# Canon 24-70mm F4 IS - anybody bought one yet ?



## Haydn1971 (Jan 2, 2013)

I'm really interested in this lens, in particular the Hybrid IS, modern optics and near macro ability, has anyone had a play with a real one yet, or better still, bought one ?


----------



## BL (Jan 2, 2013)

i don't have the 24-70 IS, but i found myself a bit underwhelmed with the performance of HIS found on the 100 L

at *best*, i get maybe 1 stop improvement for macro shots at 1:2 to 1:1 magnification handheld, and easily 4-5 stops for regular distances.


----------



## enraginangel (Jan 2, 2013)

I'm also interested. I just bought a 24-105mm and this lens was in the running, so I kind of need to read some negative reviews so I don't get buyer's remorse ;D


----------



## brad-man (Jan 2, 2013)

Hopefully, the negative reviews won't come out until after the lens has been released


----------



## NerdblurbSteve (Jan 3, 2013)

Adorama and B&H expect to receive and ship out their preorders tomorrow.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=3886


----------



## robbymack (Jan 3, 2013)

enraginangel said:


> I'm also interested. I just bought a 24-105mm and this lens was in the running, so I kind of need to read some negative reviews so I don't get buyer's remorse ;D



I wouldn't worry too much. The 24-105 is great. Even if you bought the 24-105 brand new this new lens would have to be 40% better to justify the price. That won't be the case. Honestly if you want a 24-70 right now and money matters the new tamron seems to be the clear choice. 2.8 and IS, it's a no brainer, at least it was for me.


----------



## HoneyBadger (Jan 3, 2013)

I am not going to put much faith on that test. First, both lenses need to be taken at the same focal length. Second, they should use a full frame so corner sharpness can be determined. Who legitimately tests an L series lens on a cropped sensor anyways...?

For what it's worth. I love my 100mm with hybrid IS. I feel that it works amazingly well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2013)

HoneyBadger said:


> I am not going to put much faith on that test. First, both lenses need to be taken at the same focal length. Second, they should use a full frame so corner sharpness can be determined. Who legitimately tests an L series lens on a cropped sensor anyways...?



As I pointed out in the other thread where this 'review' was mentioned:

_ They are only looking at the resolution in center of the lens (my subjects usually aren't right there, are yours?). Also, I don't understand the rationale for summarizing the results as an average of the wide and tele ends or an average of the values from wide open (which varies by lens) to f/16. 

Moreover, looking over the tests on that site, I see several results that disagree with many other testing sites (e.g. the 300mm f/4L IS scoring much higher than the 70-200mm f/4L IS, which is quite the opposite of data on TDP, PZ, etc., even when only looking at center sharpness). 

So, they're reporting just one measure among many that are important to lens performance, and calling that one measurement a 'review' is an understatement, IMO. Add in the questionable accuracy of their methods based on other lens tests (and in this case, a direct contradiction of Canon's MTF charts), and I'm certainly going to defer judgment on the lens until we see some real reviews (although it's an academic issue for me, since like you, I have no real interest in the lens for my needs). Those reviews may turn out negative, too, time will tell. But the MTF charts for the 24-70/2.8 II were also impressive, and the performance tests were consistent with that. But then again, there were bad copies of the 24-70/2.8 II (TDP tested 4 of them to get a good one), and if the same problems are plaguing the 24-70/4 IS, that may be a factor in poor reviews as well._


----------



## preppyak (Jan 4, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> well the lens is available in germany.. and reviews are not that good


I'd trust resolution tests of 22 lenses more myself, especially from LensRental

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=11444

They show it as comparable with the Tamron, sharper than both the 24-70 v1 and 24-105, and just below the 24-70 v2. He had a couple of copies that were weaker on the 70mm side, from decentering, so its possible the German tests were sample variation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2013)

preppyak said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > well the lens is available in germany.. and reviews are not that good
> ...



+1 - Roger knows his Schnitt... ;D


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 4, 2013)

And yet another lens that I simply don't get. Why? Why would I want this? I can't think of one single reason. It seems to combine all the negatives that the other lenses in this range have: plastic, IS, f/4 AND then only 24-70.

I still very much regret that I didn't buy the original 24-70 and went with the 24-105 instead.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 4, 2013)

I guess I'm with *7enderbender* on this...

I'm still scratching my head on the new 24-70 F4L IS. The 24-105 F4L IS is a great L lens at a great price, esp in a kit package. If I am going to spend tons of cash on a lens, it better offer something better than Hybrid IS compared to a similar lens for half the price. Sharpness isn't everything. I think the 24-105 is a great deal for a F4 IS L lens. I still can't get my head around spending well over $2K for the 24-70 f2.8 vII!!

If I spend $2K on a zoom lens, it will likely be for the well reviewed and stellar 70-200 f2.8 IS-II.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jan 4, 2013)

Even if this lens was exactly what you wanted, why would order one now? Recent history has demonstrated that the price will drop by at least 30% in a few months.

There have been a lot of people bashing Canon on this site recently for the price drops. I'm not one of those people and understand why it happens. I'm not bashing them now, but the question being asked is whether anyone has bought one yet. I think the answer has to be "no" unless you have some urgent need for this exact lens. You could buy a 24-105 now and sell it later when prices come down.


----------



## KingBen (Jan 4, 2013)

Call me a cynic but if I was in the business of selling lenses, by replacing the 24-105 with a 24-70, I would start the 100-400 replacement at 120+ meaning focal length collectors will also need a 70-200 to cover 24-400?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 4, 2013)

The minor performance upgrade from the 24-105L is not worth twice the $$$. This lens is DOA @ 1499$.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 4, 2013)

HoneyBadger said:


> I am not going to put much faith on that test. First, both lenses need to be taken at the same focal length. Second, they should use a full frame so corner sharpness can be determined



they have tested at the same focal lengths. of course they included the 105mm too.
you have to watch and understand the review video.

if you read the website, they are working on a FF review.



> Who legitimately tests an L series lens on a cropped sensor anyways...?



photozone for example.. and i did not hear complains about it.... :

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

i think they may had a bad sample. but that gives me not much faith either.
as roger mentioned the 70mm end showed quite a lot of variation.


----------

