# 24-70 F/4L IS - Why I will Buy/Not Buy this lens.



## RLPhoto (Nov 6, 2012)

A Straight forward poll. 

Edit: I just got my 24-105L from Ebay for 750$. I'm really digging it, My copy is a razor. Check out this little quick shot of the lens cap.

Jpeg straight from camera.

F/4 - 1/15 - ISO 800


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2012)

I (almost) never say never....


----------



## PackLight (Nov 6, 2012)

I will buy this lens because my collection of L lenses will not be complete without it.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 6, 2012)

f/4 just isn't f/2.8, simple as that. the size looks really fantastic, though


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 6, 2012)

Can you add "what a useless lens" to your poll?


----------



## vuilang (Nov 6, 2012)

how about...
too slow n too expensive


----------



## dstppy (Nov 6, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Can you add "what a useless lens" to your poll?



We've already got a useless poll for this lens, so why not eh? ;D


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 6, 2012)

imo, i would pick up this one as if i do not have 24-105mm. why? because of its macro at the end of tele (might save me a lens swap - yes i am just lazy in changing lens - and couple hundred dollars from buying 100mm macro)... i think that it might sharper than 24-70mm 2.8 even version II since it comes with is and macro capability but not i am not pretty sure... let see


----------



## enraginangel (Nov 6, 2012)

I am buying the 24-105mm f4L IS for reach. I will buy the 24-70mm f2.8L IS whenever it finally comes out. The 24-70mm f4L IS is just completely redundant. However, I do like that it has a 77mm filter thread.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 6, 2012)

Personally, if I were to buy a standard zoom for a FF, I would go f/2.8. An f/4 will only give me the same DoF at equivalent lengths as an APS-C f/2.8, so what is the benefit of going FF if I lose a unique advantage?
Of course, this is totally subjective.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 6, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> imo, i would pick up this one as if i do not have 24-105mm. why? because of its macro at the end of tele (might save me a lens swap - yes i am just lazy in changing lens - and couple hundred dollars from buying 100mm macro)... i think that it might sharper than 24-70mm 2.8 even version II since it comes with is and macro capability  but not i am not pretty sure... let see



A wishful thinking ;D


----------



## Skippermark (Nov 6, 2012)

enraginangel said:


> I am buying the 24-105mm f4L IS for reach. I will buy the 24-70mm f2.8L IS whenever it finally comes out. The 24-70mm f4L IS is just completely redundant. However, I do like that it has a 77mm filter thread.


I agree. The 24-105 is a perfect walk around lens when you want to go light without a lot of gear.


----------



## drjlo (Nov 6, 2012)

If one goes by the MTF chart at Canon site, the 24-70 f/4L should be pretty sharp, especially compared to 24-105.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_4l_is_usm


----------



## serendipidy (Nov 6, 2012)

> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > I will buy this lens because my collection of L lenses will not be complete without it.



I can see the ads:

24-70 F/4L... for the (Canon) man who has everything (else)


----------



## timkbryant (Nov 6, 2012)

Two reasons.

1- I already have the 24-105 f/4 and that fits my needs perfectly.
2- Had I bought a 7D, I would have picked up the 24-70 f/2.8 II instead.


----------



## Mika (Nov 6, 2012)

Actually, I think Canon has done a comparatively smart move with this one. If the price level drops to around 1000-1100 €, I'm actually very tempted. I'll still keep the 24-70/2.8 mk I for different purposes, it is just that awesome lens in my hands ;D 24-70/2.8 would remain in my bag just because of the very good bokeh, not to mention other capabilities! 

But this new F/4L, I could not believe my eyes when I saw macro 0,7x ratio! That's just insane and shows the guys in the lens department at Canon Inc. have indeed been working! For a general walk around lens, I always thought 24-105 just did not have the close focusing capability like the 24-70 does. 

What's even better, the new 24-70 lens is a lot lighter than 2.8 variants and does provide image stabilization for some lower light photography. For me, this would be the thing I'd take for trekking or travelling, especially since it is smaller and lighter. Not to mention the massive improvement in macro capabilities. It sounds like Canon has indeed listened to our collective whining 

I'll wait for them to work out the kinks and the price to drop some tens of percents, then it is most likely a deal. Any ideas of the distortion of this one, though?


----------



## dave (Nov 6, 2012)

I think this lens provides a really good option.

If people want a 24-105 it is still available for around $800 reasonably often. The 24-70L f/2.8 ii is $2300, which makes it $800 more than the 24-70 f/4 IS.

Clearly not everyone will want this lens, but I think judging by the MTF charts, MFD and latest IS, the lens potentially offers much greater value than some of the recent releases.


----------



## risc32 (Nov 6, 2012)

800 + 800 = 2300 ?

At 1000 US yes, any higher, no. I like my recently purchased 24-105.


----------



## dave (Nov 6, 2012)

risc32 said:


> 800 + 800 = 2300 ?
> 
> At 1000 US yes, any higher, no. I like my recently purchased 24-105.



I was referring to the difference between the new 24-70 f/4 IS lens and the f/2.8 ii, not the 24-105L. i amended to make it clearer. 

I am not criticising the 24-105L. For $749 as was recently offered it is a cracker. However, I would imagine the new lens will offer some good improvements for those that are interested.

I guess when it comes down to it, I like the variety that is available and, for me, I like Canon pursuing optimal image quality more than absolute versatility in focal length.


----------



## Frodo (Nov 6, 2012)

For hiking I use my 24-105 plus Samyang 14. I do have the 70-200 f4, but with the 24-105 going into the 70-200's range, I get more use out of the 14mm, and so when weight is an issue, the 70-200 stays home. And for event photography, its nice not having to change lenses or swap to another body.

So for me the extra reach is very important.


----------



## JoeDavid (Nov 6, 2012)

I was interested in this lens until I took a close look at the MTF charts of it versus the 24-70/2.8L II. Canon made it a more dificult comparison because the vertical scales are a little different between the 4 graphs. At $1500USD, I'd expect the f4 version to be closer to the f2.8 in image quality and that doesn't appear to be the case. Compared to the f2.8L II, image quality falls of near the corners for a full frame sensor. It would probably be a great crop sensor lens though...


----------



## x-vision (Nov 6, 2012)

I'd like to move to FF and the 6D + 24-70/4L combo is very appealing because of its compact size and high image quality.

But this combo needs to sell for less than $3000 for me to consider it. 
It also needs to have a more advanced AF system - not the prehistoric AF on the current 6D.

So, it seems that until the new 24-70/4L gets cheaper and until the 6D gets updated with a better AF, Canon won't have my money. 

Your move, Canon 8).


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 7, 2012)

The correct answer to this poll is too slow and too expensive.
$1500 for an f4 is outrageous and If this is the new pricing strategy for DSLR's, I'm going to take a good hard look at the RX1 or Leica.


PackLight said:


> I will buy this lens because my collection of L lenses will not be complete without it.


I hope this is a joke, Although this does seem like the best reason for one to buy this lens.


x-vision said:


> until the new 24-70/4L gets cheaper and until the 6D gets updated with a better AF, Canon won't have my money.
> 
> Your move, Canon 8).


"until the 6D gets updated"? IT'S NOT EVEN RELEASED YET!!!!
If I was you, i'd start looking at cameras like the 5DIII or D600/D700.


----------



## fr8oc (Nov 7, 2012)

I will wait and see what the reviews are in the real world usage. I am building my lens kit and at this point I'm not sure if I will spend this much for the 24-70 f/4.0 or just go big and get the f/2.8. For a walk around lens I think I will just go ahead and grab a 24-105 f/4.0 while they are cheap and available.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> $1500 for an f4 is outrageous...



Guess I was foolish to spend $13K on an f/4 lens. 



EchoLocation said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > I will buy this lens because my collection of L lenses will not be complete without it.
> ...



Egad, I hope it wasn't a joke. It pleases me to find someone who shares my passion. 

Anyone know where I can get a nice, wall-mounted locking glass case for the 600/4L IS II, so I can display it and keep the dust off?


----------



## jhenderson0107 (Nov 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Anyone know where I can get a nice, wall-mounted locking glass case for the 600/4L IS II, so I can display it and keep the dust off?



I can build you one http://serialobsessor.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/wood-shop-tour/.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 7, 2012)

I'll admit that i was first in line to crap all over the 6D, it was exactly the same as the 5D2 just in a shinier new case and a few useless trinkets added on, for much the same price as what it replaced. I did, and will continue to, question anyone who buys the 6D as to why they don't buy a 5D2 instead for $500 less (even if you're a rebel user and need to invest in CF cards for the 5D2, they're not $500), unless you have a very valid reason for _needing_ an inbuilt gps and have a total phobia of buying a used 5D2.

This lens, however, is different. I'm still not sure if it's replacing the 24-105L for a start, methinks the 24-105 might continue on for at least as long as it will take for the new lens to come down to the 24-105's current pricing.
But think about if you are one of those who are stepping up from a rebel (or even a 7D, which I eventually will do), you're (probably) not going to have a FF-kit-zoom (i've currently only got the EFs 15-85). When you add in the 0.7x MM figures and the Hybrid IS, this lens looks like a bargain compared to the $2200 24-105+100L Macro combo, plus it's smaller and lighter to boot.
The IQ will probably beat the 24-105, probably not the 100L, and all you're really missing out on is 70-105mm and 0.7-1.0x MM.
Not a big deal for your casual shooter to whom this is aimed (again, if you're reading this forum, then you're not the 'casual shooter to whom this is aimed'. if you're reading this, then by definition you're the 1% of gear-heads, you're not joe consumer).

OK, the price is a bit high for now, and I can't afford it either (neither can i afford a 5D2, even used). But the price should settle at the $1200-or-less mark fairly soon enough.
I predict this lens will be a big seller. Kit this with the 6D and it will account for more reason to buy the 6D than the body (imho).


ps, remember the 70-300L? "Why would I get that? it's variable-aperture and slow, and it's the same price as the 100-400L, i'd rather get the extra reach, whinge whinge etc". What lens sells better, and is generally more acclaimed, out of those two now?


----------



## AG (Nov 7, 2012)

Personally I'm buying this lens because it wont make much difference being f4 for video work. I already have a 70-200 f4 IS so this will partner up with that perfectly. 

It also means that my 24-105 is freed up so i can use that on my other camera as either a B camera or for production stills.

But i also have to add a BUT in there, and that being the price is still too high.

Canons pricing seems to just keep going up and up.


----------



## Stewbyyy (Nov 7, 2012)

It's too slow for my liking... IS isn't for me, I'm all about freezing the action as I mainly photograph events/concerts. I don't like my 300mm F/4, I feel very limited with the F/4 aperture, it's the slowest lens I own. If I had a full frame body then my opinion would probably be different, as the ISO performance on the APS-C cameras just isn't good enough for an F/4 lens for me :/

If I did just want a walk around lens for funsies then I think this fits perfectly. I can see this being a great lens, just not the lens for me. The macro feature is really cool though, that is something I really really like.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 7, 2012)

hmmm lets see
I have the 24-105L paid $800 or so for it new a few years ago now and its still a trooper just keeps on going, I recently got the best version 1 24-70 f2.8L i've ever used for $800 used  and I have the 100 f2.8L IS Macro maybe it cost $900 so all three of those lenses cost me what the new 24-70 L II would cost
I definately have no use for a 24-70 f4 even if it does do semi macro

If the 24-70 f4 was a cheap and great IQ lens like the shorty forty I could see it being a success
but with it being stratospheric priced i'm with RL on this its going to be an epic fail until it becomes more reasonably priced


----------



## JBeckwith (Nov 7, 2012)

No chance I'm buying it. I have the 24-105 so no need for the overlap.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm all for IQ but I think something like a 17-70 range would have been really nice for an F4 "standard" lens to be an alternative to those who have a 24-105 already. I mean, isn't that what the 24-105 was all about to begin with? The standard lens with the most focal lengths. 17-70 would have been great, even for crop cameras! I wouldn't have minded the extra weight and the slow speed but I disagree with overlapping this lens over the 24-105 instead of diversifying the focal range. The 24-105 is already acceptable in the weight department compared to other L lenses... Just my two cents. But, the damage is done already. One thing I did wanted fixed on the 24-105 was the distortion on the wide end, and if they fixed that with the new 24-70 lenses then I can only see more reason to try one out or even buy one after seeing enough good sample shots and good reviews.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 7, 2012)

I JUST got my 24-105 a few months ago for less than $800 used. If I had known this was coming, i would have waited. The better optical performance and new style IS would have swayed me. But as it is, I will be hanging on to my 24-105. It really is a good lens, despite the rep it gets here on the forums (or at least it did, until people started using it as a reason to pan the new 24-70 F4 .

-Brian


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 7, 2012)

I'll buy this when price drops around $800 and if IQ and macro mode is very good. Sometimes, I want to bring only one lens and this might fit the bill.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 7, 2012)

JoeDavid said:


> I was interested in this lens until I took a close look at the MTF charts of it versus the 24-70/2.8L II. Canon made it a more dificult comparison because the vertical scales are a little different between the 4 graphs. At $1500USD, I'd expect the f4 version to be closer to the f2.8 in image quality and that doesn't appear to be the case. Compared to the f2.8L II, image quality falls of near the corners for a full frame sensor. It would probably be a great crop sensor lens though...




+1....alot of people didn't see that at all. I'm glad you catched that one. I coudn't be happier with mine f2.8 II.


----------



## caMARYnon (Nov 7, 2012)

Since 5D3 appeared with its surprises (not all pleasant for me),I decided that I will never treat Canon's new products with enthusiasm or pesimism before these being properly tested. I am excited for 0.7x close-up (24-105 is very bad in close-up aplications) and I think I could loose 35mm for near macro capability. 
The price is in the line of Canon last year products, no suprise here: the new 1k is 1,5k in lenses price. Maybe a new 100-400 at 3.5k will be a bargain next year 
But in fact even Nikon increased prices at new lenses (see 70-200 f4).


----------



## PackLight (Nov 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> EchoLocation said:
> 
> 
> > $1500 for an f4 is outrageous...
> ...



No case is neccessary.

Nice lenses should be displayed like Bling. I would suggest a Black Rapid strap for comfort while you wear it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2012)

PackLight said:


> No case is neccessary.
> 
> Nice lenses should be displayed like Bling. I would suggest a Black Rapid strap for comfort while you wear it.



LOL. Way ahead of you - I got a special BR strap just for the 600 II. 

(Actually, I'm serious! BR has a 'left handed' version of their strap, and for the life of me I couldn't see the utility of it since, right or left handed, you've got to hold the camera in your right hand to press the shutter button, so having it hang on the left side of the body seems illogical to me. But with a heavy supertele, if makes a lot of sense to hang that on the left side, since when you bring it up to shoot you want to lift it by the lens foot, not the camera body, and that means lifting it up with the left hand then grabbing the body with the free right hand. But...I digress...)


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 7, 2012)

I have the 24-105 and it's ok for what it is. Not more not less just ok. And my complaint is not "sharpness' or any of that. I don't like that it's f/4 - though of course I understand why that is. And I don't like IS and I don't like the build quality of it. I can't think of one single reason why I'd want basically that same lens as a 24-70. You couldn't pay me to use it let alone ask me to buy something like this. I wish I had bought the original 24-70 2.8 two years ago.


----------



## iaind (Nov 7, 2012)

You need option on poll 

I already have 24-105


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 8, 2012)

So its 87 lost customers to 10 more customers.

Lets make this interesting.

How many would you Buy a 24-105L MK.2 with the same features as the 24-70 F4L, @ the price of 1500$?

+1 for me. +1 this to agree.


----------



## Chris Geiger (Nov 8, 2012)

Wedding photographer here, I have both the 24-105 f/4 and the 24-70 2.8 Ver II, both are great lenses. I don't understand why they decided to make a 24-70 f/4 at the same price point as the 24-105 f/4. I won't be buying one.


----------



## gamecat235 (Nov 8, 2012)

I might buy it based on very little other than the range and the maximum magnification make this potentially the perfect hiking/landscape/flower/bug lens... 

But I will wait, I can't justify that price point for that type of lens.


----------



## tron (Nov 8, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> ishdakuteb said:
> 
> 
> > imo, i would pick up this one as if i do not have 24-105mm. why? because of its macro at the end of tele (might save me a lens swap - yes i am just lazy in changing lens - and couple hundred dollars from buying 100mm macro)... i think that it might sharper than 24-70mm 2.8 even version II since it comes with is and macro capability  but not i am not pretty sure... let see
> ...


And a completely flawed logic too ;D


----------



## michi (Nov 8, 2012)

I have the 24-105L and the 24-70L version one. Unless tests were to reveal for this lens to have amazing optics, I'm not interested. I will probably buy the 24-70L II in a few years. Or maybe the III with IS


----------



## keithfullermusic (Nov 8, 2012)

i just don't see a point in buying a lens in the low telephoto range at f/4 - especially when its well over $1,000. IS is great, but I love shooting at 1.4-2.8, so this sort of thing is about as useless as it gets FOR ME (not everyone).


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Nov 10, 2012)

I won't be buying it. Staying with the Tamron right now. Might consider the 2.8 IS version some time after that's released, whenever that will be.....


----------



## tron (Nov 11, 2012)

No way. Useless! In that range I have the 24-105 f/4L, the 35mm 1.4L the TS-E24mm L II, 50 1.8 version 1, 85mm 1.8 (OK that is a little more than 70...)


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 11, 2012)

michi said:


> I have the 24-105L and the 24-70L version one. Unless tests were to reveal for this lens to have amazing optics, I'm not interested. I will probably buy the 24-70L II in a few years. Or maybe the III with IS



It'll be version I if it has IS.


----------



## Danielle (Nov 17, 2012)

I said other.

I don't understand why everyone seems to go 'ooooohhhh' about that focal range. Isn't it boring? Useful to some, undeniably but really? Seriously???

F4 is too slow to me and that focal range I personally am better off with a couple of primes. And the f2.8 version I think is ridiculous priced, the mark ii I mean. I haven't tried it but in that range I think tamron cornered the realistic end with price and aperture size.


----------



## Radiating (Nov 18, 2012)

I will buy it if it has JAW DROPPING sharpness. Otherwise it's a dud.


----------



## brad-man (Nov 18, 2012)

Well I have bla bla bla lenses and I just don't need this range in this aperture 'cause it's all about me  Well goody! However for someone owning only ef-s lenses and moving to full frame, this would just about be the perfect single lens solution...


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 18, 2012)

If IQ is brilliant, it would be a candidate for buying.

The EF 18-55 is an awful lens in terms of haptics - optically it is o.k.
I tend to see 70mm as a useful standard focal length, I love the 40mm
on APS-C bodies which equals to 64 in terms of 35mm equiv.

The 24-70 4.0 is light weight and might be my first IS equipped
lens. Additionally it bears a very interesting macro mode.
On APS-C: a 38-110mm equiv range is very versatile FOR ME
and on FF (if I change to that format) it is a good general purpose
lens.
If I go full frame it might replace the EF-S 10-22, the EF 2.8 24, the
EF-S macro and the EF-S 18-55 and makes choosing a lens set
much easier.

Combined with the 2.0 100 it will be a fine two piece set of lenses
delivering high apertures where it counts: on the tele range.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 19, 2012)

Now after seeing the sample pics from canon. This lens is even more DOA.


----------



## robbymack (Nov 19, 2012)

cant see how you'd want this over the cheaper tamron which gives you f2.8


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 19, 2012)

robbymack said:


> cant see how you'd want this over the cheaper tamron which gives you f2.8



My point exactly. The loss of 35mm at the long end translates into a WHOLE lot of loss. Canon, if you are listening, don't make me look to Sigma for landscape...

Or, worse still, get a D800 with 24-120 and 14-24...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 28, 2012)

The 24-105L has a longer range, but it's not so good at 24mm. In fact at 24mm it's not very good at all.
The MFD charts for the 24-70L look much better.
The 24-70L is a lot smaller and maybe a better choice for travelling. It also combos with a 70-200 f4 L IS very well too.


----------

