# Canon 24-70 f/4L IS disappointing?



## jd7 (Jul 19, 2014)

Hi all

I've been playing with a Canon 24-70 4L IS for the last few weeks and comparing it to my old Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG HSM. I haven't had that much time to do comparisons but so far I'm struggling to be impressed by the 24-70 4L IS. I was hoping - expecting really - it would be a clear step up from the Sigma, but it's closer than that. I know I'm pixel peeping but still, U have to say I was expecting more from a Canon L (especially after lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS II, and non-L lenses like the 35 2 IS). 

Trying to sum it up:

At f/2.8 the Sigma is pretty good at 24mm, but it gets steadily worse as the focal length increases. The drop off in sharpness and contrast by 70mm is significant.

At f/4, the Sigma shows a clear improvement over 2.8 across the whole focal length range. The quality still drops as the focal length increases but the drop off is less significant than at 2.8.

At f/4, the Canon is good at 24mm, but by 35mm the quality has dropped noticeably. By 50mm I'd go so far as to call it poor - certainly for sharpness, if not so much for contrast. It improves again by 70mm, but it doesn't get back to the standard it set at 24mm. I would say the Sigma wins at f/4 at 50mm and perhaps even 35mm.

From various reviews, I expected the Canon to be weaker towards the middle of its range, but looking at the LensRentals' resolution tests I thought it would still be pretty decent there. What has surprised me is just how poor it seems towards the middle of its focal length range. I think I'm still leaning towards keeping the Canon and selling the Sigma - because the Canon's IS has its uses, it's a bit lighter, it's better at 24mm and 70mm, and it's got its semi-macro mode for a bit of fun. That said, the Sigma's f/2.8 has its uses too - even if the quality drops towards the longer end of the focal length range - and I'd get more if sold the Canon.

Anyone else really disappointed with the 24-70 4L IS in the middle of its focal length range? For those who are happy with their 4L ISs, are you genuinely happy with them at 50mm? Have I got a poor copy? Hhmmm, I don't want to pay for the Canon 24-70 2.8L II and I'm uncertain about the Tamron 2.8 VC (my brother has one). Maybe I should just keep my Sigma? Or look for a 2nd-hand 24-105 4L IS?

Thanks for any thoughts.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2014)

I'd return the lens now, if you can. Otherwise, send it to Canon with your issues. I was considering getting one for product photography, the close focusing seemed like a useful thing. IS doesn't matter for that.

The high price, and the less than stellar performance led me to believe that a 24-105mmL is almost as good for half the price. I have the 24-70 f/2.8, it is weak at close focusing, but otherwise superb. Lack of IS has not been a issue.


----------



## Menace (Jul 19, 2014)

If it's too late to return, sell it and keep the Sigma esp as its f2.8 - depending upon your photography style that may or may not be a big issue.


----------



## DRR (Jul 19, 2014)

My one thought on this topic is simple - whenever I have been underwhelmed with a lens when first using/testing it, I have never been happy with the lens and have always ended up getting rid of it for something else.

The lens is not going to get magically better so I'd return it now if I were you.


----------



## ErikNZ (Jul 19, 2014)

The lens could, of course, be a lemon. However, the lens may also require calibration with your body to achieve the optimal results. My first action would be to return the lens and ask for another example - if you bought the lens in a store, go back and ask to test multiple examples to see if they are any better.

This is the point to make a decision, return the lens for a refund or proceed to step 2. 

If any of the replacement 24-70 lenses are significantly better than your original copy, I would just write the 
first one off as a lemon and proceed with step 2 - sending your bodies and lens(es) off to Canon for a proper calibration. If you're not a CPS member, this may cost you a little but I have always found it to be worthwhile and Canon CPS here in NZ has always been able to achieve far better results than I could do on my own with AF micro adjustments.

On the matter of Tamron - I had a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX that I was not happy with (at all). But at that point in time, a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L (Mk I) was not in the budget so I managed to swap the Sigma for a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di with a friend who needed the extra 4mm and was looking for a softer portrait lens. (The Sigma was not unpleasant at all and for portrait work, it actually produced some great results).

After many years, I upgraded most of my kit - moved to 1D-series bodies and most of my lenses were replaced with Canon L lenses. Except for the Tamron. And why? Because in every comparison test, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L failed to blow the Tamron away - yes, at f/2.8 the Canon was surely the better lens but at f/4 I already could not longer see a difference when pixel peeping. The Canon may have been the better lens but at 3 times the price of the "magic coke can", the 24-70mm /f2.8L completely failed my value-for-money test.


----------



## tron (Jul 19, 2014)

I would sell both to get the 24-70 2.8 II.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 19, 2014)

FWIW I'm really bored with 24-70 zooms, so I ditched mine (24-70 f/2.8 L) and got a Ʃ35 f/1.4A instead to bridge a gap in my range of wide to standard prime lenses. I find that I am shooting with primes more and more often, with really satisfactory results. Often I will have a wide or standard prime on the 5DMkII and a tele-zoom on the 5DMkIII. My 24-105L and 17-40L get most of their use when I travel, the 17-40L is almost exclusively for holiday use .


----------



## Chisox2335 (Jul 19, 2014)

I have the lens and I'm very pleased with it. Just used it to take a few pictures of people at a friend 's wedding. Of about 32 shots 30 were keepers. I used various focal lengths for the shots. Might try AFMA first then return it if it's still not working well (unless it's truly just iq, then I suppose just return it for a new copy)


----------



## jd7 (Jul 20, 2014)

Thanks for your thoughts all.

To those recommending the 24-70 2.8L II, I have no doubt it's superb. I'm looking for a general purpose "walk around" / travel / hiking lens, so the combination of heavier weight, larger size and higher price mean it's not perfect for my needs. Obviously having 2.8 would be nice at times, but I don't think that's so important to me for what I plan to use this lens for. And if I need to stop action in low light, I have primes in the same focal length range.

Reading around the internet (again!) makes me think I may just have a poor copy of the 24-70 4L IS. TDP and LensRentals note the drop in sharpness at 50mm but seem to suggest it's not too bad. SLRLounge has a "shoot out" of a number of lenses at 24, 35, 50 and 70 mm and rates the lens pretty highly - and their 100% crops seem to back up the idea. Various other reviews (Photozone, Bob Atkins, PhotographyBlog, to name a few) seem similarly impressed with the lens at all focal lengths. Interestingly, SLRgear notes they tested 3 copies and the first two were very poor at 50mm but the third one was significantly better (albeit 50mm remained a weak spot). It all makes me think I'm right to be expecting better than I'm seeing from my lens.

In any event, I will call the shop and see what they say but I'll be surprised if they'll do anything more than send it off to Canon to be checked. Sadly I'm outside the 14 day period within which they will exchange for another product, and they do not offer refunds unless the item doesn't work (and I'm guessing I'll have trouble convincing them about that). Unfortunately shops in Australia rarely offer the kind of "no questions asked" refund policies which I gather can be found overseas (or at least in the US).

Hhmmm, maybe I should take mrsphotografie's hint and ditch the 24-70 zoom altogether and just go with primes.


----------



## skoobey (Jul 20, 2014)

I use 24-105. Have tried out the 24-70 2.8 non-is and was impressed by the difference in color reproduction and added contrast compared to my lens. It was also slightly sharper.

However, not so amazed that I'd trade those extra 35mm that make it a portrait lens, and much more versatile.

Try it for as much as you can, maybe you'll get to love it's strengths, rather than pick on it's downfalls.

Also: If you have your photo library in LR, check your stats, if you shoot a lot at focal lengths where Canon i better, there is your answer.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 20, 2014)

jd7 said:


> Hi all
> Have I got a poor copy?
> Thanks for any thoughts.



Yes.

If you read the Lens rental review Roger states that there are an alarming amount of adjustable elements in the construction. 

I'm guessing that many of the early production ones were not set up correctly - hence the initial unfavourable reviews from a number of sources.

It's actually a very fine lens; whether the improved 24mm and overall borders over the 24-105 is worth losing the 75-105 range is up to you.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 21, 2014)

Thanks for adding your thoughts Sporgon. If you're happy with your 24-70 4 IS at 50mm f/4, I'm sure it's more than good enough for me ... which further convinces me I really do have a sub-standard copy.

I've also done some more testing over the last couple of days. I haven't done it very scientifically (eg shooting hand-held, although making sure the shutter time is nice and fast) but it's consistent over a variety of subjects/situations. Taking the same subject at different focal lengths, I'm happy with the lens at f/4 at 24 and 70, but at 50 it's just plain poor. I have to say I generally like the handling of the lens, so if it was (pretty much) as sharp at 50 as it is at 70, I'd be very happy with it.

Called the shop today and they just say they'll send it back to Canon ... and I should get it back in 4 to 6 weeks. Sigh. Fingers crossed it doesn't actually take that long ... and they actually fix it.


----------



## idene (Jul 21, 2014)

I can't understand why Canon would persist to make F4 lenses, specially ones that are designed to be upgrades (Fisheye 8-15mm f4). 

Probably the most pointless aperture setting there is.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 21, 2014)

This thread has many familiar elements for me! I still love my old Tamron 28-75 2.8 

I also love my various prime lenses when I am feeling artistic and have the time to play around during a photoshoot.

But when money is involved, I often use my trusty workhorse, the 24-105. The extra zoom range and the IS is worth more to me than the larger aperture of the 24-70 2.8 at a fraction of the price.

And I think we can all appreciate the frustration of having a lens that doesn't work well. I was hoping that the invention of MicroFocusAdjustment would bring that sad era to an end, but it hasn't.

Sending your lens back to Canon was probably the best thing to do at this point. Please let us know how it works when you get it back!


----------



## NancyP (Jul 23, 2014)

f/4 lenses have many uses - they are lighter in weight and generally considerably cheaper than similar quality f/2.8 lenses. Landscape photographers, hikers, tourists are perfectly happy to have these lenses. My APS-C workhorse is the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, and it is supplemented by the EF 70-200 f/4 IS. My FF kit is developing, I don't have a workhorse zoom at this point. I have some adapted legacy (my dad's) manual primes (Nikkors 50mm f/1.2, 55mm f/3.5 macro, 100mm f/2.5) and Samyang 14mm f/2.8, Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. I am glad to have these very nice wide primes, but if I ever do a through-hike trip or a trip with a lot of elevation, I may get the new 16-35 f/4L IS for the weight savings. A big guy can afford a few extra pounds in a through-hike kit, but a small woman has to make choices to stay under the "no more than 1/3 of your body weight" pack rule - 38# limit in my case.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 23, 2014)

NancyP said:


> f/4 lenses have many uses - they are lighter in weight and generally considerably cheaper than similar quality f/2.8 lenses. Landscape photographers, hikers, tourists are perfectly happy to have these lenses.



That's right, when traveling I carry the 17-40L, 24-105L and 70-300L. All of these lenses can be considered 'slow' so I compliment them with the tiny 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.8 MkI. On my latest holiday in Japan I could really sense that I had replaced the 70-300 VC Tamron that I carried previously, 12 hr days on my feet resulted in back pain. Thankfully I wasn't carrying any f/2.8 'monsters' or my back would have been irreparably damaged....


----------



## jd7 (Jul 26, 2014)

My lens has gone off to Canon for servicing. The shop tells me it's a 6 to 8 week turnaround, which is a bit frustrating, but I guess the main thing is whether or not it comes back in good shape. Fingers crossed!!

Anyone know the rules for CPS membership in Australia? I'm pretty sure last time I looked into it, you have to be getting paid for your photos.

As for whether f/4 lenses are any use, you won't be surprised to know I think they have their uses! Sure it's nice to have a wider max aperture but in the end with lenses it's always about the trade offs. In fact, I've even been considering selling my 70-200 2.8L II and picking up a 135L (and change), although I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet. If they bring out a 135L IS, that might well convince me ... although I'm still tempted by the 135L as is. (And no, I don't want to just add a 135L to my kit. I really don't need any more lenses!)


----------



## kennephoto (Jul 26, 2014)

tron said:


> I would sell both to get the 24-70 2.8 II.




Totally agree, now that's a lens that keeps on impressing.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 26, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> FWIW I'm really bored with 24-70 zooms, so I ditched mine (24-70 f/2.8 L) and got a Ʃ35 f/1.4A instead to bridge a gap in my range of wide to standard prime lenses. I find that I am shooting with primes more and more often, with really satisfactory results. Often I will have a wide or standard prime on the 5DMkII and a tele-zoom on the 5DMkIII. My 24-105L and 17-40L get most of their use when I travel, the 17-40L is almost exclusively for holiday use .



Yes. I have the Sig 35 Art and it just forces me to make better composition, and its colors and sharpness are just insane. I almost can't take a bad image with that lens. 
I plan to pick up a 7d2 (if it isn't just a Bigfoot riding a unicorn) and then keep he 35 on the 6d and the 70-200 on the crop.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 26, 2014)

jd7 said:


> In fact, I've even been considering selling my 70-200 2.8L II and picking up a 135L (and change), although I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet. If they bring out a 135L IS, that might well convince me ... although I'm still tempted by the 135L as is. (And no, I don't want to just add a 135L to my kit. I really don't need any more lenses!)



Nooooooooooooooooo!


----------



## sanj (Jul 26, 2014)

idene said:


> I can't understand why Canon would persist to make F4 lenses, specially ones that are designed to be upgrades (Fisheye 8-15mm f4).
> 
> Probably the most pointless aperture setting there is.



Huh?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 26, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, I've even been considering selling my 70-200 2.8L II and picking up a 135L (and change), although I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet. If they bring out a 135L IS, that might well convince me ... although I'm still tempted by the 135L as is. (And no, I don't want to just add a 135L to my kit. I really don't need any more lenses!)
> ...



+1, that's almost insane - the 70-200 2.8L II is a bag full of f/2.8 primes all rolled into one. It is the ultimate zoom. So unless you're bothered by its size and weight, I recommend getting the 135L beside the 70-200L (I know how GAS works). Whatever you do don't first sell the 70-200 and then get the 135L. Keep them both for a while (a year or so) to see how it works out.


----------



## Menace (Jul 26, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



Agreed - well put.


----------



## Laktibrada (Jul 26, 2014)

i was pondering between the 24-70 and 24-105 (both f4 and IS) and a lot of people told me that the 24-70 is extremly good at 24ish and 70ish mm (close to the 2.8 II)... but the further you go from those focal lengths the worse it gets... they went as far as saying it is less sharp at 50mm than the very basic kit lens (18-55)

so i guess it is THE zoom lens for people who hate 50mm 
or if you dont care abut switching lenses now and then... add the cheap nifty fifty and you should be set 8)


----------



## jd7 (Jul 27, 2014)

Laktibrada said:


> i was pondering between the 24-70 and 24-105 (both f4 and IS) and a lot of people told me that the 24-70 is extremly good at 24ish and 70ish mm (close to the 2.8 II)... but the further you go from those focal lengths the worse it gets... they went as far as saying it is less sharp at 50mm than the very basic kit lens (18-55)
> 
> so i guess it is THE zoom lens for people who hate 50mm
> or if you dont care abut switching lenses now and then... add the cheap nifty fifty and you should be set 8)



Around 50mm does seem to be the weak spot for the 24-70 4 IS. That said, LensRentals' testing puts it as slightly sharper than the 24-105 even at 50mm (although query if you'd pick a difference in real use). 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests
It seems there is plenty of copy variation amongst the 24-70 4s though - and it seems the ones which are poor can be quite poor.

I'm crossing my fingers mine shows a very significant improvement once it's been serviced by Canon!

And I do still wonder if I might not have been better going with the 24-105, although I do like the handling of the 24-70 4 IS and the macro mode could be fun occasionally.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 27, 2014)

Menace said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > ScottyP said:
> ...



I did say I was considering it but hadn't been able to bring myself to do it yet! 

The 70-200 2.8 IS II is fantastic, but I do a lot of my photography when travelling and the size and weight can be an issue. I have a 70-200 4 IS and it's great too, and half the weight and significantly smaller so it tends to be the one I take often. And it feels like overkill for me to have two 70-200s! Still, the 2.8 is so good, and useful in so many situations, I think I'll end up keeping it.


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2014)

I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!

However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.

So I keep them both!


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 27, 2014)

idene said:


> I can't understand why Canon would persist to make F4 lenses, specially ones that are designed to be upgrades (Fisheye 8-15mm f4).



1) Price. The 16-35mm + 24-70mm + 70-200mm trio at f/4 is 40% cheaper than the f/2.8 trio.

2) Weight. The f/4 trio is 33% lighter than the f/2.8 trio.

3) f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 IS-less. As explained by others, IS compensates for hand movement, aperture helps freeze the subject.

As for the fisheye zoom, I think it's a different story altogether. Canon could have gone two ways:

1. Make four fisheye prime lenses - circular & diagonal, each for APS-C & FF, like Sigma did. That means dealing with overhead of four niche lenses, all the way from design, through production, marketing, stocking, and stocking parts to fix sold lenses.

2. Make one fisheye zoom lens. It misses the niche market of circular fisheye lens for APS-C, but has (a) saves on said overhead, (b) is a lens the owner can keep when upgrading to FF.

Also, as shallow DoF is not a consideration for fisheyes, an ISO stop would usually compensate for an aperture stop. There might be night time photographers who would like f/2.8 today, but improvements in sensors might make this a moot point long before the fisheye zoom reaches end-of-life.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 27, 2014)

tron said:


> I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!
> 
> However there are cases where I need the 2.8 and cases where I don't so I can do with a lighter lens.
> 
> So I keep them both!



Indeed... I bought the 70-300L as a travel telezoom, after owning the 70-200/2.8L IS II for a while.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 27, 2014)

It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.


----------



## candyman (Jul 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I too have both 70-200 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for the mere reason that when I bought the first the second didn't exist yet!
> ...




I bought the 70-300L first - as travelzoom (occasionally sports in good daylight) and only after that I bought th 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - what a great zoomlens with wonderful IQ. It came very handy when shooting indoor musicals with limited and changing lights.
I have a few lenses in the same focal length but all for different reasons and pusposes....ok I suffer - a bit - from GAS ;D


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 27, 2014)

candyman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I've got the 70-300L for travel too. It collapses to a very manageable size and has excellent image quality too


----------



## tron (Jul 28, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Can you please stop mentioning how useful for travel the 70-300L is? ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 28, 2014)

idene said:


> I can't understand why Canon would persist to make F4 lenses, specially ones that are designed to be upgrades (Fisheye 8-15mm f4).
> 
> Probably the most pointless aperture setting there is.



????

So someone has to pay twice as much to get f/2.8 lens and lug more weight just for landscape shots?

What is wrong with f/4??


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 28, 2014)

My first copy was better than the 24-105Ls I've tried but it did seem a bit extra dodgy at 50mm and the edges in general. I ended up returning it and trying a second copy and it definitely did better at the edges all around and it seemed, in a weird way, to have a lot more DOF at 50mm. Not quite as good as the 24-70 II stopped down, but not bad at all, although the difference even more at f/4, but all the same very good and the second best general zoom I've ever used on FF and FAR better than any 24-105L copy I have ever used.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 28, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.



The better sigma 24-105????????

The sigma is larger and heaver than the 24-70 II! And, other than right at f/4, it's performance isn't that far off the 24-105L!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 28, 2014)

tron said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



It's pretty much the best. NO photographer can be without one. Not one! ;D

(seriously though it's one of my most used lenses, for me 24-70 II, 70-300L and 300 2.8 IS L and 100L get the most usage by far and of those the 70-300L might even be #1)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 28, 2014)

tron said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



70-300L on travel:


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 28, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It shouldn't be that unsharp buts it's no surprise you find the lens disappointing. For the same price, you can get the better sigma 24-105 or a Tamron 24-70 VC. I can see the f4L version being a value until it's sub-800$.
> ...


Right because at 5.6-f/8 all lenses look sharp. So being able to shoot wide open sharp photos matters more with a slower lens like 24-105's because you'll be there more often.

It still makes the 24-70 F/4L look like an overpriced toyota at it's current price.


----------



## Menace (Jul 28, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



Hi tron, did I mention that 70-300L is a very useful for travel - relatively light and compact too? (Just kidding)


----------



## tron (Jul 28, 2014)

Now, If you want to make me spend more money for yet another lens you will not make it ... yet 

Earlier this year I got the 24-70 2.8 II and immediately before leaving for vacation I got 16-35 f/4L IS (by giving my EF24 2.8 ) and 100L 2.8 Macro (by giving my old non-usm non-L 100mm 2.8 macro).

Plus, I knew I needed my 2.8 zoom due to an event that takes place at low light. ;D

So I will think about it next year if I there are no announcements for 5DMkIV, 14-24 2.8, 16-35 2.8 III, so many ifs... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Zv (Jul 28, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> idene said:
> 
> 
> > I can't understand why Canon would persist to make F4 lenses, specially ones that are designed to be upgrades (Fisheye 8-15mm f4).
> ...



Yeah, what's your beef with f/4?? A lot if the time I want more than just an eye in focus.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 28, 2014)

Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)

Anyway, yes, I have seen the reviews of the 24-70 f4 and remain confused. I was wondering why so many gave such a high impression of this lens (with the exception of TDP which shows awful performance at 50mm)...I went to my local store to try one out and it confirmed the mediocre performance at 50mm f4 (ok, trying to be nice - it simply sucked at 50). It was very good at 24mm (much better than the 24-105 and close to the 24-70 2.8 II)...got worse as I zoomed in. At 35 it was just ok...at 50 no part of the image was sharp. Center was just barely passable, toward the edges - I thought my 24-105 was meh at 24, but (!!!)...and then it improved again at 70mm but it's still not as good as it was at 24. Macro mode seemed cool but gimmicky at the same time. Performance wise the macro mode seemed to be fairly good (of course, not in the league of the 100L but WAY better than anything in its class). 

Basically, with the exception of 24mm f4, this seemed like a step DOWN from the 24-105 which really surprised me given reviews I've read singing its praises. Then, finally I stumble upon some reviews docking it for its performance at 50mm (and threads like this)...I wonder if that was just a bad copy that the store had. Unfortunately it's the only copy they have too...I'd like to try out another one to see if it's any better. 

So...sounds like it's normal to see a drop in performance in that lens at 50, but it shouldn't be a dramatic one?


----------



## jd7 (Jul 29, 2014)

Act444 said:


> Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)
> 
> Anyway, yes, I have seen the reviews of the 24-70 f4 and remain confused. I was wondering why so many gave such a high impression of this lens (with the exception of TDP which shows awful performance at 50mm)...I went to my local store to try one out and it confirmed the mediocre performance at 50mm f4 (ok, trying to be nice - it simply sucked at 50). It was very good at 24mm (much better than the 24-105 and close to the 24-70 2.8 II)...got worse as I zoomed in. At 35 it was just ok...at 50 no part of the image was sharp. Center was just barely passable, toward the edges - I thought my 24-105 was meh at 24, but (!!!)...and then it improved again at 70mm but it's still not as good as it was at 24. Macro mode seemed cool but gimmicky at the same time. Performance wise the macro mode seemed to be fairly good (of course, not in the league of the 100L but WAY better than anything in its class).
> 
> ...



I agree - it does seem to be a bit of a confusing lens! From everything I've read and experienced, your assessment seems to be correct though (and the copy you tested sounds very much like mine). 50mm is the weak spot for the lens, but even so if you get a good one it should be almost as good at 50mm as it is at 70mm - probably close enough you're unlikely to notice the difference in real world use.

For example, it seems SLR Lounge got a good one ...
http://www.slrlounge.com/school/canon-24-70-vs-24-105-vs-28-300-lens-wars-50mm/

I think many of us were hoping the 24-70 4 IS would be basically a 24-70 2.8 II but trading aperture for size/weight. Doesn't seem to have quite worked out that way though. Given how good most of Canon's more recent lenses have been (eg 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 II, 35 2 IS, etc), I wonder what happened with the 24-70 4 IS? Complications related to the inclusion of the macro mode? Allowing larger tolerances in an attempt to reduce manufacturing costs? Anyone got any other ideas?

I really hope mine has become a good copy by the time it comes back from Canon!


----------



## jd7 (Jul 29, 2014)

Act444 said:


> Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)



Yep, the people around here are a great help if you want to spend money ... not always so much if you're trying to save it ;D


----------



## jd7 (Jul 29, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I have to say I ruled out the Sigma 24-105 largely on grounds of size and weight. If I'm going to carry something like that, I'd be saving for the 24-70 2.8L II. For my purposes the aim of using an f/4 zoom is to trade aperture for size/weight savings, so if the extra focal length was really important to me I'd still be looking at the Canon 24-105 4L over the Sigma even if the Sigma is (may be?) a little sharper.

As for the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, I did consider it. For some reason I couldn't get excited enough about it to want to carry the extra size/weight anyway. I'm not trying to be critical of it - my only real "complaint" about its IQ is the onion ring bokeh (I reckon my old Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM was a step up for bokeh, if not sharpness), but query if that would make any difference to me in real life (as against when pixel-peeping at 1:1). Anyway, I just didn't get excited about it so I didn't go down that path. 

I admit I haven't looked really closely at the Sigma 24-105 (as I say, the size/weight issue was enough to put me off it - for my uses) but I wonder if you're being a little harsh on the 24-70 4L IS. It seems like a good copy is pretty darn good - but the issue is getting a good copy.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 29, 2014)

jd7 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I was simply stating that any of those lenses would be a wiser choice unless you absolutely needed whatever little benefit the 24-70 F/4L has. 24-105L, Sigma 24-105L, or Tamron 24-70 VC. Doesn't matter but until canon wakes up and lowers the price on it, You won't see the 24-70 F/4L thread get very much bigger.

It's only gripe is the price, but otherwise a decent replacement for the 24-105L. I'd be all over that 24-70 F/4L @ 799 like peanut butter to a jelly sandwich.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 29, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



No, all lenses do not look sharp at f/5.6-f/8. Compare a 75-300 IS to a 70-300L at even f/8. Compare a 24-105 at 24mm f/8 to 24 1.4 II or 24-70 II or 24-70 f/4 IS. And contrast and longitudinal CA and distortion and such can vary too even stopped down.

The Sigma barely costs more than reasonable street price of the 24-70 f/4 IS (I see it on sale for $999 all the time and a couple times for $950).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 29, 2014)

tron said:


> Now, If you want to make me spend more money for yet another lens you will not make it ... yet
> 
> Earlier this year I got the 24-70 2.8 II and immediately before leaving for vacation I got 16-35 f/4L IS (by giving my EF24 2.8 ) and 100L 2.8 Macro (by giving my old non-usm non-L 100mm 2.8 macro).
> 
> ...



Wow nice set 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 2.8 II and 100L! Same here. Only plus 70-300L ;D and 300 2.8 IS ;D ;D. BUY BUY BUY ;D ;D ;D.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 29, 2014)

Act444 said:


> Clearly this forum is not the place to hang out if you're trying to avoid buying more stuff (sigh)
> 
> Anyway, yes, I have seen the reviews of the 24-70 f4 and remain confused. I was wondering why so many gave such a high impression of this lens (with the exception of TDP which shows awful performance at 50mm)...I went to my local store to try one out and it confirmed the mediocre performance at 50mm f4 (ok, trying to be nice - it simply sucked at 50). It was very good at 24mm (much better than the 24-105 and close to the 24-70 2.8 II)...got worse as I zoomed in. At 35 it was just ok...at 50 no part of the image was sharp. Center was just barely passable, toward the edges - I thought my 24-105 was meh at 24, but (!!!)...and then it improved again at 70mm but it's still not as good as it was at 24. Macro mode seemed cool but gimmicky at the same time. Performance wise the macro mode seemed to be fairly good (of course, not in the league of the 100L but WAY better than anything in its class).
> 
> ...



My second copy definitely was better than the first. But your copy sounds super bad at 50mm.

Anyway 24mm area performance had always been the hold grail for FF. 50mm was trivial, even a cheap 50 1.8 delivered that fine corner to corner. 24m was challenge, also people tend to shoot standard zooms most often at the wide and long end, so I way preferred the design decision to make the 24-70 f/4 IS peak at 24mm (and 70mm) as opposed to the 24-105 which chose to be best at the trivial and less used 50mm and much worse at 24mm (and 70-105m).

24mm f/4 IS also fights off nasty longitudinal CA much better than the 24-105L as well.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 29, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I was simply stating that any of those lenses would be a wiser choice unless you absolutely needed whatever little benefit the 24-70 F/4L has. 24-105L, Sigma 24-105L, or Tamron 24-70 VC. Doesn't matter but until canon wakes up and lowers the price on it, You won't see the 24-70 F/4L thread get very much bigger.



What little benefit?? I never kept a 24-105L longer than a week they left me so disappointed at 24mm. I kept the 24-70 f/4 IS until swapping it for 16-35 f/4 IS (which is less redundant to the 24-70 II). So much better at 24mm for landscapes.

Way smaller and lighter than the sigma 24-105 and better stopped down for landscapes and barely costs more. I don't even see the point of the sigma for a canon shooter (24-105 costs less, 24-70 f/4 IS barely costs more and is better and much smaller and lighter, 24-70 II is the same size and much better and f/2.8, tamron is same size and better and f/2.8).

Way smaller and lighter than the tamron 24-70 vc and a few hundred less expensive, although tamron does give you f/2.8 so it's an either or decision.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> My second copy definitely was better than the first. But your copy sounds super bad at 50mm.



Thankfully it wasn't "my copy" so to speak, just one I got to try at a local store...it seemed fine at 24 and at 70 but at 50 it's probably the worst performance I've seen. I expect FAR better from a lens in that class/price range. Even my 18-55 kit lens + M is superior...

It was bad enough that I would have figured there was something wrong with it. Haven't written it off yet, though - I really would like to test another one. Problem is that the "bad one" is the only one available to test (so far). We'll see, perhaps that's a good thing...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


Doesn't change a single thing I mentioned in my comment because the sigma is still the better lens for cheaper and the 24-105L is cheaper lens for about the same IQ. I found my Tamron 24-70 VC for 800$! Does that mean anything? No but that not as important as I can find 24-105L's for 500$ too.

I didn't mean to offend but the 24-70 F/4L is overpriced.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 29, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Yes, even now the price of the 24-70 4L IS has dropped a bit from its real release price, it's still pretty hard to swallow. The Tamron 24-70 VC has a lot to recommend it, and when you factor in price as well it's easy to see many people choosing it over the 24-70 4L IS. And then when you also factor in weak IQ in the middle of the zoom range seemingly effecting many copies ... well, the 24-70 4L IS feels frustrating to say the least. I agree with LTRLI that Canon made a good call in producing a lens with good IQ at the extremes of the range, but even so I expect quite a lot more than I was seeing from my copy in the middle of the zoom range (and I'm pretty sure I'm less picky than many on CR!).

I'm looking forward to testing my copy when it comes back from Canon. Fingers crossed it turns out to be one of the good copies!


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 29, 2014)

jd7 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



Let us know the outcome of this. Roger at Lens Rentals mentioned that the new 24-70 IS has more adjustable elements than any other lens he'd seen ( or something like that ) so it obviously requires a skilled set up. Our copy at Building Panoramics is OK at 50 mm. 

What concerns me about the Tamron is it's durability when used by someone like myself. Some of the elements are just glued into place with three spots of glue. I don't like the idea of that.


----------



## Act444 (Jul 29, 2014)

Another observation - compared to the 2.8 II version, even at 70mm the 2.8 is noticeably better than the 4 when both are set to f/4. I was truly hoping for a smaller, lighter, slower version of the 2.8 lens but the 4 (at least the one I tried) just doesn't have the resolving power of the 2.8, even factoring in the IS. 

Compare to the 70-200 series where the 4 and 2.8 are near equals!


----------



## x-vision (Jul 29, 2014)

jd7 said:


> I think many of us were hoping the 24-70 4 IS would be basically a 24-70 2.8 II but trading aperture for size/weight. Doesn't seem to have quite worked out that way though.



My thoughts exactly - and it's frustrating to read about the inconsistent performance at 50mm.
I'm also waiting to hear how your copy turns out after it comes back from Canon service.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 18, 2014)

For those interested, I got back my lens late last week. I only had a chance to take a handful of shots with it over the weekend, and they were in less than ideal testing conditions (ISO3200, except for about 4 shots at ISO 400). However, I'm very pleased to say my initial impression is the lens is much improved after servicing. I need to test it more thoroughly yet, but it's looking like the lens is still a touch better at 24mm and 70mm than at 35mm or 50mm but the difference is now pretty small. Seems like 35mm and 50mm are pretty good - it seems promising anyway!

Will update again when I've tested more carefully, hopefully next weekend.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 13, 2014)

In case anyone stumbles over this old thread at some point and is interested to know how the story ended ...

Having done some more testing, I'm pretty happy with my 24-70 4 IS now. The IQ is pretty consistent all the way through the zoom range now. It's possible its weak spot is now at 35mm (f/4), and I think it might not be quite as good at 24mm (f/4) as before I sent it to Canon (but it's marginal - I might be imagining that), but really its consistent - and very good - throughout. It's a vast improvement over its performance before I sent it back to Canon, that's for sure.

It's interesting reading around the internet that some people report the 24-70 4 IS being great throughout the zoom range (eg see PhotoNet http://photo.net/equipment/canon-ef24-70f4/, and see SLRlounge's "lens wars" series including their 50mm "wars"), while many others report it being weak in the middle of the zoom range, especially at 50mm. Sporgon mentioned in an earlier post that Roger Cicala had found the 24-70 4 IS has an unusually high number of adjustable elements. Maybe Canon bit off a little bit more than they can chew with the 24-70 4 IS, in the sense the QC required to make it consistently good out of the box would mean it would have to be priced at a level which isn't going to fly from a commercial point of view?

Anyway, the story has ended well for me, so I'm happy!

PS - It seems pretty clear it's not going to be what you're looking for if you're serious about macro photography, but as someone who isn't that much into macro, I'm definitely having some fun with the (semi) macro mode on the 24-70 4 IS.


----------

