Previous page Next page

Lens body elements

The lens uses Canon's standard EF mount, meaning it will work perfectly happily on APS-C SLRs, as well as the full frame cameras for which it's primarily designed.

In this shot you should also be able to see the rubber seal around the mount that helps protect against dust and moisture getting into the camera.
The lens sports a 77mm filter thread, in common with many of Canon's L series zooms. It doesn't rotate on focusing, which makes filters such as polarizers and neutral density grads easier to use.
Two small switches on the left side for the barrel control focus and image stabilization. The 24-70mm offers full-time manual focus, meaning you can adjust focus manually after autofocus if required.
The lens comes with bayonet-type, petal-shaped hood. It's lined inside with anti-reflective material, and has a locking button that needs to be pressed-in to remove the hood from the lens.
As usual, the hood reverses neatly for storage. Here you can also see Canon's new 'Mark II' centre-pinch lens cap.

First impressions

The pre-production EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM we handled for this review certainly looked like an attractive little lens - it's decently-built, with fast and silent focusing. The macro mode promises to be a useful addition, although we have some reservations about how easy it might be in practice to light your subject at the very closest distances (but you don't have to use those all the time, of course). However a real question mark hangs over the RRP, which (not unusually for a recent Canon product) looks unrealistically high.

One big question here is why you'd choose the 24-70mm f/4 over the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, which may be 7 years old, but offers a more versatile zoom range at a current street price around £850 / €900. The 24-70mm f/4 is clearly going to have to offer substantially better optics to tempt buyers at anything close to its RRP. This isn't impossible - it's a much newer design, and shorter-range zooms generally offer higher image quality - but we still suspect its street price will need to drop significantly to be competitive.

The other interesting comparison is to Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR, which is the D600's corresponding kit zoom, and currently retails at a much lower price point (around £410 / €500). This is smaller and lighter than the Canon 24-70mm f/4, and offers a slightly longer telephoto range instead of the Canon's macro capabilities. It's hard not to see this being a more tempting option for enthusiasts looking into buying their first full frame camera, purely in price grounds (and with the option of upgrading to a better lens later).

This all means the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM has a lot to live up to - it really does need to be very, very good indeed. As always we're hoping to get our hands on a reviewable sample as soon as possible, to see how it measures up in practice.

Previous page Next page
I own it
I want it
I had it
Discuss in the forums


Total comments: 127
By wvdweerd (8 months ago)

More than a year after this preview there is stll no real review?!?

By srados (3 months ago)

DP is bias toward the Nikon Fuji and Sony.Rest of the companies did not pay for promotion.

By kyli (10 months ago)

What does the acronym RSA mean here?

Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (10 months ago)

Residual Spherical Aberration

By wilde (Apr 2, 2013)

Most reviews of the Canon Canon 24-70mm f/4 L IS lens are not complete and much to positive. I hope Depreview will give us better and objective test results. This lens suffers from a severe obtical problem.
When (with manual focus) stopping down, the point of focus shifts backwards, see file below. So, if you use a tripod and try to make a portrait you need to focus again when stopping up or down.
I hadn't expected this problem in such a costly lens. Not a lens for canon to be proud of.

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
By oysso (Jun 25, 2013)

has other people also verified that effect? I have my doubts because if you focus manually, the aperture is always full open. Really makes no sense for me.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting
By wilde (10 months ago)

Those who don't understand the RSA-problems should not comment here. First try it yourself and then comment.

Another big problem is the very strong vignetting on all usable apertures (at leat f4 - f11) when using this lens on a full frame like my 5Dm3. Mounted on my 7D it's no problem, but I bought this lens to use on both and that proved to be an illusion: not really usable on full frame. What a shame .............

By wlachan (Dec 27, 2012)

Looks like Canon have gone insane on pricing their recent lenses.

By oscarvdvelde (Dec 7, 2012)

Canon's own page about the EF24-70mm f/4 L IS USM writes:

"The EF24-70mm f/4L IS USM has a close focusing distance of 0.38m (in macro mode) at all focal lengths."

"The lens’ new macro function optimises the placement of lens groups for macro photography, allowing shooting at a maximum magnification of 0.7x and down to a close focusing distance of just 0.38m (throughout the zoom range) from subjects. "

"Closest focussing distance (m) 0.38(Macro)
Maximum magnification (x) 0.7(at macro)"


Either they made the same mistake many times or they want to stress that macro mode has a good working distance. Who is right?

By eos69 (Dec 6, 2012)

The price of this lens is currently too high and for me that's the only negative. For landscape usually start aperture is f/8 with tripod. For events f/2.8 is better, but now f/4 may be sufficient when is the picture quality on ISO 25600 at the same level as in the past to ISO 1600!

By skysi (Dec 6, 2012)

Like the previous poster said. Why would anyone need a stabilized 24-70 with smaller aperture. That said, maybe just someone with shaky hands who only shoots landscapes.

1 upvote
By rusticus (Nov 24, 2012)

A 24-70mm "f4" $ 1,500 - who need's ???

and 600g . . .

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
By grammieb14 (Nov 24, 2012)

I want a 24-70 f/2.8 is that is as good as 70-200 f/2.8 is. If anybody makes one, I will pay whatever I have to. Until then I will make do with primes in this range. At least they are extra fast to make up for everything else. Bab

By eos69 (Nov 21, 2012)

Nikon lenses are usually more expensive and usually optically inferior. Canon 24-105/4 (although better than the Nikon 24-120/4) is not good enough at f/4. If the new lens be outstanding from f/4 to f/11 it's enough to invest in it, especially if the high price go down after some time. Also outstanding Canon ef 70-200/4 L IS with this lens would be a great combination for high-quality photos and with these two lenses no one will miss the extra range on Canon ef 24-70/4 L hIS to the old 105mm which is just a solid combination with 100-400. New lens also likely to be much less distortion and chromatic aberrations
than the 24-105. Macro ability is certainly welcome and hybrid IS also, like light weight and compact size. This lens will definitely determine its quality, and the biggest drawback is too high a price.

Michael Thomas Mitchell
By Michael Thomas Mitchell (Nov 14, 2012)

As usual, a lot of people are missing the point of this lens. It's NOT a replacement for the 24-105 L. If you have that lens already, Canon's not trying to sell you this one. (Though I'm sure they wouldn't mind if you bought it anyway!) This is a COMPACT L lens designed to match the COMPACT size/weight of their new 6D. Nothing more.

This lens appears roughly the same size as the old 24-85 EF f3.5-4.5 lens, a great little lens if you have a good copy. Obviously, being an L, this lens offers weather sealing and presumably superior optics. And it has image stabilization, too. Is it really worth that much money, though? Especially considering that you can buy a used 24-85 for a hundred dollars or so? I'm tempted to say not. Nonetheless, hear it is. A nice looking, compact, feature-rich lens on par with Canon's new full-frame enthusiast DSLR. Bundling with the 6D, Canon is going to sell a ton of them.

By Mafoo (Nov 15, 2012)

I realize to each there own, but if I was in the market to buy a DSLR, the delta in size from the 24-70 vs the 24-105 is marginal. If I didn't have either, I would still buy the 105. I suspect I am not alone.

ed rader
By ed rader (Nov 21, 2012)

this lens will smoke the old 24-85 and has macro and 4-stop IS. i'll bet it will also put the 24-105L to shame to, that is if you are interested in image quality.

By GordonAtWork (Nov 12, 2012)

|I preferred the macro function on the FD 70-210 f4. Pull the lens fully out to 70mm focal length and you can twist the focus ring to the macro position. You could feel the cams working as they shifted the elements about. I use it on a self made FD-EOS converter and the pictures are great. As for the 24-105L, it's rarely off my 1Ds2.

Nafees A Bazmi
By Nafees A Bazmi (Nov 12, 2012)

if one has a kit lense 24-105L then what is the big reason to run after this new version ???
read the comments here and i feel there is no difference other than 9.5 and 10

By exilus (2 months ago)

Much lower barrel distorsion, lower CA, better corner-to-corner sharpness. Also, the better optic gives you 1/2 a stop more light. I got one for 800$ on craiglist. I would have never paid the insane retail price for this.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
By mls149 (Nov 9, 2012)

Why is it every review Westlake does of a Canon product, he belittles and then tells you how great the Nikon version is. Why don't you peddle this stuff at the Nikonians.

1 upvote
By Kodachrome200 (Nov 12, 2012)

the d600 kit lens was an obvious comparison. all he did was give the specs compared. he did not make a value judgement at all. my god settle down

By tcapote (Nov 8, 2012)

Maybe Canon will hear what you said here and starting with tomorrow or next week you will not find any EF 24-105 L on the shelves anymore.

Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (Nov 12, 2012)

Don't write off the 24-105 yet ! I believe that Canon will introduce a Mk2 24-105 in 2013/ 2014. Then again since Canon appear to have lost all direction (Naff AF on a brand new FF expensive camera anyone?) so who knows??

1 upvote
Paul T Klenk
By Paul T Klenk (Nov 8, 2012)

Yes, I, too, have a 24-105 L and it's a genuine workhorse. I use it all the time and get great results. So, why would I go to a 24-70mm f/4L? Well, only if the difference is spectacular and the additional macro feature is not going to do that for me. So, as the others have indicated, the actual images will be important. If one buys this lens through Amazon, the return policy is simply spectacular. Buy the lens, try it out, and if it doesn't meet your expectation, it can EASILY be returned. That may be my course to follow.

1 upvote
By pca7070 (Nov 10, 2012)

Where will those returned lenses go?

1 upvote
By PSPNYC (Nov 10, 2012)

The new 24-70 f/2.8 II makes the original 24-70 f/2.8 look very soft and the colors and bokeh are phenomenal; this f/4 lens features some of the same optic enhancements as well as better hybrid IS and a macro feature. It will likely destroy the 24-105 in overall IQ - the 24-105 isn't really worth of L designation in most pros' opinions, it was a do-it-all kit lens for the 5D2/7D...but Canon isn't aiming at those owners; it's aiming at those buying a 6D.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Sad Joe
By Sad Joe (Nov 12, 2012)

I like you have found the 24-105 to be a real workhorse, we all know that the 24-105 is not a prefect lens nor is the 24-70 F2.8 either version. As for IQ the 24-105 is great - I think the only people who diss it are those trying to convince themselves that the 24 - 70 F2.8 was better. The future belongs to video and for that IS is vital - so Canon I have to ask again why no IS on your 24-70 f2.8 Mk2 ? At least the F4 version has it (at a price).

By Combatmedic870 (Nov 13, 2012)

Because the IS elements can be detrimental to IQ. The 24-70 is a studio work horse lens. of coarse it is used outside the studio. but...same goes with nikon. Same reasoning i assume.

By Davekoh (Nov 8, 2012)

The macro implementation is pretty similar to the manual Nikkor E-series 70-210mm

By panchoskywalker (Nov 7, 2012)

We're still waiting for the pictures!

1 upvote
By spiderhunter (Nov 7, 2012)

The price had better justify the performance.

1 upvote
By probert500 (Nov 8, 2012)

Or vice versa

By Luebke (Nov 7, 2012)

In europe there are already tax included in the price. If you substract taxes than the price is quite similar. Besides that you usually get longer warranty in europe.

The dollar price is usually the cheapest and I hate that myself but the difference is smaller than most people think. You cannot just use a currency converter and start crying. It's a bit more complex than that.

The pound price is ridiculous though.

1 upvote
By Pedagydusz (Nov 7, 2012)

I used a currency converter and started crying!

Daryl Cheshire
By Daryl Cheshire (Nov 7, 2012)

I have the f/2.8 variety and sometimes it can be heavy and sticks out. This lens would be less noticeable.
I would prefer this lens to the f/2.8MkII.

However I'd have to try it out in the shop first.

By DavesMan (Nov 7, 2012)

Canon is crazy! Nearly same price (in numbers) i Dollars, Pounds and Euros??? These three currencies are not equal value! If US price i 1500 Dollars, then i should cost roughly 1200 Euros and 900 Pounds.

1 upvote
By Area256 (Nov 8, 2012)

I wounder if this is Canon thinking some markets will pay more, or an effect of trade tariffs in Europe and the UK? Anyone who know's the import tax structure in those places and care to comment?

Florent Chev
By Florent Chev (Dec 6, 2012)

Aren't US prices excluding VAT?

By acidic (Dec 7, 2012)

The US don't do VAT. We have sales tax, which varies from state to state (and sometimes city to city). And no, it's not included in suggested retail prices since sales tax can range from 0% to 10%, depending on locale.

By TotallyFred (Nov 7, 2012)

This is an L lens apparently in line with L price and build. Looking forward to IQ. I have a 24-105 L and 24-70 2.8 L (v1). I was not planning to have both but got the second by a lucky twist of fate.

I have to recognize the 24-70 IQ is much better (esp. sharpness and of course aperture) but the 24-105 is more versatile (focal length range, size, weight, IS).

I would not buy another lens without selling one of the old ones but I see the point in a light lens trade off. Lens availability is one thing but when you have to buy ONE lens, choice is good if quality follows.

Given the high ISO range of recent cameras, a slower yet stabilized, high IQ, small size lense is welcome.

Bottom line: dpreview, show us the review!!

1 upvote
Alistair Simpson
By Alistair Simpson (Nov 7, 2012)

Regardless of the quality of the lens, what really upsets me is the pricing policy. How can it be the same price in dollars as pounds? That makes the price here in the UK the equivalent of $2400. So you guys across the pond stop moaning about the price please.

mario toni
By mario toni (Nov 6, 2012)

Canon went crazy with prices of the new lenses! For instance take a look at the price of 24-70 II or 70-200 II!!! C R A Z Y!!!
I bought Zeiss 21 Distagon and EF 70-200 2.8 (significant price drop for this beauty because of the new 70-200 II) and don't give s..t for the new money sucking lenses from Canon! I suspect that they are not better than the old series at all optically! HEH!

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting
By b534202 (Nov 6, 2012)

Does it have a metal barrel & plastic filter thread?

By GabrielZ (Nov 6, 2012)

1500 Pounds for this! Canon a reckoning is coming.

By fad (Nov 6, 2012)

Raise your hand if you have a 70mm FF lens.

You don't? Hmm.

Then a 24-70 lens only replaces wide angle and normal. So, as a main lens, it lacks portrait and telephoto functionality completely.

Raise your hand if you've ever had a prime between 85 and 135mm

Then my Canon 24-105 and my Nikon 24-85, 24-120 and 28-300 zooms are much more flexible for walkabout and travel. On a D800, pixel density gives a built in telextender as well.

The purpose of a 3X f4 zoom is to have excellent IQ on walkaround lens. 24-70 is just not a rational zoom range for a walkaround lens. It's a zoom range for studio shooting and events, or for a tripod.

1 upvote
By Najinsky (Nov 6, 2012)

Such crazy negative comments. It's not like something good got killed, just an extra choice for those who want it.

Cheaper, smaller, lighter, alternative to the 2.8, with added 0.7x macro and hybrid IS, what's wrong with that?

A smaller, lighter alternative to the old 105/4, with improved IS, a ninth aperture blade, superior coatings, and, I'd wager, faster AF and less distortion, and not forgetting the 0.7x Macro.

So if the F2.8 appeals, you can buy that. The 105? Well buy that. And now, if it's the F4, guess what...

So while the mirror-less crew are constantly complaining about lack of high quality lens choice, it seems at this room the complaints are about getting more choice. Go figure. Damned if you don't, damned if you do.

An analysis of my EXIF reveals how infrequently I used F2.8 on my original 2.8L, so I have no trouble seeing how useful I'd find this lighter lens with added convenience of IS and Macro.

Pricefactor? Panasonic 12-35 F/2.8 = $1299. Wonder which is better.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
By tkbslc (Nov 6, 2012)

The Macro sounds a lot like the Sigma 17-70 I had. It would focus VERY close, but the from element would sometimes actually be touching the subject. It made it difficult to get excellent results.

1 upvote
By jackpro (Nov 6, 2012)

Interesting thinking going on at Canon HQ. Couple this with a 6D wifi uploading straight to facebook, low light focusing camera, perfect events rig combo, as you wouldn't shoot below F4 anyway.

By Vladik (Nov 6, 2012)


1 upvote
By Higuel (Nov 6, 2012)



Now we know in what company the guy that was fired from sigma for coming up with the original S1 price is working in!!!

For G*ds sake canon GET A GRIP!!!
I never had nikon but with these prices i CANNOT stop looking at nikon!!!

how stupid is doing lenses that overlap with others while leaving others that could use badly an improvement or don't even exist???
Like the 50mm f1.8 and a MUCH NEEDED 180-230€ EF-S 30mm f1.8 with a DECENT build quality! (my 50mm f1.8 that i loved SO MUCH optically- APART THE FLARE!- BROKE! It's 100% pure CRAPPY plastic!!! X(

By yabokkie (Nov 6, 2012)

odd price and odd specs.
would rather want a high quality 24-85/2.8-4LIS at about a grand.

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
By slncezgsi (Nov 6, 2012)

Problem is, that such a lens would probably cost 2 grands.

By nenoanen (Nov 6, 2012)

Strange price. This better be magically good IQ wise given its rather mediocre speed. Nikon has f2.8 at this price range while Sony has an autofocusing Carl frickin Zeiss 24-70. This lens should be VERY good indeed.

By probert500 (Nov 8, 2012)

The sony zeiss lenses are licensed by zeiss but the design etc. is sony via minolta.

By rttew (Nov 6, 2012)

is it me or does this lens look just like a re-badged sigma 24-70?

1 upvote
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Nov 6, 2012)

its just you :)

By LensHood (Nov 6, 2012)

I honestly don't see the need for this lens when you can also buy a 24-15 f4 IS. I have a copy of that and I like it a lot. It's pretty sharp. And it's 35mm more focal lentgh. If it is targetted towards the cheaper 6D, then there are even more arguments to buy the 24-105. It's way cheaper.

1 upvote
By db. (Jun 8, 2013)

...and the 24-105 holds also the world record for distortion @ 24mm!

By snow14 (Nov 6, 2012)

i think this lens will be very poplar , lots of people are looking for smaller and less wight 24-70 than 2.8 version ,i for one hope this baby perform good optically it will awesome landscape ,studio ,street,architecture lens and with IS and the awesome noise performance of my 5diii i really don't need the 2.8 for this particular range of zoom.

Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Nov 6, 2012)

then what you complaining for?

By zonoskar (Nov 6, 2012)

One must wonder, why go for the 6D/24-70f4L combo when the 7D/17-55f2.8 is way cheaper and gives the same results? Only for dust/water seals? Or flexibility to go to f2.8 and get even less DoF?

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting
1 upvote
By JackM (Nov 6, 2012)

Canon's 18mp APS-C sensor does not hold a candle to the full framers for IQ. I've had both.

By Chris2210 (Nov 6, 2012)

Because an f2.8 isn't going to give a shallower DoF on an APSC camera than an F4 will on a 35mm size sensor.

Having said that, I'd agree this is ridiculous at this price point. Whilst it certainly isn't beyond the bounds of credibility IQ could be significantly improved over the 24-105L I own, it's hard to imagine how such a tremendous price-hike is justified.

By Mike99999 (Nov 6, 2012)

Well the 17-55 from Canon isn't up to L standard, and the 7D has a lousy sensor.

1 upvote
By nalax (Nov 7, 2012)

One must wonder why you think APS-C and FF give the same results?

1 upvote
By EDWARD ARTISTE (Nov 25, 2012)

Dude is a nut job. The 7d can't even hold up to my t2i image quality. That's why it's been sold. Yup, the sensor blows chunks

By tipit08 (Nov 6, 2012)

Price makes this a completely ridiculous product. Period.

Frederik Paul
By Frederik Paul (Nov 6, 2012)

Specs wise a great lense, but the price?! Another "Ouch" price from Canon, as with the new 28/24mm and now 35mm. Will be the same with the new 50mm/1.4 I guess. Simply too high prices.

1 upvote
By Buchanan (Nov 6, 2012)

So apparently the 24-105 likely continues as the 5Dmkiii kit lens while the new 24-70 f/4 which is higher priced becomes the kit lens for the 6D. Other than matching of smaller physical sizes I'm not sure I see the sense to that, particularly if the new lens is optically better than the 24-105. Then the higher end camera gets the inferior lens for its kit?

1 upvote
Erik van den Elsen
By Erik van den Elsen (Nov 6, 2012)

I find this an awkward new Canon lens; I own the 24-105 F/4 L lens myself and find it very good, at least I have a very sharp copy. The current price of this 24-105 is now around 900 Euro.

So, why spend 600 euro more on a lens that has a much shorter range (24-70) but the same speed? Just because it has a Macro feature that you use every now and then? If you're really into macro, you will buy a dedicated Macro lens.

This lens sounds superfluous to me already from the beginning seen the rest of the Canon lens line-up and the range it offers... And this price is really rediculous! Much too expensive just like all other Canon lenses.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
By balios (Nov 6, 2012)

If you already own a 24-105 F/4L then you have no reason to buy this lens. But when the 24-105 is phased out, then this will be the new standard kit lens. Look at it this way: its basically the version 2 of the 24-105, except they decided to change the focal range.

It has better IS, better macro, and seems smaller. *If* it also has less distortion and better resolution, then you can turn your question around and ask why bother with the old one.

As for macro, the fact this does it so well means that many won't feel the need to spend the $1000 for the 100L macro. Take this lens, plus the 70-200 F/4, add a prime, and you have a pretty function kit for the average enthusiast.

By Higuel (Nov 6, 2012)

With all due respect: Give us a break!!!
a 24-70 f4 can NEVER substitute an 24-105 f4!!!
Especially if it has the same friging size!!!

I´m a canon user and i keep getting more&more disapointed!

1 upvote
Teila Day
By Teila Day (Nov 7, 2012)

"much shorter range"? See how many simple steps you have to take to make up a measly 35mm. Seriously, the difference between 70mm and 105mm in most circumstances isn't enough to even quibble over. :)

By Higuel (Nov 9, 2012)

Hello Teila. I understand your point! However i do like to make portraits with just the face filling the frame! Have you ever tried to make a head-portrait with a 70mm???
YEEES! people fell REEEEEEALY comfortable with those "many simple steps" you have walked towards them with a 77mm filter diameter lens towards... their face!!! ;)

Have a very good weekend!

By acidic (Dec 7, 2012)

"See how many simple steps you have to take to make up a measly 35mm."

Please tell me... how many steps are required to make up this difference?

Sometimes I like to shoot city skylines from a kilometer away at 105mm. To get the same frame filling effects, I'd need to be 1/3 km closer. So we're probably talking about 400 steps. Oh wait... there's a body of water between me and my subject. Oh screw it... I'll just go for a swim. At least this is a sealed L lens.

Also, since most subjects I shoot are three dimensional, shooting at 70mm vs 105mm can yield quite different perspectives. It's not as simple as getting closer. 105mm can unclutter an otherwise cluttered background significantly more than 70mm can.

I actually think this new lens is a winner due to size/weight. No complaints from me about the 70mm max focal range. But I did want to point out that your argument is a poor one.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
Franka T.L.
By Franka T.L. (Nov 6, 2012)

Finally a more sane mid range lens from Canon. Ok now we need a corresponding IS equipped wide zoom also to complete a f/4.0 trio, instead of trying to made it 17-40 again I would say making it something like 18-28/4.0 being more realistic and likely able to maintain a price point where it counts. Not to mention that it would made a good complement to the APS-C bodies too.

And the new slew of not so exotic fix focals as demonstrated by the 24 & 28/2.8 IS and now the 35/2.0 IS is good news. Not each and everyone need the bevy 1.4

By AbrasiveReducer (Nov 6, 2012)

Yes. A slower16-35 that's the size/weight of the 17-40, but sharp.

By tongki (Nov 6, 2012)

this is totally backward,
Canon already has EF 24-105mm f/4 and now provide EF 24-70mm f/4,
and we don't need stupid IS on wide lenses !!!

it really slowing it down !!!
I don't like using IS on wide lenses, that is stupid idea !

By revio (Nov 6, 2012)

Are you so out of your mind as it seems?

IS is never silly to have at your disposal, even if you don´t need it always, for all images. So, you imply that never shoot at wide angle at long shutter speeds? Always, instead, chooses a high ISO`? Give me a brake... of course a wide angle shot can very well have IS to its advantage, if light is low enough and you want/need LOW noise...

By canonpro (Nov 6, 2012)

tongki, having IS on a wide lens comes in real handy when shooting video.

By EDWARD ARTISTE (Nov 6, 2012)

wtf is your problem dude?

And i could care less what anyone says, ill take IS on ANY lens if it means getting the got as opposed to losing it. Its another feature of a tool. Thats it buddy.

1 upvote
AJC Photography
By AJC Photography (Nov 6, 2012)

I agree that IS can be very very useful (but I'd nearly always want another stop of light instead with my existing light people photography.

Oh and btw ... watch the video ...

By DavesMan (Nov 14, 2012)

Go and buy yourself an EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II - what's the problem?

By rrccad (Nov 6, 2012)

"The other interesting comparison is to Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR, which is the D600's corresponding kit zoom, and currently retails at a much lower price point (around £410 / €500). This is smaller and lighter than the Canon 24-70mm f/4, and offers a slightly longer telephoto range instead of the Canon's macro capabilities. It's hard not to see this being a more tempting option for enthusiasts looking into buying their first full frame camera, purely in price grounds (and with the option of upgrading to a better lens later)."

really has no foundation in this preview since canon could bundle with the 28-135 IS USM if they wanted a more economical kit. which at least according to some side by sides .. looks better than the 24-85mm nikkor.

Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 6, 2012)

can you post links to these "side by sides"?
or is it just made up....

By rrccad (Nov 6, 2012)

you can pull up the ISO test charts to your hearts desire at tdp..

By Higuel (Nov 6, 2012)


By LarryK (Nov 23, 2012)

The 28-135 is an utter piece of junk! It in no way compares to the new 24-85 Nikkor.

If there's a worse Canon lens, I don't know what it is, but I'd like to know, so I don't accidentally buy it.

Klaus Weber
By Klaus Weber (Nov 6, 2012)

I would like to see the same with f/2.8. While all arguments are true regarding good high ISO quality of current cameras, which means that f/4 is fast enough - autofocus works best with f/2.8 (or better), as only then all crosstype sensors are enabled.

I have the 24-105L f/4, it is indeed my main lens on the 5DMkII. A new version of exactly this range with f/2.8 would be worth something for me...

1 upvote
By danijel973 (Nov 6, 2012)

The lens looks great as a 500-600 € item, equivalent in price to Zuiko 14-54mm. At such price it would make sense and I would probably go for it. But I look at Canon's recent prices and I'm honestly wondering what they're smoking.

Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Nov 6, 2012)

Hmm, how about MTF plots?

By Kobus66 (Nov 6, 2012)

I love that macro feature.

1 upvote
Total comments: 127