# Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 6, 2013)

Discuss our review of the Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS here.


----------



## infared (May 6, 2013)

Good review....with current pricing I can see this is a considerably less expensive option to the 24-70mm 2.8L II....but I think it is a less convincing option to the 24-105mm, no? When comparing tele reach AND price this lens does not stack up unless the IQ is that much better.....
(Did I miss something Justin, or were you actually able to squeeze 73mm out of the lens for the shot of the child in the hat? AMAZING!). ;D


----------



## Vossie (May 6, 2013)

The initial lens reviews included a section on "CR's take" speaking about the lens from a rental company's perspective. I did find this section quite helpful as it gave some insight about durability and copy-to-copy variation. If would be great if this section could be added to the newer reviews as well.

On the review itself: I did not grasp what is so awkward about the semi-macro function (except for the close focusing distance, which does not come as a surpise given the focal length). The fact that the lens has semi-macro functionality makes it an interesting travel lens as it allows you to capture an occasional butterfly or flower while only carrying 1 compact lens. Justin, would it be possible to include one or a few macro shots in the review? I would be interested to learn how it compares to a 24-70 II or 24-105 with an extension tube attached. A general comparison to the 24-105 would also be nice to include. In my view the 24-70 f4 is much more of a competitor/alternative to the 24-105 f4 than to the 24-70 f2.8 II (in terms of price range, speed and presence of IS); both f/4's are interesting travel lenses.


----------



## Ladislav (May 6, 2013)

This lens has one significant issue: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC which is around 30% cheaper in my country. Professionals will probably take the absolute best = Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk. II and hobbyists will either take the absolute best (if they can afford it) or the best in cost/performance ratio = Tamron. IMO the main market for this lens will be using it as a new kit lens for FF bodies.


----------



## clicstudio (May 6, 2013)

*I want a 24-105 F2.8L*

I don't care if its bulky and heavy. I want one!
I want a little more range than the 24-70 II. On my 1DX, it's too short for me. 
I rented the 24-105 f4 for a week and I loved the extended range but the AF was terrible. 
It produced a lot of out of focus images and when it did focus it was soft. 
It is my everyday lens and I love it. I just wish I had those extra 35mm


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2013)

Good review, but I still don't really understand the purpose/use for it in the lineup, especially given the cost vs. the 24-105/4L IS (which delivers similar IQ).


----------



## pensive tomato (May 6, 2013)

Good review, I appreciate the style and take. Like others, I think a more direct comparison to the 24-105mm would be useful.

Following Neuro's comment, I've heard repeatedly that IQ is not that much improved by the 24-70mm compared to the older 24-105mm. Anyone care to comment on differences on distortion, particularly on the wide end?

My first thought when I read the announcement for the new 24-70mm was oh no, there will never be a 24-105mm mkii! I hope I'm wrong on that one, the extra reach has always proved useful to me.


----------



## infared (May 6, 2013)

pensive tomato said:


> Good review, I appreciate the style and take. Like others, I think a more direct comparison to the 24-105mm would be useful.
> 
> Following Neuro's comment, I've heard repeatedly that IQ is not that much improved by the 24-70mm compared to the older 24-105mm. Anyone care to comment on differences on distortion, particularly on the wide end?
> 
> My first thought when I read the announcement for the new 24-70mm was oh no, there will never be a 24-105mm mkii! I hope I'm wrong on that one, the extra reach has always proved useful to me.



Pensive...yeah... Canon should have just skipped this lens and revamped the 24-105mm.... I just don't really see the need for this lens...especially at this cost.


----------



## Sporgon (May 6, 2013)

I am getting very favourable reports from photographers who are using this lens.

I can only assume that Canon have _intended_ this lens to offer better 'IQ' than the 24-105, though not all early testing has confirmed this. It's interesting to note that here in the UK the RRP of each lens is only £20 different, but the actual selling price of the 24-105 has fallen to the £850 ( about $1,300 ) region, still much more expensive than in the States, whereas the 24-70 f4 has only dropped to £1299. ( Bearing in mind that gear such as this is proportionally much more expensive in Europe than America ).

We may be purchasing one for Building Panoramics, so if we do I will post images and further thoughts on the lens. ( We are aware of the RSA issue).

As has been pointed out many times, there's more to image quality than test charts


----------



## dswatson83 (May 6, 2013)

For me, I'd just rather go with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. You still get the stabilization and get a 1 stop advantage for $200 less. Build quality and sharpness are very close as well...though the macro mode will be wished. 
Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 6, 2013)

The issue is not the lens, the issue is the value of the lens. 24-105L's are good enough for 700$.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Good review, but I still don't really understand the purpose/use for it in the lineup, especially given the cost vs. the 24-105/4L IS (which delivers similar IQ).



It's the 3 sentence logic often found in politics (see Yes, Minister):

1. We have to do something (24-105 is getting old, significantly better iq update would be too expensive, 24-70/2.8 is w/o IS and also too expensive for the general crowd)

2. This is something we can do (manufacture a lens with decent iq, Canon-only tech hybrid IS, macro mode, good profit for Canon and potential to lower the price after some time like the 6d)

3 = 1+2: This is what we must do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Good review, but I still don't really understand the purpose/use for it in the lineup, especially given the cost vs. the 24-105/4L IS (which delivers similar IQ).
> ...



So, basically this lens is a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 6, 2013)

Ladislav said:


> This lens has one significant issue: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC which is around 30% cheaper in my country. Professionals will probably take the absolute best = Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk. II and hobbyists will either take the absolute best (if they can afford it) or the best in cost/performance ratio = Tamron. IMO the main market for this lens will be using it as a new kit lens for FF bodies.



Personally I'm with you on the Tamron 24-70, however it's quite a heavy lens. Trust me, it's heavy. When I buy it I probably will get the Canon 5d3 grip at the same time to try and balance it out some. 

Otherwise, I'm split on my opinion. In some ways, I'm with Neuro in that it's a solution in search of the right problem. On the other, the idea of a light travel lens with near macro capabilities is nice. Although I think I'd prefer a somewhat longer focal length in a standard travel zoom since versatility can be more important sometimes.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Personally I'm with you on the Tamron 24-70, however it's quite a heavy lens. Trust me, it's heavy.



"heavy" really is subjective, depending on your experience with heavy lenses, the camera/body balance and esp. the lens' length creating torque on the wrist - that's why the 70-200ii feels so heavy to me and the Tamron didn't when I tried it.



neuroanatomist said:


> So, basically this lens is a solution in search of a problem.



 I will add this to my favorite phrases, but imho the problem with the older 24-105 flooding the market and the way too expensive and IS-less 24-70/2.8 was present first for Canon, so the 24-70/4 is attempt to be on the profitable side again.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 6, 2013)

infared said:


> Good review....with current pricing I can see this is a considerably less expensive option to the 24-70mm 2.8L II....but I think it is a less convincing option to the 24-105mm, no? When comparing tele reach AND price this lens does not stack up unless the IQ is that much better.....
> (Did I miss something Justin, or were you actually able to squeeze 73mm out of the lens for the shot of the child in the hat? AMAZING!). ;D



Thanks, I've never used the 24-105 so purposefully avoided comparisons, I have no doubt somebody on this forum will chime win with some sort of spec/chart comparison to show off exactly how different they are at 37mm f/4.5.

As for the 73mm, that's what the exif read when I "pushed" the lens into Macro mode... not sure how accurate that is, but it *is* at the long end of the zoom range past 70mm on the marker.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 6, 2013)

Vossie said:


> The initial lens reviews included a section on "CR's take" speaking about the lens from a rental company's perspective. I did find this section quite helpful as it gave some insight about durability and copy-to-copy variation. If would be great if this section could be added to the newer reviews as well.
> 
> On the review itself: I did not grasp what is so awkward about the semi-macro function (except for the close focusing distance, which does not come as a surpise given the focal length). The fact that the lens has semi-macro functionality makes it an interesting travel lens as it allows you to capture an occasional butterfly or flower while only carrying 1 compact lens. Justin, would it be possible to include one or a few macro shots in the review? I would be interested to learn how it compares to a 24-70 II or 24-105 with an extension tube attached. A general comparison to the 24-105 would also be nice to include. In my view the 24-70 f4 is much more of a competitor/alternative to the 24-105 f4 than to the 24-70 f2.8 II (in terms of price range, speed and presence of IS); both f/4's are interesting travel lenses.



The lens-cap image *is* a macro photo, I'll see what else I have, though it was winter which is not my favourite macro season.

And I agree with you that having the feature/option is better than not, I just found I was *so* close to my subjects that I blocked out the light, which made macro a fairly awkward achievement (I've used both Canon 60mm and 100mm macro's and own the 100mm f/2.8 L IS). I just don't want anyone buying this lens thinking they're going to be going around with a great macro lens because, really, it's not, it's just a good utilitarian lens which, like you mentioned, is great for going around and travelling with.

Sadly I've never used the 24-105 f/4 L IS, and we don't know what it's fate will be, but surely someone here will bring it up soon enough


----------



## JVLphoto (May 6, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The issue is not the lens, the issue is the value of the lens. 24-105L's are good enough for 700$.



Well put.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 6, 2013)

With Nikon offering a 24-120, perhaps that's what Canon has their eyes on instead. And, if so, how much will it be?


----------



## infared (May 7, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Good review....with current pricing I can see this is a considerably less expensive option to the 24-70mm 2.8L II....but I think it is a less convincing option to the 24-105mm, no? When comparing tele reach AND price this lens does not stack up unless the IQ is that much better.....
> ...


Hmm... The 73mm exif data is a bit odd...thanks for clarifying that stat...I should have known that you would have your facts correct!


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 7, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> With Nikon offering a 24-120, perhaps that's what Canon has their eyes on instead. And, if so, how much will it be?



One million dollarzz. Muhahahahahaha


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 7, 2013)

Some casual shots using the 24-70 F4 with the 40D (my 6D is in for check-up). 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 7, 2013)

40D/24-70 F4


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 7, 2013)

more 40D/24-70 F4


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 7, 2013)

40D/24-70 F4


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 7, 2013)

40D/24-70 F4


----------



## Trondster (May 8, 2013)

How is the focus shift? According to the Photozone review, the focus shift is so bad that the foreground gets _more_ out of focus as you stop down - at least at close focus distances. What are your experiences regarding focus shift?
If the focus shift is as bad as the Photozone review says, it would be a showstopper for me.


----------



## JVLphoto (May 8, 2013)

Trondster said:


> How is the focus shift? According to the Photozone review, the focus shift is so bad that the foreground gets _more_ out of focus as you stop down - at least at close focus distances. What are your experiences regarding focus shift?
> If the focus shift is as bad as the Photozone review says, it would be a showstopper for me.



Wow, I wasn't aware of that and, honestly, in my non-lab use of it I didn't notice the issue. So obviously it's something that will come up under those specific conditions, which weren't replicated (or noticeable) in my day-to-day.


----------



## carpandean (Aug 8, 2013)

(Excuse the slight necro-post.)

One thing that I've always been interested in is the concept of T-stops, in addition to the usual F-stops. For equal F-stops, two lenses on the same camera will have the same DOF, but not necessarily the same brightness. This is where T-stops ('T' for transmission) come into play. Differences have typically been small for lenses of the same type (zoom or prime) and aperture, so usually just F-stops are given.

However, in looking at the 24-70mm f/4L IS, I did happen to look at DxOMark's (I try not to focus on curves and such, but I don't discount them completely, either) transmission rating for the lens. It actually had a T rating of 4.0. This is not uncommon for a prime, but unusual for a zoom. Comparing with the 24-105mm, which is rated a 5.1, I found that it is approximately 2/3 of a T-stop brighter across the range of focal lengths. This may not be huge, but it might be just enough to keep motion blur to an acceptable level in lower-light situations or in fast-action situations by using a faster shutter speed or to allow for less noise by using lower ISO.

Almost as surprising is that it is just 1/3 of T-stop behind the 24-70mm f/2.8L (first version), which is rated a 3.6! Conversely, the 24-70mm f/2.8L II is rated a true 2.8. These relative differences are almost certainly due to the newer designs being more efficient and/or having better coatings.

Unfortunately, that doesn't do much for the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VR, as that lens is also rated an f/2.8!


----------



## tat3406 (Dec 9, 2013)

Have this lens for two weeks! one weekend went hiking and one weekend shoot wedding. Very good lens, sharp, good contrast from wide end to tele end. Only shortcoming is expensive price for F4 general lens, but I bought below $1000 for white box version at used market. 

The size very compact, focus is fast and accurate, IS very effective. Macro mode is nice but working distance very short, need to avoid cast shadow of the lens to subject.


----------



## goldencode (Dec 12, 2013)

The Canon 24-70 f4 L IS seems to be treated like the red headed stepchild on the internet. It's not easy to be the little brother to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II lens. I first borrowed 24-70 F4 lens for a 2 week trip to Glacier National Park. The lens was superb on my 5D3. Easy to hike with and IS. I liked it so much that I bought one when I got home. On the 2 copies that I have used of this lens, both have been very sharp, fast accurate AF and great IS.
I have used the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and IMO the 24-70 F4 gives up little in IQ to his bigger brother. 
I have found in my use of this lens that the 50mm focal point is quite contrary to popular opinion on the interenet, the 2 copies of this lens that I have used were/are very sharp. 
This Canon 24-70 F4 L IS plus my Canon 70-200 F2.8 II make for a superb combination. Same filter size. Both have Canon's newest IS. Superb image quality and sharpness. 
If you don't really need the f2.8 aperature and want IS, this is a lens you really should try. 
The much loved Canon 24-105 of course is another option to consider, especially given the price of it now. I chose the Canon 24-70 F4 over the 24-105 for it's much better handling of distortion at 24mm and upgraded IS.
I dont miss the extra reach of the 24-105 because I carry the 70-200 for that. That's my real world review of this lens.


----------



## JVLphoto (Dec 12, 2013)

goldencode said:


> The Canon 24-70 f4 L IS seems to be treated like the red headed stepchild on the internet. It's not easy to be the little brother to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II lens. I first borrowed 24-70 F4 lens for a 2 week trip to Glacier National Park. The lens was superb on my 5D3. Easy to hike with and IS. I liked it so much that I bought one when I got home. On the 2 copies that I have used of this lens, both have been very sharp, fast accurate AF and great IS.
> I have used the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II and IMO the 24-70 F4 gives up little in IQ to his bigger brother.
> I have found in my use of this lens that the 50mm focal point is quite contrary to popular opinion on the interenet, the 2 copies of this lens that I have used were/are very sharp.
> This Canon 24-70 F4 L IS plus my Canon 70-200 F2.8 II make for a superb combination. Same filter size. Both have Canon's newest IS. Superb image quality and sharpness.
> ...



Perfect. Thanks!


----------



## mjardeen (Dec 30, 2013)

I really think Canon should have improved the 24-105 f4 L and left this one on the shelf. The only appeal of the range is if you have a 2.8. At this price I would rather invest in the Tamron 24-70 f2.8.


----------



## JVLphoto (Dec 30, 2013)

mjardeen said:


> I really think Canon should have improved the 24-105 f4 L and left this one on the shelf. The only appeal of the range is if you have a 2.8. At this price I would rather invest in the Tamron 24-70 f2.8.



Yeah, and with the Sigma 24-105 out now receiving excellent reviews I see the place for this lens a little less. *except* for how compact it is.


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 30, 2013)

With rumors of a 24-70/2.8 with IS coming out at some point next year, it seems that canon might do a similar thing as with the 70-200: available in many flavors and as many price points.


----------



## candyman (Dec 30, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> With rumors of a 24-70/2.8 with IS coming out at some point next year, it seems that canon might do a similar thing as with the 70-200: available in many flavors and as many price points.



+1
And none of them really cheap
so there is enough space for Sigma, Tamron


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2013)

mjardeen said:


> I really think Canon should have improved the 24-105 f4 L and left this one on the shelf. The only appeal of the range is if you have a 2.8. At this price I would rather invest in the Tamron 24-70 f2.8.



Why is the only appeal of this range if it has f/2.8?????????


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> mjardeen said:
> 
> 
> > I really think Canon should have improved the 24-105 f4 L and left this one on the shelf. The only appeal of the range is if you have a 2.8. At this price I would rather invest in the Tamron 24-70 f2.8.
> ...



So far the Sigma has had one great review.... from the same place that says the 70-200 2.8 II delivers the worst 200mm f/2.8 performance of all the Canon 70-200 lenses.... and the 70-300 non-L beats the 70-300L and 300 f/4L.... and the 16-35 II has the sharpest FF edges at f/2.8.... 

Don't forget how they rank lenses either, they take one aperture and focal length, whatever performs thebest (which strangely seems to be wide open 99% of the time) and compare. So you could have a sigma doing well middle range wide open but worse in other regards (like say at 24mm where it's tricky to do well on FF) getting ranked higher, for instance.

I mean maybe the sigma will prove to be good, but I'm still wary of it based upon their own MTF charts and early sample photos.

It is also larger and heavier than the 24-70 II 2.8! despite only offering f/4.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, basically this lens is a solution in search of a problem.



No, it's a lens that solves a problem.

The older 24-70/105 type lenses never delivered a satisfactory 24mm on FF if you cared about edge to edge landscape detail and reasonable freedom from PF of branches against clouds and such. This one does.... while also being easily the smallest and lightest of them all (other than the tamron 28-75 2.8) and IS.

The only other one that seems to fully deliver at 24mm is the 24-70 II 2.8, which costs a LOT more (and has no IS). Although perhaps the new tamron isn't too bad.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 30, 2013)

PROS
"AF"

CONS
"Distortion across the focal range, specifically at 24mm
Awkward macro mode"

Those seem like weird cons to me. None of the others offer the macro option at all no matter what you do and how hard is it to flip the macro switch and zoom into macro? And yeah it has distortion at 24mm but it also has the LEAST distortion at 24mm of ANY 24-70/105 type zoom, so compared to a prime it is a con, but it seems unfair to not also mention that compared to other zooms it's actually the best.

OTOH, the AF seemed merely average to me for an L and not a huge PRO (not a CON either though).


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 30, 2013)

I'm guessing Canon were unable to produce the improvements seen in the 24-70 f4L if they had given it the 24-105 range without the lens having to retail as the level of the 24-70II. 

All the stuff I've seen on the Sigma 24-105 suggests they can't either.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 30, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> I'm guessing Canon were unable to produce the improvements seen in the 24-70 f4L if they had given it the 24-105 range without the lens having to retail as the level of the 24-70II.



Given the level of engineering expertise Canon has, I somehow doubt that - but I find it much more likely they want people to have more reason to buy a "natural" focal length addon of 70-200 or 70-300 ... with the overlapping 24-105 you can do ok, but as stated above a lot of times 24-70 is too short for a complete setup.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 30, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm guessing Canon were unable to produce the improvements seen in the 24-70 f4L if they had given it the 24-105 range without the lens having to retail as the level of the 24-70II.
> ...



So why introduce the 24-105 in the first place ?

I'm sure you're right regarding their engineering expertise, but would it be (financially) worthwhile for them ? That's the point. 

Incidentally Roger at Lens Rentals stated he'd never seen a lens with so many element adjustments, so it's clearly a complicated little beast. I wonder if this convoluted set up is responsible for the early copies testing little better than the 24-105.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 30, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> So why introduce the 24-105 in the first place?



My only guess it were other times back then when Canon had a different marketing approach, they wanted a complete ff 5d2 solution with one lens to keep the system affordable. Not that everyone and his cat has a cheaper 6d ff camera and Canon is on the money grab they probably feel customers can be nudged into buying two lenses.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 30, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > So why introduce the 24-105 in the first place?
> ...



The 24-105 was introduced with the original 5D in 2005. 

The 24-105 vs 24-70 L IS really is a matter of personal preference. Greater range vs subtly better resolution. I have both ( through Building Panoramics ) and I'm torn between the two. The new lens is definitely better but as a general purpose 'do everything' lens I use 105 a lot.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 30, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I'm guessing Canon were unable to produce the improvements seen in the 24-70 f4L if they had given it the 24-105 range without the lens having to retail as the level of the 24-70II.
> ...


...and the 16-35 will become a 16-24 for the same reasons . Well, then again, it worked for Nikon by adding 2mm...


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 31, 2013)

I was wondering if I should sell my old 24-70mm 2.8L and get this new lens. Has anyone make a side-by-side comparison in terms of IQ?

Regards


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 31, 2013)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I was wondering if I should sell my old 24-70mm 2.8L and get this new lens. Has anyone make a side-by-side comparison in terms of IQ?
> 
> Regards



All of it is here (at least from a sharpness perspective):
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

As you'll see the F/4 IS is better than the 24-105 and 24-70 I, but not as good as the 24-70 II.

I made the jump from the F/2.8L I to the F/4 IS and I'm quite pleased. I don't shoot indoor sports, and I don't shoot portraits with that lens, so I had little need for F/2.8 in a standard zoom.

The new F/4 in comparison to the F/2.8L IS is sharper, lighter, shorter in length, and has a very serviceable macro mode if you are in a pinch. It's a perfect all-in-one lens for travel, hiking, etc. I am very pleased with the pickup. And on a lesser note, it doesn't push me to need to get 82mm filters. Unless I'm shooting with my 100L macro, all my lenses are 58mm or 77mm, which is a nice convenience.

Be advised that the lens does take a toughness _downgrade_ compared to the venerable 24-70 F/2.8L I. The Mark I is a tank with a lot more metal. The 24-70 F/4L IS is not poorly constructed by any means, but it's not built for war. I'd liken it to the 24-105 or the 100L macro -- it's plasticky, but solidly assembled.

- A


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 31, 2013)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> I was wondering if I should sell my old 24-70mm 2.8L and get this new lens. Has anyone make a side-by-side comparison in terms of IQ?



Upgrading might make sense if you want to lose weight & gain IS únless you often shoot f2.8 - for sharpness comparisons always look at this widget:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 31, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > I was wondering if I should sell my old 24-70mm 2.8L and get this new lens. Has anyone make a side-by-side comparison in terms of IQ?
> ...



Thanks! I very seldom shoot protraits with this lens. I found myself most of the time shooting f4-f5.6 for social and family pictures.


----------



## erjlphoto (Nov 2, 2014)

infared said:


> Good review....with current pricing I can see this is a considerably less expensive option to the 24-70mm 2.8L II....but I think it is a less convincing option to the 24-105mm, no? When comparing tele reach AND price this lens does not stack up unless the IQ is that much better.....
> (Did I miss something Justin, or were you actually able to squeeze 73mm out of the lens for the shot of the child in the hat? AMAZING!). ;D



It's sharper than the old 24-105 and has less distortion at wide angles. It also focuses much closer than the old lens.


----------



## Sandrine (Nov 3, 2014)

With Nikon offering a 24-120 funda google nexus 6, perhaps that's what Canon has their eyes soporte coche nexus 9 tablet on instead.


----------



## chilakamarthi (May 15, 2015)

Well finally I pulled the trigger for this lens. I got it for $650 after $200 MIR and 1 year US Warranty. Waiting for the lens.


----------



## bholliman (May 17, 2015)

chilakamarthi said:


> Well finally I pulled the trigger for this lens. I got it for $650 after $200 MIR and 1 year US Warranty. Waiting for the lens.



You got t for a good price. Post some pictures when you get it.


----------

