# Lens broken - Need new 24-70(105mm)



## daniela (Jan 3, 2016)

On New Years Eve, my old 28-70mm L lens got broken, when we had to escape from an building in Munich.
Now the zoom ring scratches when turned.

Now I need an new one for hiking and climbing for my 6D body. 
24mm-70 or 105mm in an (better) quality. 
Price lower than 1000(maximal 1200€)€, as i want to buy an new prime 400mm too.

Which one to buy? The Canon 24-70 IS L 4 or the Tokina 24-70??


----------



## pwp (Jan 3, 2016)

That's too bad. Is it worth getting repaired? If you're comfortably accustomed to having a f/2.8 lens then the logical progression would be to the downright amazing 24-70 f/2.8II. 

-pw


----------



## daniela (Jan 3, 2016)

pwp said:


> That's too bad. Is it worth getting repaired? If you're comfortably accustomed to having a f/2.8 lens then the logical progression would be to the downright amazing 24-70 f/2.8II.
> 
> -pw



Well, my 28-70 2.8 is more than 10 years old, so I do not know if it is worth to fix it. I read, the newer L lenses are a lot better and sharper than my version.
I do not want to buy the still 1700€ expensive 2.8 Canon. There are rumors, this lens gets an IS replacement.
1200€ are the Maximum, I will spend for this, otherwise an fast teleprime will not be affordable for me.

Daniela


----------



## FEBS (Jan 3, 2016)

If f4 is not a must, then I would advice the 24-105 f4 IS L. That lens is very sharp at f8 and performs very good on a FF. Price is below 1000€. 

When I want to go light weight then I take the 16-35F4, 24-105F4 and the 100-400Lii and a 1.4iii extender. This gives me range of 16 till 560mm on a FF. Quality of these 3 lenses are very good and they have all three 77m filter thread.


----------



## ChienLunatique (Jan 3, 2016)

Just bought a 24-70l f4 a few weeks back on a cybermonday special and with Canon running a €200 cashback offer on the lens at the same time it was an absolute bargain. It is a fantastic lens, on a7D2 the Af is really fast, stabilizer is silent you forget that it has one and it is really sharp. You cant go wrong with it. The cashback offer in France (possibly Europe) runs until 24th January.
Good Luck and happy New Year


----------



## TeT (Jan 3, 2016)

24 70 4 L is second only to the 2.8 L II in sharpness/IQ (IMO & many others concur) in price it is beat by none.

Its worst area of performance (sharpness) is around 50mm(but that is still much better than the lens you are replacing in that range)

You will be very pleased with the lens, the macro aspect is highly usable as well and could be handy on a hike for the little things that come up...


----------



## sulla (Jan 3, 2016)

I would have *slight* reservations against the EF 24-70 f/4L IS. From a frew reviews I've read I believe that this lens has a _EDIT: slight_ awful amount of focus shift at macro distances. At longer distances it seems ok, however.
*EDIT:* _I carefully checked reviews again, the focus shift this lens exhibits is by no means "awful". It is present, but only just noticeable._

As a former owner of the EF 24-105 f/4L IS, I must say that I was very very pleased with this lens. I liked it very much.

The only advantage of the 24-70 over the 24-105 is the half-macro capability of the 24-70 lens. Personally, I would prefer longer 105mm reach over macro capabilities any time, but then, I have a dedicated macro lens. So, my recommendation is: get a 24-105 f/4L used for 600 EUR. Or perhaps a 24-70 f/2.8L (mark I) used for under 1200 EUR. Both should be readily available used.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jan 3, 2016)

For what it's worth - I would save a little longer and go for the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2. I know it is outside your current budget but it is worth saving for. I used the Canon 24-105 F4 L IS for a long time (bought mine just after it was introduced) and it was a great, though not perfect, lens. The 24-70 F4 L IS is an interesting option but I didn't find any significant advantage (on the example I tried) over the 24-105.
I normally shoot my short lenses stopped down to F5.6/F8 so I don't really need F2.8 - what I do need/want is the improved IQ that the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 has given me since February this year. In a nutshell my images look better with the 24-70 V2 than any other standard zoom that I have (yet) tried. It is expensive (possibly overpriced) but it is better in my experience. 
Whether that difference is worth saving for only you can decide! As an aside I really hope that Canon do not introduce an IS version of this lens - why muck up an excellent optical formula with an extra piece of glass and electronics that just impairs IQ and AF? See if you can try one out before you decide.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 3, 2016)

For hiking and climbing, a f/4 lens will be easier to handle than a f/2.8, so I'd go for the 24-105L or the 24-70 f/4. IQ wise, they are similar with the 24-70 being slightly better. The street price is very close.

The 24-70 is lighter, as you would expect.


----------



## sulla (Jan 4, 2016)

Daniela, the reason noone is recommending or even talking about the Tokina 24-70 here is that unfortunately non-Canon lenses can be a real nightmare autofocus-wise.
If you want reliable and reproducible autofocus, go for the canon. If you can live with misfocussing every here and there, the Tokina is cheaper for sure.


----------



## jd7 (Jan 4, 2016)

Hi Daniela

Since hiking and climbing are important to you, I say have a very close look at the 24-70 f4L IS. I like mine - relatively small and light, very good IQ, good build quality, and I find the macro mode handy when hiking. I think it's an excellent landscape and travel lens, and all the more so if you want to travel light. I haven't tried the Tokina, though, so can't give you a comparison with it I'm afraid.

The 4L IS v the 2.8L II: no doubt the 2.8 is the one to get if you want a zoom in that range for events/portraits/low light, but the disadvantages are size/weight/cost. If shooting wider than f/4 isn't a priority though, query whether the disadvantages are worth it.

The 4L IS v 24-105L IS: The 4L IS is a bit smaller and lighter, and has the (pseudo) macro mode, plus I like the zoom lock when hiking. I believe it is also a bit sharper, has less CA, less distortion, handles flare a little better, and has better light transmission (lower T stop). The 24-105L obviously has a reach advantage, and different people will tell you different things about the extent of any practical difference in IQ.

Good luck with your decision!


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 4, 2016)

sulla said:


> The only advantage of the 24-70 over the 24-105 is the half-macro capability of the 24-70 lens. Personally, I would prefer longer 105mm reach over macro capabilities any time,



I have both; intended to sell the 24-105 but just can't do it: I use 105 mm too much. 

Where the 24-70 is much better than the older one is at 24 mil, the IS is an improvement too. Manual focus is also better for what it's worth. However using the 24-105L as a 28-105 I am quite happy. In fact that lens is razor in the 30 - 35 region. 

However as a hiking lens the 24-70/4 L is noticeably more compact and has a lock to stop the zoom creeping out which is useful and makes it less cumbersome to carry. Decisions decisions........


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 4, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> sulla said:
> 
> 
> > The only advantage of the 24-70 over the 24-105 is the half-macro capability of the 24-70 lens. Personally, I would prefer longer 105mm reach over macro capabilities any time,
> ...



To add, having that extra 35mm will make you reach less for your telephoto lens. Changing lenses during hikes isn't a fun thing to do. Now, if it's only a 24-300 with weight on par with the 24-105, I'd be really happier.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 4, 2016)

daniela said:


> Which one to buy? The Canon 24-70 IS L 4 or the Tokina 24-70??



First, sorry to hear that you had to escape a building and your gear got damaged.

But, perhaps instead of Tonkina you meant the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC? If not, you might consider it. I shoot the Canon EF 24-70 II and 24-105 f/4, but a friend uses the Tamron and his results are impressive.


----------



## daniela (Jan 4, 2016)

docsmith said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > Which one to buy? The Canon 24-70 IS L 4 or the Tokina 24-70??
> ...



Oh, I meant this lens. sorry. 
It was my fault, I was nervous and forgot to close the main zipper. Fortunately, the evacuation was an false alarm and nothing happened.


----------



## daniela (Jan 4, 2016)

I am convinced, that the 24-70 II will be the optical best solution. 

But I cannot spend all my money on new equipment (still no decision if I should buy the 400mm Do version or the 500m 4 version).
I will try to have an look on the 4L models and on the Tamron and 2.8L model too and take som shots.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 4, 2016)

Admittedly, I tend to avoid third-party lenses. Focus reliability and compatibility with future Canon bodies are two key reasons why I shy away from them.

The only two lenses I would consider are the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 24-105 f4L. I seem to be an oddball on this forum in that I've kept my 24-105 and continue to use it after acquiring the 24-70. I like both lenses. The 24-70 is superior in low light and when shooting action. When shooting moving subjects, I find that the 24-105 sometimes takes a tad longer to focus. I suspect the key reason is that the slower lens can't fully utilize the f2.8 sensitive focus points.

The 24-70 is sharper and has less distortion. But, Lightroom fixes most distortion issues of the 24-105 and, in practice, it's hard to tell which lens took which photo unless I'm doing side-by-side comparisons (assuming shots at f4 and smaller).

The 24-105 is still my favorite "travel light" grab shot lens. I love the IS and the flexibility that it offers with slower shutter speeds and controlled motion blur. I also like the longer reach. My 5D3 and 1Dx have the ISO range that most often handles the slower speed of this lens. But, I often still miss the 2.8 of the 24-70.

So, it really boils down to low light and action shots vs. flexibility of IS and extended focal length -- and $2,000 vs. sub-$1,000.


----------



## bwud (Jan 4, 2016)

Have you considered used lenses?


----------



## Ladislav (Jan 4, 2016)

I have Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC and it is by far my most used lens. Would I recommend it? Hard to say as I never had Canon in same focal range to compare with (not considering old non-L lenses and EF-S lenses). I often think about replacing my Tamron with 24-70/4 L IS or 24-70/2.8 L II but I always find a reason why either of them is not good enough for me to make a switch - I'm waiting for 24-70/2.8 L IS.

In many occasions I now rather use 16-35/4 L IS instead of Tamron but it still have its important place in my kit.

My experience:
+ It has VC - I'm not so impressed like many others (I consider IS on Canon lenses better) but it still gives me about 2 stops
+ It has 2.8 for shallow depth of field or low light when you need it
+ It was cheap compared to both Canon lenses when I bought it almost 3 years ago
+ Great cost / value ratio when you shot stills, landscapes, details, etc.
+ Good warranty
+ I can't complain about the built. It feels very solid with no changes after 3 years.
+ IQ is worse than Canon L zooms I have but it is still a high quality
- The first one was in service centre 3 times. After 3rd visit to service centre I got a new one. The first visit to service centre was to update firmware (it drained battery on newer Canon bodies even when the camera was turned off). Other visits were about VC and AF issues on Canon 6D - Focal measured something like -28 on long end which could not be fixed even with AFMA. They had both lens and my camera to make adjustments and after that it was still -13 so I took it to the service centre again and got a new one which was significantly better in both AF and VC - it needed just small AFMA adjustments.
- Bad cost / value ratio when you shot anything moving - this is where third party AF struggles and having a good sharp picture is often dependent more on luck than anything else. I found the performance disappointing even on events like carnival.
- I don't trust its "weather sealing" at all - in two occasions I used the lens in very light rain and in both I had problems 

Things to consider:
- 82 mm filter thread - may need investment to new set of filters
- Zoom ring is rotating in opposite direction than on Canon lenses
- Big and not lightweight


----------



## Carlos575 (Jan 4, 2016)

daniela said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > daniela said:
> ...



without my glasses on, I read this as 'man zipper'!!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 4, 2016)

The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 is pretty good, but not very sturdy. Its perfectly fine for normal use, but treating it with kid gloves while hiking would not make it my first choice. I hear that they have silently beefed up the internals, so that issue might be solved. As far as I know AF on the lens is fine, its Sigma that has 99+ percent of third party autofocus issues.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 4, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 is pretty good, but not very sturdy. Its perfectly fine for normal use, but treating it with kid gloves while hiking would not make it my first choice. I hear that they have silently beefed up the internals, so that issue might be solved. As far as I know AF on the lens is fine, its Sigma that has 99+ percent of third party autofocus issues.


I've never given third-party lenses serious consideration and don't mean to sell them short. I've been told by a Canon dealer that Sigma has to reverse engineer AF software for their lenses (which accounts for the AF issues) and that Tamron has a licensing relationship with Canon to get their AF software. Anyone know if there is any truth to any of this?


----------



## xps (Jan 5, 2016)

Hello Daniela!

My two cents: In one of your past posting, you wrote, you have moved to the Tyrol. So, you can get cashback from Canon in Austria. If you look at Canon Austria, there is an recent cashback on the 24-70 L IS 4.0 of about 200Euro. So, my hint is to buy the 24-70 4.0 L IS as an replacement for your foulty lens, save 200Euro,wait and spare some money for an upcoming 2.8L successor.


----------



## daniela (Jan 6, 2016)

I read the following on www.photozone.de, when they wrote an review of the 24-70L 4 IS:
The focus point shifts SUBSTANTIALLY when stopping down. Or in other words: the lens suffers from residual spherical aberrations (RSA). In close focus situations this is rather poisonous and the problem was affecting images taken at more conventional distances. The user who supplied the lens checked this behavior with a 2nd lens and this focus characteristic was the same here. This is NOT (sufficiently) compensated by the AF. We did AF reference checks during the MTF analysis and there's a decrease in measured resolution (= increase in focus shift) from f/4 to smaller apertures. 

Is this Issue known for this lens?

G
Daniela


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 6, 2016)

daniela said:


> I read the following on www.photozone.de, when they wrote an review of the 24-70L 4 IS:
> The focus point shifts SUBSTANTIALLY when stopping down. Or in other words: the lens suffers from residual spherical aberrations (RSA). In close focus situations this is rather poisonous and the problem was affecting images taken at more conventional distances. The user who supplied the lens checked this behavior with a 2nd lens and this focus characteristic was the same here. This is NOT (sufficiently) compensated by the AF. We did AF reference checks during the MTF analysis and there's a decrease in measured resolution (= increase in focus shift) from f/4 to smaller apertures.
> 
> Is this Issue known for this lens?
> ...



Never noticed it. If you read the photozone summary they say something about the 'problem' being solved later. 
When Lens Rentals did a 'tear down' of the 24-70 IS they said they'd never come across a lens with so many adjustable elements. It seems to me that those early ones were not optically optimum and hence the "it's no good at 50 mil" reports. At 50 mil mine is as good as the 24-105 in the centre and better at the edges.


----------



## StoneColdCoffee (Jan 6, 2016)

I dropped an old 24-105L on the concrete once 
It made the exact same sound. I sent it in to Canon.. $400 to fix it. worked great after.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 7, 2016)

If you hike, this is a no brainer. 24-70 f/4L IS. 

Lighter and sharper than the 24-105, macro mode is killer for impromptu shooting of flora / bugs on the side of the trail, and it's weather sealed.

Note that the macro work you do with the 24-70 f/4L IS lens is simple/amateur due to the aforementioned focus breathing and a comically short working distance. If you want serious macro work on a tripod, rails, ring-lites, focus stacking, etc. you're _probably_ not hiking with it -- you'd need a proper macro lens and the 24-70 f/4L IS will not do for you. But a zoom lens packing a 0.7x macro in its back pocket is absolutely gold when you are weight/space limited -- it's perfect for travel and hiking, IMHO.

If portraiture is a need with this lens, however, f/4 is still f/4 and you might consider other options. Consider either f/2.8 version (I or a used II) in that case.

- A


----------



## jd7 (Jan 7, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> daniela said:
> 
> 
> > I read the following on www.photozone.de, when they wrote an review of the 24-70L 4 IS:
> ...



I can't say I've ever noticed it in practice either.

There are a few older threads which discuss the 24-70 4L IS which you might find worth a read. Here are links to some:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27345.msg541086#msg541086
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19744.msg536044#msg536044
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26224.msg516809#msg516809
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21846.msg419018#msg419018
(I think I have linked to specific messages in those threads, but that wasn't intentional - it is just the way it has worked out after I used the forum search function.)

I also agree with what ahansford says in an earlier post about the macro mode.


----------

