# Thoughts on 24-70 4.0 IS?



## Cory (Dec 18, 2017)

Thanks for any input. I'm considering my main (do-most-everything) kit as a Canon 24-70 4.0 IS and Canon 135 2.0.
Much appreciated.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2017)

Seems like a good lens, but I far prefer the extra stop of the 24-70/2.8 II. IS is great for static subjects, but as an all-around lens, I often shoot moving subjects where IS is of limited benefit.


----------



## picturefan (Dec 18, 2017)

Great lens, very versatile. Very good IQ, nearly on par with 2.8 (if you don't pixelpeep), smaller, much more handy.
Very good flare resistance and bokeh. Highly recommended!

If you can get along with 4.0...


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 18, 2017)

picturefan said:


> Great lens, very versatile. Very good IQ, nearly on par with 2.8 (if you don't pixelpeep), smaller, much more handy.
> Very good flare resistance and bokeh. Highly recommended!
> 
> If you can get along with 4.0...



+1. I own both, and would like to add,the f2.8 LII has better bokeh, and slightly better contrast and clarity, and is of course 1 stop faster. The f4 is significantly smaller and lighter, is cheaper, has IS and macro. The f2.8 is the overall sharper lens, but the f4 is actually a bit better in the corners. 

If I could choose, I would definitely pick the combo 24-70f4 + a used 50L f1.2 over a 24-70f2.8LII. Where I live, the price of these alternatives (used market) should be almost the same.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2017)

I owned the 24-70 f/2.8L I and then replaced it with the 24-70 f/4L IS -- and I love it.

But we each have different needs. See my prior pros/cons take on it from a few years back:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21677.msg412247#msg412247

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 18, 2017)

I was an early adopter of the 24-70/4 when many on CR were ridiculing it. It was slightly better than the old 24-105L, biggest difference being at 24m. IMO it was a compact standard zoom introduced to complement the then new, small 6D FF camera, in fact that's why I bought one, got it in a 6D "kit". If you're not specifically wanting compact I'd look at the 24-105L II.


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 18, 2017)

If you're fixated on first-party lenses, it's good. The 24-70mm f/4L IS and the 100mm f/2.8L IS was and would still be my 'default' kit of choice for studio work if I were still doing a lot of portraiture. But for general-purpose shooting I just find f/4 too slow, even with IS. The big problem of course is if you ever have to shoot indoors without additional lighting (i.e. not in a studio), though it's not just a matter of exposure; on most cameras it means AF won't work as fast or accurately, too, and it can make for a dimmer viewfinder.

If first-party is all you'll go with, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is still preferable, and if that's out of budget or simply too large for you, stick with primes.

I do see you already list the 16-35 f/4 IS in your signature line. If I was going to make a 2-lens kit and restrict myself to zooms, _and_ f/4 was enough, the 16-35 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/4 IS would be what I'd go for. The gap between 35mm and 70mm isn't really all that significant (look at how many people use 35mm in place of a 50mm, and how frequently people make 70mm work for a full-length portrait or even landscape) and the 24-70 f/4 IS is behind, both optically and mechanically, the 16-35 and 70-200 f/4 IS lenses. But since you already have the 135mm f/2 anyway... hell, I'd just stick with the 16-35 and the 135mm. Really, I would. Carrying the 24-70 and 135mm won't really give you much that your existing lenses wouldn't already do.


All that said, if you're willing to get a third-party lens, the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is a whole 'nother deal. At f/4 it's sharper than the Canon, and f/2.8 still gives respectable results; not _quite_ as good as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8, but the Tamron version does have VC (a.k.a. IS), which the Canon f/2.8 lacks. So the Tamron is giving you the best of both worlds. Better performance than the 24-70 f/4 IS, with the option to bump up to f/2.8 when/if you really need it. (While also keeping the AF fully working, even if you shoot it at f/4 or smaller.) It's also cheaper than the Canon f/2.8 and in most countries it's even a little cheaper than the Canon f/4. On top of that you can still buy the first generation, which is almost the same (just a fraction softer on the 24mm end than the second generation) and that's even cheaper still. I don't know what your budget is, but it's always nice to spend less.

If you don't want to go third party and your existing 16-35 + 135mm aren't getting the job done for you, then as the final worthwhile option I'd say grab a 24-105 instead, and make it a one-lens system. The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS has a little less distortion than any of the 24-105s on the market, but that's really the only area where it leads. It's no better than them and obviously the 24-105 can stand in for the 135mm prime, if f/4 really is enough for you. (Pixel peepers may dispute this if you can find an absolutely perfect copy, but nearly everyone will admit that the average copy of the 24-70 and 24-105 are basically the same in terms of optical quality and mechanical operation.) Also worth noting is that the Sigma 24-105 (yes, third party again) absolutely beats the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS and 24-105 f/4 IS (both mkI and mkII) in every way, other than it is not weather sealed. 

To summarise:
- The 24-70 f/4 IS is a good lens. It's not incredible, though, and it's far from the solution to everything.
- If your budget allows, the Canon f/2.8 is the better first-party choice for general 'do-everything' shooting.
- Third-party lenses have it beaten in every way.
- The lenses you already have are common substitutes for the 24-70 f/4, so you may be overestimating how much of a difference it would make for you.
- Canon's own 24-105 and/or standard primes are still more popular, for good reason.

I'd say if your existing 16-35 f/4 IS is something you're happy with but you just don't find yourself using the wide end that much and you don't mind a small step down in optical quality, then the 24-70 f/4 IS may well suit you. It's just very, very hard to recommend when there are so many other options out there doing the same thing better. The 24-70 f/4 IS is a true jack of all trades, master of none, and it shows. For a small portion of people, that is exactly what they want. For most people there will be a better option.


----------



## Cory (Dec 18, 2017)

I hate to sound gasey, but what might one say about 16-35 4.0 IS, Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Canon 135 as a kit?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2017)

Cory said:


> I hate to sound gasey, but what might one say about 16-35 4.0 IS, Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Canon 135 as a kit?



Depends on you and your needs. Any prime-centric kit will push your patience for how frequently you do/don't want to change your lenses out. 

Also: caveat emptor with that Sigma. It will split atoms sharpness-wise, but the AF has had well-documented problems of inconsistency (not front- or back-focusing, but just randomly whiffing). So if you shoot events, weddings, reportage, candids, sports, etc. -- i.e. _things you can't chimp and reshoot_ -- I'd strongly recommend another prime to serve that need.

- A


----------



## bhf3737 (Dec 18, 2017)

Cory said:


> Thanks for any input. I'm considering my main (do-most-everything) kit as a Canon 24-70 4.0 IS and Canon 135 2.0.
> Much appreciated.



If your photography use-cases include outside (i.e. no studio) use of macro, and you need IS for low light shots and you intend to do some handheld video work with it, it has all in one small package. Above that it is smaller, lighter and cheaper than both 24-105 f/4L and 24-70 f/2.8L II. The macro may not be 1:1 and the IS might not be as modern as what is on 100-400L II and color rendering may not be as good as f/2.8L sibling. But it has all. 
I got it for a two week cruise and land trip and took it with me instead of 24-70 f/2.8L II. Used it for a lot of night shots (landscape, night festivals and fireworks), several macros (spiders and butterflies) and even a short family video. It could easily fit in my carry-on bag attached to the 5DSR and not so much weight on my back. I am happy with my decision.


----------



## Cory (Dec 18, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > I hate to sound gasey, but what might one say about 16-35 4.0 IS, Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Canon 135 as a kit?
> ...


Canon 85 1.8 (for general purpose non-wide angle)? Canon 50 1.2?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2017)

bhf3737 said:


> I got it for a two week cruise and land trip and took it with me instead of 24-70 f/2.8L II. Used it for a lot of night shots (landscape, night festivals and fireworks), several macros (spiders and butterflies) and even a short family video. It could easily fit in my carry-on bag attached to the 5DSR and not so much weight on my back. I am happy with my decision.



+1. If you are an enthusiast that drags your camera everywhere, including places/venues/social events that would not play well with a flash, f/4L IS >> f/2.8. The IS will save your bacon and keep your ISO at sub-stratospheric levels.

- A


----------



## Larsskv (Dec 18, 2017)

Cory said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Cory said:
> ...



Canon 50 f1.2 is my choice. I had the the Sigma 50 ART for a couple of weeks before I sold it. I favored the pictures I got from the 50L by a big margin. They weren’t as sharp, but looked much better. I saw Dustin Abbotts review of the 50L today, and he wraps up the qualities of the 50L in a very good way, I think. 

Ps. AF is good on my copy of the 50L.


----------



## BillB (Dec 18, 2017)

Cory said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Cory said:
> ...



The 85mm might be a better fit with the 16-35 (that is what I use). On the other hand, the 50 f1.2 might fit better with the 135mm. Big price difference between the 50 f1.2 and the 85 f1.8.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2017)

Cory said:


> Canon 85 1.8 (for general purpose non-wide angle)? Canon 50 1.2?



I'd get a modern fire-and-forget 'take it to the bank' autofocuser with ring USM, that's what.

As every autofocusing Canon 50 is compromised on that front in some way, I'd get the 85 f/1.4L IS, 100L or 135L, perhaps the 85 f/1.8 USM if you are cost-constrained.

- A


----------



## Cory (Dec 18, 2017)

As always - thanks. I think I've decided on keeping the 16-35 and adding the 50 1.2. Yes, many criticisms, but my priority is that "special" quality so I'm glad to give up some sharpness for that and 50 would maybe be "the" walk-around lens that I'm after. Then, the 135 serves as the 85 as well with the added benefit of being the perfect lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2017)

Cory said:


> As always - thanks. I think I've decided on keeping the 16-35 and adding the 50 1.2. Yes, many criticisms, but my priority is that "special" quality so I'm glad to give up some sharpness for that and 50 would maybe be "the" walk-around lens that I'm after. Then, the 135 serves as the 85 as well with the added benefit of being the perfect lens.



You can't really go wrong here.

There have been too many threads on lens holy trinities or magical combos (35 + 85, 50 + 135, etc.), but only you know what you like so try stuff and see.

Strongly a recommend a rent-before-buy if (a) you are unsure, (b) hate buyers' remorse or (c) hate reselling things. I'm not saying the 50L is bad -- far from it -- but you won't know if it's right for you until you use it, so a rental is always a wise step, IMHO.

- A


----------



## BillB (Dec 18, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > As always - thanks. I think I've decided on keeping the 16-35 and adding the 50 1.2. Yes, many criticisms, but my priority is that "special" quality so I'm glad to give up some sharpness for that and 50 would maybe be "the" walk-around lens that I'm after. Then, the 135 serves as the 85 as well with the added benefit of being the perfect lens.
> ...



The cheapest way to check out the 50mm focal length might be buying a 50mm f1.8 STM. It's likely to cost less than a rental, and you don't have to send back. If it turns out that you need the focal length and wide apertures, then it might be time to think about the 50 f1.2


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2017)

The 24-70 F4 IS is my FF walk-about lens. It works well, is reasonably sharp, much more portable than the F2.8 version, and has a macro mode.....

The following shot was 1/8 second handheld. The IS works very well.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 19, 2017)

Cory said:


> Thanks for any input. I'm considering my main (do-most-everything) kit as a Canon 24-70 4.0 IS and Canon 135 2.0.
> Much appreciated.



The 24-70mm f/4L IS is a very nice lens and a bargain at its current price point in the US. I owned one 18 months ago when we visited Hawaii, and I was very happy with the images I took with it. The IS allows sharp images at very slow shutter speeds. I was able to take some waterfall images handheld at under 1 second exposure that were tack sharp bracing the camera against a tree, something I could never do with a non-IS lens. 

If you are mostly shooting stationary objects this might be a better option than the f/2.8 II.

Personally, I love using a 24-70 in combination with the 135 f/2 as a 2-lens mini kit.

I've tried using the 16-35 f/4 IS along with a short telephoto like the 100 f/2.8L macro, 135 f/2 or 70-200, but I find I miss having 36-69mm coverage.


----------



## blobmonster (Dec 19, 2017)

For what it's worth, I have a 24-70 f2.8 and apart from in my small home portrait studio (usually at 35-70) it only gets used for weddings/events I attend and only if friends/family specifically ask me to take photos as they've not hired anyone. The quality is excellent, but the size and weight are not. I also dislike carring any expensive zoom on my shoulder. It's just something to worry about getting broken, not to mention most zooms are obnoxiously large when zoomed out.

I would usually much rather use/carry a 35 f1.4 as walkabout / general purpose as with a 1.6 equivalent post-process crop you get a 50 f2 with lower output resolution. The 50 f2 equivalent is generally going to give you better shallow dof (with lower iso/ faster shutter, better autofocus) portraits than the 70mm f2.8 or f4. It stops action better and for some people, most of the time is a better choice, especially if you have an 85 1.8 in your pocket as well. If you own a decent smart phone, you already have a wide angle approx 28mm on you most of the time 

As I've gotten older I've grown to despise the handling and aesthetic of any large, non-internal zoom lens, which not only looks and feels (for me) a bit crude and amateurish, but for me it prevents me from composing and enjoying photography...but I wouldn't have reached this conclusion without experience of the zoom and learning what I like...

Also although the 135 is amazing (I have its twin brother the 200 f2.8 ) it is too long for a lot of situations. There is a massive real life difference imo between 70mm and 85mm 
especially if the aperture difference is f1.8/f1.4 vs f4. I'd be happy to own both the lenses you are thinking about, but as stated prefer two smaller primes that are more pocketable and better suited to non phone camera (i.e. special) photos.


----------



## john kriegsmann (Dec 19, 2017)

I owned the lens for one month and returned it to BH. It was plenty sharp but did not have color and contrast i have come to appreciate in Canon L glass. I actually like the look of the Canon 24-105 L much better. It has vignetting issues at 24mm that can be corrected in post processing and it is not razor sharp but has practical zoom range and very nice color and contrast that makes the image pop.


----------



## Handrews (Dec 19, 2017)

As the guys before me mentioned, it's a good lens at a good price. I bought mine at 1/3 of the price of 2.8 version.
My copy is very sharp (I don't have 2.8 for comparison, but I ran a couple of tests and it's on par with 16-35 F4 IS at 24mm and 35mm).

As already mentioned, the IS works well; here's a handheld shot 1/4 secs



Untitled by B90ATX, on Flickr


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 19, 2017)

I considered getting the f/4 IS for its advertised macro capability, then read that it was not very good at close work. I had a 24-105L at the time. I went ahead and bought the f/2.8L II and have never regretted it.

IS has never been missed, my subjects are often moving and IS is of no value for those photos.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 20, 2017)

bholliman said:


> The 24-70mm f/4L IS is a very nice lens and a bargain at its current price point in the US. I owned one 18 months ago when we visited Hawaii, and I was very happy with the images I took with it. The IS allows sharp images at very slow shutter speeds. I was able to take some waterfall images handheld at under 1 second exposure that were tack sharp bracing the camera against a tree, something I could never do with a non-IS lens.
> 
> If you are mostly shooting stationary objects this might be a better option than the f/2.8 II.
> 
> ...



+1 to finding the 36-70 range more useful than 16-23. UWA can be fantastic in some situations, but at least for me I use 36-70 much more often.

Also agree the 24-70/4L IS is a very good lens, especially for travel. Of course compared with the 2.8L II you give up a stop and bit of sharpness (except in situations where IS makes the difference between sharp/blurry due to camera shake), but in return you get IS, lighter weight, smaller size, common 77mm filter size (useful for sharing filters between lenses) and the (semi) macro mode ... and save money. I also see an earlier post suggesting the mechanics/build quality of the 24-70/4L IS is not up to the standard of some other L lenses, but I have never had any reason to think that. I have taken mine hiking/camping for days at a time in some rough and at times sandy or wet conditions and it has never faltered.

I periodically think about switching from the 24-70/4L IS to the 2.8L II for the extra stop, but so far haven't done it because in the end I find the 24-70/4L IS to be a very good and practically useful lens ... and even though an extra stop would be nice, 2.8 is still not that wide an aperture for the 24-70 range and I am not thrilled by the idea of the extra weight and no IS. One day I might buy the 2.8L II and own both for a while and see which one I end up using more.


----------



## jd7 (Dec 20, 2017)

Handrews said:


> As the guys before me mentioned, it's a good lens at a good price. I bought mine at 1/3 of the price of 2.8 version.
> My copy is very sharp (I don't have 2.8 for comparison, but I ran a couple of tests and it's on par with 16-35 F4 IS at 24mm and 35mm).
> 
> As already mentioned, the IS works well; here's a handheld shot 1/4 secs



Nice shot ... and that sort of shot when travelling is one of the times when the 24-70 4L IS seems a better option than the 2.8L II, because of the IS. Obviously different if you can set up a tripod, but of course that sometimes isn't a practical option if you are a tourist.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 20, 2017)

I love mine. I got it to replace the 24-105 f4L (version 1) that I dropped, making the filter ring unusable. Before I gave it away I did a test shot at 24mm with both lenses with a large metal door. The 24-70 f4L had less barrel distortion (meaning the edge of the door was straighter and less bowed).

As a couple people have mentioned, it has a macro mode that I find incredibly useful. I don't do a lot of macro so I have no need for a dedicated macro lens. Having a switch built into my existing standard zoom is just so handy for the few times I do need it. I can't believe how underappreciated this feature is.

The size and weight are perfect for balancing with my 5D series camera (I imagine a 6D or 7D series would be similar). If you use a Rebel series it might feel a bit front heavy. I also like the 77mm filter size (I think the f2.8 version has at least 82mm). All four of my lenses take 77mm filters, allowing me to own just one polarizer and one neutral density.

There are times when I would like the shallower depth of field of f2.8. But all things considered I love this lens and it will continue to be my standard zoom.

If you have not done so already, look through the CanonRumors lens gallery for this lens: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=13938.0


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 20, 2017)

MrFotoFool said:


> As a couple people have mentioned, it has a macro mode that I find incredibly useful. I don't do a lot of macro so I have no need for a dedicated macro lens. Having a switch built into my existing standard zoom is just so handy for the few times I do need it. I can't believe how underappreciated this feature is.



100% agree, but it strongly depends on the type of macro work you do. If it's unplanned, quick 'drive-by' macro work on a hike or walkabout, it's immense because your dedicated macro lens is probably at home. It's a great, great feature for that, so I love it and I agree it's a big deal that few talk about.

But if you are a more composed macro shooter -- possibly using ring-lites, external lighting, shooting on rails, etc. -- you'll want more working distance as with the 24-70 f/4L IS you have to get much closer to the subject. In that case, consider a dedicated macro instrument for that, likely 100mm or longer.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > As a couple people have mentioned, it has a macro mode that I find incredibly useful. I don't do a lot of macro so I have no need for a dedicated macro lens. Having a switch built into my existing standard zoom is just so handy for the few times I do need it. I can't believe how underappreciated this feature is.
> ...


Bingo!

On a canoe trip, I carry 3 lenses.... the 100L does not make the cut. If I see an interesting bug, I am not going to paddle out and drive home to get the “real” macro lens.......


----------



## Talys (Dec 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > MrFotoFool said:
> ...



Ironically, the macro lens I use when I'm out and about... 100-400LII! Because of the relatively short MFD (a bit more than a meter) combined with 400mm, you can get monster magnification without a lens swap. Plus, you're further away from your subject than with a 100L.

Regarding the 24-70/4 IS -- I absolutely love mine. 

The other lenses that I have had in the category are 24-70/2.8 Mk 1 and 24-105 IS Mk 1. I picked up the 24-70/4 IS because of the IS and the because it is short, small, and light compared to the 2.8. On my older 2.8, I often (usually?) stopped down to f/4 anyhow, and AF on the f/4 has never been a problem even with relatively little light. Compared to the 24-105 Mk1, I find that the 24-70/4 is noticeably sharper near 24mm, and, I prefer the lens size. 

It could just be my copy, but my 24-70/4 is very, very sharp, and has less chromatic aberration than any other lens that I own that general focal range, including 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 (the 1.4 has a lot of CA in the corners anyhow).


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 21, 2017)

On the topic of a 24-70 f/4L IS, I just reeled this in with it. Don't pixel peep as I took this pano handheld at ISO 3200. 

But it's not bad for a Wednesday, eh? 

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> On the topic of a 24-70 f/4L IS, I just reeled this in with it. Don't pixel peep as I took this pano handheld at ISO 3200.
> 
> But it's not bad for a Wednesday, eh?
> 
> - A



Nice picture! I have also had success using that lens handheld with panoramas


----------



## midluk (Dec 21, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I considered getting the f/4 IS for its advertised macro capability, then read that it was not very good at close work.


I have not seen a problem with the macro mode in my copy. But in normal mode at 70mm and wide open it is unusable near MFD. It is completely blurry. The plane of least blurriness moves when stopping down and it seems OK from f/8 onward. So this seems to be spherical aberration (or an overcorrection of it). I told CPS about it when I dropped my gear off for check&clean a few months ago, but the situation did not change. So I guess this is normal.


----------



## BillB (Dec 21, 2017)

midluk said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I considered getting the f/4 IS for its advertised macro capability, then read that it was not very good at close work.
> ...



Have you tried focussing in Liveview ,or manual focussing? If Liveview is sharper, microfocus adjustment might help.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 21, 2017)

midluk said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I considered getting the f/4 IS for its advertised macro capability, then read that it was not very good at close work.
> ...



Huh. First I've heard of this. But for a single (non-stacked) macro frame, I usually have to stop down quite a bit anyway so perhaps I've driven right by this. I'll give some wide open MFD macro shots a go soon and see what I get.

- A


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 21, 2017)

The 24-70's 'macro' mode suffers from several problems. It loses light transmission quicker than any 'proper' macro lens, it utilises focus breathing to actually get the close focusing distance, and generally the image quality isn't very good. You're actually better off just carrying a +2 close-up filter or a decent-sized extension tube and screwing that on the front at regular 70mm than moving into the 'macro' zone.

It's not totally unusable, but it's making more compromises than any other way to shoot macro. It's no replacement for a 'proper' macro lens. The fact OP already has the 135mm f/2, which works well with both close-up filters and extension tubes, kind of renders the 24-70's macro functionality a bit useless.

(And I say all this even as someone who still has the old FD 35-105 semi-macro and loves it dearly; look, these things have their uses, but you have to accept they have their drawbacks, too.)



And yes, OP, adding a 50mm to close the gap between the 16-35 you already have and the 135mm will do you fine. The 24-70 and 24-105 zooms, while useful at first glance, are covering the 'easiest' range possible. With a 16-35 overlapping the wide end, you're only looking at the zoom to cover 35-70, and that range is very easily replicated by a 50mm. (In fact, in the FD days, it was standard that all bodies came with two kit options of either a 50mm or a 35-70mm zoom; they are so interchangeable that nobody bothered having both.)

The 24-105 makes sense as a kit lens or specifically for a travel lens where you really can only take one lens with you. The 24-70 makes sense for event photographers where you don't have time to swap and you want one lens covering it all. If you're going to use a two-lens kit anyway, the value of the 24-x zooms drops dramatically.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 21, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> The fact OP already has the 135mm f/2, which works well with both close-up filters and extension tubes, kind of renders the 24-70's macro functionality a bit useless.



Disagree strongly. That's tantamount to saying 'Since I also own a Ferrari, the 1984 Toyota Tercel _that I am currently driving_ does not require peppy acceleration.' 

We don't always have what we need in our bag at that moment.

If the OP's 135L and tubes are not in their bag at the time, the 24-70 f/4L IS macro mode is solid gold. No one said it was for serious / illuminated / stacking sort of macro work. It is not. But if you pass a bug or flower on a hike, vacation, etc. you will reel that in far better than cropping at MFD with any other non-macro lens. That's what it's for.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> We don't always have what we need in our bag at that moment.
> 
> If the OP's 135L and tubes are not in their bag at the time, the 24-70 f/4L IS macro mode is solid gold. No one said it was for serious / illuminated / stacking sort of macro work. It is not. But if you pass a bug or flower on a hike, vacation, etc. you will reel that in far better than cropping at MFD with any other non-macro lens. That's what it's for.
> 
> - A



+1


----------



## jd7 (Dec 21, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > We don't always have what we need in our bag at that moment.
> ...



+2

If you expect to use the 24-70 f/4L IS for "serious" macro work you will be disappointed, but if you see it as a lens for casual close up photography when out and about, it's great.

I saw a post above saying the image quality is not very good when the 24-70 f/4L IS is in its macro mode, but I disagree. It probably does degrade a little the closer if you are pushing it right to its maximum magnification (x0.7), but I guess you can't have everything.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 21, 2017)

jd7 said:


> I saw a post above saying the image quality is not very good when the 24-70 f/4L IS is in its macro mode, but I disagree. It probably does degrade a little the closer if you are pushing it right to its maximum magnification (x0.7), but I guess you can't have everything.



I'll look into the f/4 macro performance -- I do appreciate the prior comment -- but I rarely shoot macro wide open as the DOF is razor thin at those distances.

- A


----------



## jd7 (Dec 21, 2017)

midluk said:


> I have not seen a problem with the macro mode in my copy. But in normal mode at 70mm and wide open it is unusable near MFD. It is completely blurry. The plane of least blurriness moves when stopping down and it seems OK from f/8 onward. So this seems to be spherical aberration (or an overcorrection of it). I told CPS about it when I dropped my gear off for check&clean a few months ago, but the situation did not change. So I guess this is normal.



In his TDP review of the 24-70 f/4L IS, Bryan Carnathan's conclusion in relation to wide open performance at 70mm and near MFD (in the lens's normal mode) was:

"With the macro capability this lens has (and the rather soft image quality at 70mm MFD with wide apertures), I suggest avoiding use of 70mm at the MFD. Shift into the specialized macro mode for these needs."


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 22, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> We don't always have what we need in our bag at that moment.


You've missed the point entirely. OP said their plan was to make a kit out of the 24-70 and 135mm together. Logic suggests that not having the 135mm is an unlikely situation when OP's plan hinges on having it.


----------



## midluk (Dec 22, 2017)

jd7 said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > I have not seen a problem with the macro mode in my copy. But in normal mode at 70mm and wide open it is unusable near MFD. It is completely blurry. The plane of least blurriness moves when stopping down and it seems OK from f/8 onward. So this seems to be spherical aberration (or an overcorrection of it). I told CPS about it when I dropped my gear off for check&clean a few months ago, but the situation did not change. So I guess this is normal.
> ...


I didn't seriously want to use 70mm at MFD, but I wanted to test the difference that macro mode makes. Perhaps they do this to make the macro mode look better. At first I was really impressed by the macro mode when I compared it to 70mm at MFD. Then I realized that the main difference was not due to the macro mode being exceptionally good (perhaps it is, but this was not the main contribution to the impression) but 70mm at MFD being exceptionally bad.


----------



## Talys (Dec 22, 2017)

Perhaps the thought process should be a weighting of importance between quality of macro, when you need it, and telephoto focal length, when you need it.

If you are happy with a little less focal length (or ok with cropping a bit), a 100 f2.8L Macro instead of the 135 f2 solves a bunch of problems. The macro on the 100L is exceptional, when judging the things that typically matter most, like edge sharpness, distortion, CA, and ability to take sharp photos from wide open to maximum aperture; I don't think anyone could ask for more out of macro lens. It's miles better than macro from 24-70, especially if you when you want to shoot outside of the aperture sweet spot.

The 100L can also replace the 135L in most aspects, plus, it's a little wider, narrowing the missing focal range between 70 and 135 (which is a pretty big gap).

My small carry-around kit for a long time was usually 24-70/4 and 100/2.8L macro, or 24-70/4 and 70-200/2.8 -- depending mostly on whether or not I think I will use macro. Since I've gotten the 100-400LII, I've actually switched to 24-70/4 + 100-400LII, unless I think I will need 2.8 for bokeh (for me, practically, 100-400 does this well enough if I can get close to the subject).

Another bonus is that the 100L has IS and has gotten really cheap on sale recently. Or, if you want to save some money, get the non-L 100 macro, which is a wonderful lens, though personally, I don't think it's worth it anymore as the price difference is no longer a whole lot.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 22, 2017)

Talys said:


> Another bonus is that the 100L has IS and has gotten really cheap on sale recently. Or, if you want to save some money, get the non-L 100 macro, which is a wonderful lens, though personally, I don't think it's worth it anymore as the price difference is no longer a whole lot.



+1. The affordability of very high quality '2nd tier' / older pro lenses in the EF lineup is such a huge asset for me as an enthusiast.

There are three big buckets of better-than-entry-level high quality EF lenses that won't put you in the poorhouse:


Ancient L lenses that continue to slug away: 17-40L, 70-200 f/4L, 135L, 200L (i.e. f/2.8L II), 400 f/5.6L

Recent-ish L lenses that are stellar values: 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS, 100L IS Macro, 70-200 f/4L IS

Recent-ish non-L lenses that do not remotely suck: 24/28/35 IS (all three are 'sleeper tiny L lenses without gaskets' to me)

And I'm sure I've missed some, but this is the gold part of the lens performance/price curve I most eagerly look towards for future pickups.

- A


----------

