better optically. For use as a travel lens, the fact it is shorter and has a zoom lock are nice little bonuses too.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 22, 2015)

TeT said:


> on a few days comparison... I am seeing same to slightly better images from the 24 70, sharpness is about equal (24 70 sharper at 24) 24 105 everywhere else, (most notably at 50) Since I am often at f 7 to 8 it is a wash for me...
> 
> It will boil down to is the closer focus + macro worth the 71-105 extra reach...



At this risk of sounding like a broken record, as I have made a similar comment in a few other threads ...

If your 24-70/4L isn't sharper than your 24-105L at f/4 throughout the zoom range, send it to Canon and get it calibrated. I almost returned my 24-70/4L for a 24-105L but I decided to try sending my 24-70/4L for calibration first, and it came back greatly improved - especially the longer focal lengths (and 50mmm in particular).

For what it is worth, Lens Rentals resolution tests have the 24-70/4L in second place behind the 24-70/2.8L II, although the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is so similar to the 24-70/4L you probably couldn't tell a difference in real life use (as against lens testing). The 24-105L and the 24-70/2.8L (mk 1) come in behind those three.

If you do send yoru 24-70/4L for calibration, I would be very interested to know what you think after it comes back.


----------



## TeT (Mar 23, 2015)

I will do some comparisons for sharpness... 

optically the 24 70 has better images. Sharpness is supposed to be similar in just about every test I have seen


----------



## jd7 (Mar 23, 2015)

TeT said:


> optically the 24 70 has better images. Sharpness is supposed to be similar on ever test I have seen with the 240 105 edging the middle zoom ranges...



In case you are interested, and for whatever they may be worth, ...

http://www.slrlounge.com/school/canon-24-70-vs-24-105-vs-28-300-lens-wars-50mm/
... although the fact the article talks about some lenses having "more bokeh" than others doesn't fill me with confidence the people at SLR Lounge necessarily know what they're talking about.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resoltion-tests
... Lens Rentals put the 24-70/4L in front of the 24-105/4L at 24 and 70. They did find the 24-70/4L didn't perform as well at 50mm as it does at 70mm, but didn't state the numbers to compare the 24-105/4L at 50mm.

I am fairly sure I've seen a few other reviews which came to similar conclusions as SLR Lounge, but I'm afraid I don't have time to spend any more time looking right now.


----------



## TeT (Mar 23, 2015)

I ran head to head using tripod and took images at 24mm 35mm 50mm & 70mm.

Only thing I noticed is that the 24 70 seems a touch brighter on same settings; just enough to in notice side by side pics.

Sharpness on my 2 lenses was identical across the board.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 23, 2015)

TeT said:


> the 24 70 seems a touch brighter on same settings; just enough to in notice side by side pics.



Assuming you were shooting in manual, I guess that makes sense given the difference in T-stop.


----------



## TeT (Mar 26, 2015)

jd7 said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > the 24 70 seems a touch brighter on same settings; just enough to in notice side by side pics.
> ...



Yes Manual... 
T-stop would account for the difference... Thanks...


----------



## TeT (Mar 26, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Someone was selling one for $750ish... maybe more... maybe less... and I thought about swapping it out and selling my 24-105 for around $600-650ish... but I really didn't want to lose the additional range for not much more value...
> ...



Bought one, it is being fulfilled by Adorama.

Sold my used one for a few bucks profit ... Thanks for the heads up on the CPW.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 20, 2015)

I took a walk around yesterday shooting with the 24-105. I went out again today with the 24-70 and took many of the same shots. It was quite something to compare them directly...this is a quick summary of my observations:

- At 24mm, the 24-70 BLOWS PAST the 24-105 in the corners. The difference is more dramatic than I realized...

- Distortion: 24-70 wins hands down.

- at 50mm, the 24-105 is "punchier" - with some extra sharpness - the difference is more noticeable wide open and/or with a close subject. 

- Macro: Given the time of year, I found the 24-70's "macro" mode to be quite useful for the flowers and roses I came across. No substitute for the 100 Macro, which is nothing short of superb, but it gets me closer than any of the other "regular" lenses. Not a strong point of the 24-105, I must say. That said, it can be a bit of a hassle to switch back and forth between "macro" and normal focal lengths...it requires two hands..


____________

Conclusion is relatively unchanged. Both lenses have great strengths and also glaring weaknesses. I was lukewarm on the 24-70 but after today, I think I convinced myself to hang onto it. 

- I would prefer the 24-70 for the following: Landscape, architectural, macro (casual), inanimate objects 

- I would prefer the 24-105 for the following: Events and people photography 


They both have their place in my collection.


----------

