# EF 24-70 f/4L IS Resolution Tests



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 4, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/01/ef-24-70-f4l-is-resolution-tests/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/01/ef-24-70-f4l-is-resolution-tests/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>Via Lens Rentals


</strong>Roger Cicala from <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com" target="_blank">LensRentals.com</a> has posted his first resolution tests of the Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS.</p>
<p>He has compared it with the EF 24-70 f/2.8L version 1 and 2, the EF 24-105 f/4L IS as well as the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8VC. All of which will probably get your consideration in a very crowded focal range.</p>
<p>At 24mm, the EF 24-70 f/4L IS is the second best performing lens behind the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. Mind you, the results are all pretty close. It does look like Canon’s MTF chart of the lens holds up against the others.</p>
<div id="attachment_12557" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ef2470f4is24chart1.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-12557" alt="EF 24-70 f/4L IS at 24mm Resolution Comparison Chart" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ef2470f4is24chart1.jpg" width="575" height="119" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">EF 24-70 f/4L IS at 24mm Resolution Comparison Chart</p></div>
<p>At 70mm, none of the lenses are as sharp as they are at 24mm. However, the EF 24-70 f/4L IS is again the 2nd best performing lens by a small amount.</p>
<div id="attachment_12558" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ef2470f4is70chart1.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-12558" alt="EF 24-70 f/4L IS at 70mm Resolution Comparison Chart" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ef2470f4is70chart1.jpg" width="575" height="120" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">EF 24-70 f/4L IS at 70mm Resolution Comparison Chart</p></div>
<p><strong>Part of Roger’s Conclusion


</strong><em><b>“</b>Obviously this hasn’t told us a thing about autofocus accuracy, bokeh, or a dozen other things that have to be considered when choosing a lens. Just like you, I’ll be waiting for more complete reviews to tell us about that.</em></p>
<p><em>On the basis of this information, though, I’m . . . well, I don’t know what I am. This is a good lens, but I at the price point I’d probably prefer the f/2.8 of the Tamron VC to the new Canon’s f/4. The macro feature is nice and will certainly pull some people towards the Canon.”</em></p>
<p>Roger also notes that there was quite a bit of variation at 70mm between the 22 copies they tested.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests" target="_blank">Read the entire article</a> | </strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898652-USA/Canon_6313b002_EF_24_70mm_f_4_0L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank"><em><strong>Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS at B&H Photo $1499</strong></em></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>cr</strong></p>
```


----------



## bchernicoff (Jan 4, 2013)

So, when it drops to $999-ish it would be a good alternative to 24-105. Smaller and lighter with macro and better optics and improved IS.


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Thanks and no thanks, Canon- I'm glad you're creating and improving products, but I'll stick with my 24-105L lens. I can live with 5% barrel distortion at the wide end in exchange for the increased telephoto reach. It's the best overall travel lens I've ever used. For my next purchase, I'll await a 14-24 2.8L


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 4, 2013)

You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands


----------



## LukieLauXD (Jan 4, 2013)

Would've been better if they did a 24-105 refresh T_T


----------



## preppyak (Jan 4, 2013)

Since I'm probably moving to full-frame in the next year or two, I like the potential this lens has. Much less barrel distortion can matter for landscapes, as will corner sharpness. Seeing as I've got a 70-200, I'm not too worried about the lack of range. And even doing 1:2 macro is good enough for me, as it's rare I want to do more than that anyway.

It makes it a more versatile walk-around for backpacking trips (being smaller and lighter). And I'm sure the price will have settled into the $1100 or so range by the time I'm ready to consider it. Then again, a 24-105 may well be $600 by then, so it'll be hard to say


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 4, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands



Why? The tamron and 24-70 IS clearly test better, especially at 24mm.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jan 4, 2013)

Actually, it's looking like I am going to sell my 24-105 and get the Tamron. I'll be trading reach and filter compatibility for improved IQ and one stop of light.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 4, 2013)

Sounds pretty good although it doesn't match the 24-70 II (as expected from the MTF charts), at least not at f/4 (although it's very close wide open to wide open). I'd really be curious how it does f/8 though or even f/5.6 too. It's hard to say much more without knowing that. This sort of lens, in particular, may be used stopped down a lot.

Better than the 24-105 IS (or 24-70 I if you don't need f/2.8) though. I suppose it is possible that the 24-105 catches up as you stop down and then the 24-70 IS would not look so good though. OTOH if the 24-70 IS becomes like the 24-70 II stopped down then it would be a much better lens than the 24-105 by miles.

If the Tamron didn't exist I guess it might make sense at the price it was launched at, although it really depends how well it compares to the 24-70 II stopped down. Considering the Tamron though it seems a bit pricey (although, again, it's hard to say without seeing how it does stopped down, maybe it does better for 24mm landscapes?). It only tested a tiny bit better across the range and lacks f/2.8, but again what about stopped down? We only get to see the 24-70 II wide open vs Tamron stopped down in this test.

It appears to deserve to cost more than the 24-105 IS but the Tamron does make the price seem a little rough, depending (on whether it is a trade of for getting access to f/2.8 vs. better stopped down landscape performance or something).

Of course large scale contrast and AF and such remain to be seen.

And the stopped down performance needs to be tested. Does it perform like the 24-105 or the 24-70 II?


----------



## kubelik (Jan 4, 2013)

it's always easy to look at design decisions when you're not involved in them ... but I wonder what Canon could have done with a 24-85mm design instead of 24-70mm. I use the 24-70 f/2.8 L a lot, even when traveling, but I do have to admit there are times when an extra 15mm of reach would be fantastic. that being said, I'm actually pretty impressed with the lens, in particular regarding the size. if it weren't such a silly waste of money to have both a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 24-70 f/4, I think I actually would get one as a travel walkaround.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 4, 2013)

It seems to me that (like the new 35mm f/2 IS) that Canon has produced a lens that compares well to its internal competition (exceeds the 24-105L 24-70L and MK1, is sufficiently short of the 24-70 MKII for fair value), but neglects to consider the competition (in this case, the Tamron). The Tamron comes out looking the greatest in terms of the combination of optics, features, and price.

The same thing is happening to the 35mm f/2 IS. It compares nicely to its predecessor and even the 35L, but the Sigma (and a fairly high price) make it seem a step behind and less of a value as it should be. At the 600-700 range, it would be a great alternative. At the current price, however, the Sigma looks like a far greater value (particularly when you consider that the Sigma comes with both a hood and a NICE case). Likewise, as someone has already pointed out, the 24-70 f/4L would be a great alternative at $1000. As it stands, however, it only reinforces the value of the Tamron and makes those of us who own the 24-105L want to hang onto it.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > You will have to pry my 24-105L off my cold dead hands
> ...



As always, everything is a package deal....lets not discount the added reach the 24-105L offers with IS and decent IQ and contrast.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 4, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray2021 said:
> ...



24-70 f/4 also has IS

24-105 has added reach, but also added distortion and a 70-200/300 lens delivers much better 70-105mm quality plus a LOT more reach.

But I guess it depends how you shoot and what your aims and goals are.

I will give you that the 24-70 IS can currently be had for nothing less than $1500 and the 24-105 LNIB split from a kit for like $700ish.


----------



## Scott911 (Jan 4, 2013)

just an embarrassing note - maybe add " bigger number is better / worse" type text to future graphs.


----------



## Scott911 (Jan 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Thing is, 24-105 covers a lot of range as a quality walk around lens. No doubt a pair of lens (like a 24-70 & 70-200) give you more in multiple metrics, namely quality & reach, but one len / one body has it's benefits for casual trips where you don't even take a bag... That's why I like my 24-105.


----------



## neech7 (Jan 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



I don't think it's fair to compare the long end of a standard zoom to the wide end of a telephoto lens, especially since the 24-105 is known to be weak at the long end, possibly as a compromise to give the wide end better performance.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > As always, everything is a package deal....lets not discount the added reach the 24-105L offers with IS and decent IQ and contrast.
> ...



I only listed IS as part of the "package deal" in the Canon line up (reach, L build, and constant f4 etc)...not to suggest the Tamron lacks it. 



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> But I guess it depends how you shoot and what your aims and goals are.



24-105L is my go-to lens for travel, though I could choose from key primes/tele zooms. It is by no means a "small" lens but I usually fall back on it when I carry just a single lens. It is a versatile, reliable performer.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 4, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray2021 said:
> ...



+1 for that. I now find the shorty forty a very easy addition to throw in there, too, giving a nice option for lower light work.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 4, 2013)

Scott911 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray2021 said:
> ...



I guess. I just figure that if I care enough to take a DSLR then I want better than the 24-105 delivers on FF (or wider and better (and for less) on APS-C). And walking around and travel and such are often when I come upon the best scenes where I'd want the most quality if anything.

I never, ever, ever got the whole leave the good stuff home when you are traveling (or even walking about)! That is when you are in interesting places! Why leave the good stuff home when you are around all these amazing and unique opportunities and then bring it out when you are back in the same old whatever? But to each their own. But for me, travel is when I'd most of all want the tops. I sooner use the convenient lower stuff for someones cat wandering through my backyard and the good stuff for the Seychelles or Paris or the Big Sur or what not.

Obviously many love the 24-105 though. It often comes up the tops in most favorite lens posts. (Then again it also comes up most often of any lens in least favorite lens posts too  ;D). I tried to like it three times and quickly returned or solid it all three times. But obviously while many agree with me, very many also disagree.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 4, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > 24-105L is my go-to lens for travel, though I could choose from key primes/tele zooms. It is by no means a "small" lens but I usually fall back on it when I carry just a single lens. It is a versatile, reliable performer.
> ...



+1 
I don't own the 40mm yet, but the thought has crossed my mind...but I am holding off to see if this new 35L II pans out in the next two weeks or so  The 40mm might still be a good travel choice if size is key as my old 35L is not *that* small compared to the 24-105L...and one has to expect the new 35L II (if it ever materializes) will also be a significant size. 40mm seems to be a feather-weight and by all accounts performs well for its price.

Oh I guess I may have to find that extra $150 for the shorty forty after all. :


----------



## dstppy (Jan 4, 2013)

Hrm, looks like it's soft as all get out @ f/2.8

*ducks*


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 4, 2013)

24-105L is my go-to lens for travel, though I could choose from key primes/tele zooms. It is by no means a "small" lens but I usually fall back on it when I carry just a single lens. It is a versatile, reliable performer.
[/quote]

+1 for that. I now find the shorty forty a very easy addition to throw in there, too, giving a nice option for lower light work.
[/quote

+1 - that's exactly what I'm doing
when I'm out on the off chance. 24-105 on camera, 40 in pocket. 

With regard to the 24-70 f4, it _must_ be intended to have significantly higher IQ than the 24-105 otherwise I cannot see any logical reason for it. Time will tell.


----------



## robbymack (Jan 4, 2013)

And the winner is............Tamron 

Honestly there is no real reason to chose the 24-70 f4 IS unless you really (and i mean really) care about saving a little weight. Seems to me the 24-105 now has to go the way of the dinosaurs for canon to move this lens in bulk.


----------



## infared (Jan 4, 2013)

Roger gives us the BEST info!!!! Thanks Roger...I always feel informed after reading anything that he posts.


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 4, 2013)

Scott911 said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Ray2021 said:
> ...



+1 Absolutely.


----------



## rbr (Jan 4, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I guess. I just figure that if I care enough to take a DSLR then I want better than the 24-105 delivers on FF (or wider and better (and for less) on APS-C). And walking around and travel and such are often when I come upon the best scenes where I'd want the most quality if anything.
> 
> I never, ever, ever got the whole leave the good stuff home when you are traveling (or even walking about)! That is when you are in interesting places! Why leave the good stuff home when you are around all these amazing and unique opportunities and then bring it out when you are back in the same old whatever? But to each their own. But for me, travel is when I'd most of all want the tops. I sooner use the convenient lower stuff for someones cat wandering through my backyard and the good stuff for the Seychelles or Paris or the Big Sur or what not.
> 
> Obviously many love the 24-105 though. It often comes up the tops in most favorite lens posts. (Then again it also comes up most often of any lens in least favorite lens posts too  ;D). I tried to like it three times and quickly returned or solid it all three times. But obviously while many agree with me, very many also disagree.



I agree 100% with this. I have tried 3 copies of the 24-105 and owned one for about 6 months, but was never happy with it at the wide end where I would use it most. The corners never looked good for serious landscape work on full frame or even on a 1D4 at 24mm. While overpriced at the moment, it could possibly be a great landscape lens. Unfortunately these tests don't tell us much about that. Corner sharpness at 24mm stopped down a bit to maybe f8 is what I'm most interested in. Comparing this new lens wide open to f2.8 lenses stopped down just isn't a reasonable comparison IMO. According to the charts in the article, this lens is sharper wide open at 24mm than any of those f2.8 lenses wide open including the L II. With its small size I think it really has potential to be the lens I have been waiting for for travel and hiking. Yeah, it really should come down in price a few hundred dollars. I expect that this lens will have a similar fate to the 70-300L that a few years ago many felt was an unneeded and overpriced lens for Canon to come out with. The 70-300L has since become generally well liked and the price has also come down with frequent rebates, etc.


----------



## Plato the Wise (Jan 4, 2013)

I'm really disappointed with the price-point of this lens.

While I like the 24-105 - the barrel distortion at 24mm is really annoying. If this lens were under $1K - I would definitely be in the market for it and trade in my 24-105.

From the tests it seems reasonably sharp. It is weather sealed, has IS, is small, and has a lot less distortion. It would be perfect to carry as a companion to a couple of primes.


----------



## kobeson (Jan 4, 2013)

Plato the Wise said:


> From the tests it seems reasonably sharp. It is weather sealed, has IS, is small, and has a lot less distortion. It would be perfect to carry as a companion to a couple of primes.



Exactly what I hoped this lens would be! I agree, overpriced still but hoping to add it to my 35/85/100 kit (along with a 70-200).

Just hope it has corner sharpness stopped down and I am sold!


----------



## eyeland (Jan 5, 2013)

Would be nice with some measure of build quality and IS, but I guess that mileage varies to such a degree depending on particular use that it'd be of little use anyways...
Would be nice with some improved quality testing from canon at these price points though. 
The way it looks, my vote goes to the Tamron as well if I should decide to start using zoom glass at all


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jan 5, 2013)

transpo1 said:


> Thanks and no thanks, Canon- I'm glad you're creating and improving products, but I'll stick with my 24-105L lens. I can live with 5% barrel distortion at the wide end in exchange for the increased telephoto reach. It's the best overall travel lens I've ever used.



I agree with this, and I like it even better on my 7D as a travel lens.


-------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 5, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> It seems to me that (like the new 35mm f/2 IS) that Canon has produced a lens that compares well to its internal competition (exceeds the 24-105L 24-70L and MK1, is sufficiently short of the 24-70 MKII for fair value), but neglects to consider the competition (in this case, the Tamron). The Tamron comes out looking the greatest in terms of the combination of optics, features, and price.
> 
> The same thing is happening to the 35mm f/2 IS. It compares nicely to its predecessor and even the 35L, but the Sigma (and a fairly high price) make it seem a step behind and less of a value as it should be. At the 600-700 range, it would be a great alternative. At the current price, however, the Sigma looks like a far greater value (particularly when you consider that the Sigma comes with both a hood and a NICE case). Likewise, as someone has already pointed out, the 24-70 f/4L would be a great alternative at $1000. As it stands, however, it only reinforces the value of the Tamron and makes those of us who own the 24-105L want to hang onto it.



+1

I couldn't have said it better 

This looks like a very good lens, but charging more than 900-1000$ places it in a league where it just doesn't belong. There is a big world outside Canon's offer.


----------



## Rick (Jan 5, 2013)

The price will come down and maintain a similar relationship between the 24-70 II and the 24-105. The 24-70 II has already come down by $250. If one doesn't want to pay early adopter pricing, wait for the price reductions that are sure to come. It'll probably be cheaper as a kit lens for the 6D too.

For those who want better wide open performance, you have to pay for that. The 24-70/4 IS looks like it beats the 24-105 across the board in this respect. Couple that with a "macro" feature and a Lens Cap II, it could be worth the price. ;D


----------



## syder (Jan 5, 2013)

People posting here (gearheads probably with 15 years worth of L lenses) really aren't the target market for this lens.

As a general walkabout lens with macro capabilities which will be good enough for many hobbyists this lens makes a lot of sense compared to the 24-105. Its sharper, has less distortion, hybrid IS and means people don't need to invest a separate macro lens. For someone moving up from a rebel to a 6D this lens would be great. For those who already have the 24-70 f2.8 mark i or ii or the 24-105 along with the 100L or another dedicated macro lens this offers very little unless you really want a two lens setup to go on holiday and take lots of macro pics. A 24-70 (with macro) + 70-200 is a lot more versatile, and will probably get better images than a 24-105 and 100L.

As with other lenses the price will drop in a few months time (see the 24-70 f2.8 mark ii as a reference).


----------



## ddashti (Jan 6, 2013)

For a wide-telephoto zoom lens with IS, these figures are really good!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 6, 2013)

Rick said:


> The price will come down and maintain a similar relationship between the 24-70 II and the 24-105. The 24-70 II has already come down by $250. If one doesn't want to pay early adopter pricing, wait for the price reductions that are sure to come. It'll probably be cheaper as a kit lens for the 6D too.
> 
> For those who want better wide open performance, you have to pay for that. The 24-70/4 IS looks like it beats the 24-105 across the board in this respect. Couple that with a "macro" feature and a Lens Cap II, it could be worth the price. ;D



Yes....during holidays and now $2299; http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon+24-70mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta


----------



## infared (Jan 6, 2013)

robbymack said:


> And the winner is............Tamron
> 
> Honestly there is no real reason to chose the 24-70 f4 IS unless you really (and i mean really) care about saving a little weight. Seems to me the 24-105 now has to go the way of the dinosaurs for canon to move this lens in bulk.



...more thorough research may change your consideration:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

I am not always a Canon Fanboy...but in some cases it is worth at least trying-on those clothes....


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 7, 2013)

The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price. If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there. I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D. 6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.


----------



## hmmm (Jan 7, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price. If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there. I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D. 6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.



+1. Lower the price and this is perceived as a very good lens.


----------



## EchoLocation (Jan 7, 2013)

hmmm said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing that holds this lens from being an excellent lens is price. If price goes down to at least $900, then this will become one of the best lenses out there. I'd buy this as a kit lens with 6D if Canon somehow finds a way to bundle it with 6D. 6D + 24-70 F4 IS for around $2500, I think everyone will be very happy.
> ...


i agree. I liked the 24-105, but I always wanted something a little more compact to make up for the slow aperture. If i'm going to carry something big around, i'd rather have the F2.8. Thus, if this lens was 800ish, it would be a fantastic FF travel lens. I really like the idea of this lens, I just think that Canon is way off base with their prices. 
L glass is cool.
F4 is not cool.
$1500 is a crapload of money. For that price, whatever lens I buy better be cool all the way around, not just because it's small and L.


----------



## dcren123 (Feb 3, 2013)

No standard f4 zoom is worth that price!

It seem like a good lens. With high iso performance on FF already good as it is, f4 won't be too much of a problem in dim light and the hybrid IS will certainly help a lot. I see this as some sort of 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM compromise in which Canon made it one stop slower in return for lighter weight and IS/macro. I'm hoping to see more reviews so we can be certain of its image quality. With its current price though... it's an epic fail.


----------



## Ew (Feb 3, 2013)

The more I think about it, the more the 24-70 f4 seems like a replacement for someone moving from a crop+17-40 to FF ... with a bit more range.... but the price kills the deal.


----------

