Previous page Next page

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Preview

November 2012 | By Andy Westlake

Preview based on a pre-production Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

Back in September Canon introduced the EOS 6D, its entry into the nascent 'compact, lightweight' full frame SLR segment. With the launch of the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM, Canon has now revealed what's destined to be its 'kit' lens. The newcomer is relatively compact in size to match the ethos of the 6D body design, but sports the company's premium 'L' series designation. However this comes with a price tag that's sure to make more than a few Canon users catch their breath - we've been told the the RRP will be $1499 / £1499.99 / €1459. What remains to be seen, though, is how much it will cost in a kit with the 6D body.

The 24-70mm f/4 includes one relatively unusual feature - a macro mode offering up to 0.7x magnification, which is accessed by pulling forward the zoom lock switch and rotating the zoom ring past the 70mm mark. This is complemented by Canon's 'Hybrid IS' that's specifically designed to give better performance for close-up work than conventional IS systems (which tend to be ineffective for macro work). Overall this should add useful extra capability compared to most other standard zooms.

Aside from that, the specification is much as we'd expect from a premium Canon optic. The lens is dust- and splash-resistant, including a rubber seal around the mount. It incorporates a ring-type ultrasonic motor for fast, silent autofocusing, and offers full-time manual focus. The aperture uses a nine-bladed circular iris for attractive rendition of blurred backgrounds, and the front element has a fingerprint-resistant 'fluorine' coating. On paper at least, this all looks like an attractive package.

Headline features

  • 24-70mm focal length; constant f/4 maximum aperture
  • Macro mode with 0.7x magnification
  • 'Hybrid IS' optical image stabilization - 4 stops for normal shooting, 2.5 stops for macro
  • Dust- and splash-proof design
  • EF mount for APS-C and full frame Canon SLRs (and EOS M via Mount adapter EF-EOS M)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM specifications

 Maximum format size 35mm full frame
 Focal length  24-70mm
 35mm equivalent focal length (APS-C)  38-112mm
 Diagonal angle of view  84° - 34°
 Maximum aperture  F4
 Minimum aperture  F22
 Lens Construction  • 15 elements in 12 groups
 • 2 UD glass elements
 Number of diaphragm blades  9, rounded
 Minimum focus  • 0.38m / 1.2ft (normal)
 • 0.20m / 0.7ft (macro)
 Maximum magnification  • Approx. 0.7x
 AF motor type  • Ring-type Ultrasonic Motor
 Focus method  Internal
 Zoom method  Rotary, extending barrel
 Image stabilization  • Hybrid IS
 • 4 stops (normal shooting)
 • 2.5 stops (macro mode)
 Filter thread  • 77mm
 • Does not rotate on focus
 Supplied accessories*  • Front and rear caps
 • EW-83L Lens hood
 • LP1219 soft pouch
 Weight  600g (21.2 oz)
 Dimensions  83.4mm diameter x 93mm length
 (3.3 x 3.7 in)
 Lens Mount  Canon EF

* Supplied accessories may differ in each country or area


If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted) PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2012 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Previous page Next page
82
I own it
28
I want it
2
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 127
12
wvdweerd
By wvdweerd (7 months ago)

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

2 upvotes
srados
By srados (2 months ago)

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

0 upvotes
kyli
By kyli (9 months ago)

What does the acronym RSA mean here?

0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (9 months ago)

Residual Spherical Aberration

0 upvotes
wilde
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.

http://www.ahw.me/a2/canon24-70mm-f4-IS_MF_RSA_1cm.per.stop.jpg

Comment edited 5 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
oysso
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
0 upvotes
wilde
By wilde (9 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 .............

0 upvotes
wlachan
By wlachan (Dec 27, 2012)

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

2 upvotes
oscarvdvelde
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)"

See: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/lenses/lenses_ef_24_70mm_f_4L_is_usm.do?utm_source=newsalert-december-1-2012&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsalert

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

0 upvotes
eos69
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!

0 upvotes
skysi
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
rusticus
By rusticus (Nov 24, 2012)

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

and 600g . . .

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
grammieb14
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

2 upvotes
eos69
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.

2 upvotes
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.

0 upvotes
Mafoo
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.

0 upvotes
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.

0 upvotes
GordonAtWork
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.

0 upvotes
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

0 upvotes
exilus
By exilus (1 month 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
0 upvotes
mls149
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
Kodachrome200
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

0 upvotes
tcapote
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.

0 upvotes
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
pca7070
By pca7070 (Nov 10, 2012)

Where will those returned lenses go?

1 upvote
PSPNYC
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).

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
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.

0 upvotes
Davekoh
By Davekoh (Nov 8, 2012)

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

0 upvotes
panchoskywalker
By panchoskywalker (Nov 7, 2012)

We're still waiting for the pictures!

1 upvote
spiderhunter
By spiderhunter (Nov 7, 2012)

The price had better justify the performance.

1 upvote
probert500
By probert500 (Nov 8, 2012)

Or vice versa

0 upvotes
Luebke
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
Pedagydusz
By Pedagydusz (Nov 7, 2012)

I used a currency converter and started crying!

0 upvotes
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.

0 upvotes
DavesMan
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
Area256
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?

0 upvotes
Florent Chev
By Florent Chev (Dec 6, 2012)

Aren't US prices excluding VAT?

0 upvotes
acidic
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.

0 upvotes
TotallyFred
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.

5 upvotes
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
2 upvotes
b534202
By b534202 (Nov 6, 2012)

Does it have a metal barrel & plastic filter thread?

0 upvotes
GabrielZ
By GabrielZ (Nov 6, 2012)

1500 Pounds for this! Canon a reckoning is coming.

5 upvotes
fad
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
Najinsky
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
8 upvotes
tkbslc
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
jackpro
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.

0 upvotes
Vladik
By Vladik (Nov 6, 2012)

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA (*_*) $$$$$

1 upvote
Higuel
By Higuel (Nov 6, 2012)

x_X

WHAT PRICE???

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(

3 upvotes
yabokkie
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
4 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Nov 6, 2012)

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

2 upvotes
nenoanen
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.

4 upvotes
probert500
By probert500 (Nov 8, 2012)

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

0 upvotes
rttew
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 :)

4 upvotes
LensHood
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
db.
By db. (Jun 8, 2013)

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

0 upvotes
snow14
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.

0 upvotes
Naveed Akhtar
By Naveed Akhtar (Nov 6, 2012)

then what you complaining for?

0 upvotes
zonoskar
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
JackM
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.

4 upvotes
Chris2210
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.

3 upvotes
Mike99999
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
nalax
By nalax (Nov 7, 2012)

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

1 upvote
EDWARD ARTISTE
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

0 upvotes
tipit08
By tipit08 (Nov 6, 2012)

Price makes this a completely ridiculous product. Period.

9 upvotes
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
Buchanan
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
3 upvotes
balios
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.

5 upvotes
Higuel
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. :)

3 upvotes
Higuel
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!

0 upvotes
acidic
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
0 upvotes
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

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Nov 6, 2012)

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

0 upvotes
tongki
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 !

0 upvotes
revio
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...

6 upvotes
canonpro
By canonpro (Nov 6, 2012)

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

3 upvotes
EDWARD ARTISTE
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 ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2010/may/20/language-usa

0 upvotes
DavesMan
By DavesMan (Nov 14, 2012)

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

0 upvotes
rrccad
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.

0 upvotes
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....

3 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Nov 6, 2012)

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

2 upvotes
Higuel
By Higuel (Nov 6, 2012)

WHERE???

0 upvotes
LarryK
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.

0 upvotes
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
danijel973
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.

10 upvotes
Martin Datzinger
By Martin Datzinger (Nov 6, 2012)

Hmm, how about MTF plots?

0 upvotes
Kobus66
By Kobus66 (Nov 6, 2012)

I love that macro feature.

1 upvote
Total comments: 127
12