Canon 24-70 f4 L

Has anyone any opinions on the Canon 24-70 F4 L? I owned an older 2,8L but to be honest I never needed the 2.8 aperture.

 

But I'm really concerned about image quality and distortions at the 24mm end when photographing flat horizons with the f4 L lens. Should I be looking at the flagship zoom instead?

A 24 NEEDS the photographer to be aware and careful of tilting the camera.

In the old days, many photographers would stop at the 28, because the tilting distortion of the 24 was too hard to handle and control.

 

If you mean optical distortion, different subject.

But I would imagine that an L lens which is the Pro line, has it pretty well under control.

AFAIAC the f/2.8 lenses (both Canon and Nikon) are just HEAVY and bulky. OK for a pro, but not for me. I learned, too heavy/bulky, and I won't use it. I prefer the lighter and smaller f/4 lenses. I have the 70-200 f/4 on my shopping list for this year.

I own nothing EOS in that range yet and am not sure what I'd buy when. There seems to be no real no brainer popping up?

The f2.8 seems incredible sharp even compared across systems, lacks IS though, something I'd surely need with my low light stuff. If distortions concern you more than IQ in total the f4 might be the right choice according to DxO? At the end of the day I'd most likely pick Tamron's f2.8 VC lens. It seems to be IQ wise between the 2 Ls, 25g heavier, $300 cheaper but utilizing bigger filters and AF wise inferior.

Gary N is of course right upon the size issue. I guess if I had money for a 2nd EOS body etc, I might feel tempted to buy a 16-35/4L IS and a pair of "leave them zooms at home" IS primes. 35/2 + either 85/1.4 or 100/2.8 and a 24-70 some day later.

For now I grab the 5D with 70-200/2.8 when I'll go to shoot a lot and stick to my other systems. A most desirable convenience zoom range would be 35-105 or maybe even 50-135 which unfortunately nobody offers. - I'm not depending on overlap to shoot 2 bodies but unhappy about the fact that I need to bring them, to shoot a single person, when 70mm is the border between zooms.

Everybody has different priorities. It is much easier to buy a lens to have something in that focal length than to pick a perfect replacement for something not really bad.

The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 II is a very reasonable size and weight for zoom of this kind. Distortion can be corrected with a single click in DPP, LR, DXO etc so if this were a concern (it isn't for the current f2.8) then this is a problem easily solved. There is, of course, some diminution in IQ if you apply distortion correction. I would certainly recommend the f4 24-70mm as this is a good lens according to users. It's "macro" function may be useful to you. Personally I like a faster 24-70 than f4, but if you don't need it then the 24-70mm is a good performer in a nice small package.

Agree with Gary N about camera level ness and verticality with wide lenses and subjects with straight lines like buildings and the horizon.

 

Bring a small torpedo level with you and be sure the camera is dead-on level and plumb in the tripod. Don’t forget the tripod. ;)

I was referring to barrel/pin cushion distortion at the widest angle often associated with cheap lenses. I just wanted to make sure that skimping on price wasn't going to affect the quality of the lens. I always loved the 40mm on my medium format set up, so I wouldn't go much wider than 24mm on a 35mm camera, so that rules out the 16-35 which i'm assuming was designed for crop censors anyway.

 

I've been tempted to sell the Hasselblad kit and put ZEISS Milvus lenses on the Canon, but I'm doing very little slow landscape work to justify another set of expensive lenses, although I want that look and image quality again!

the 16-35 which i'm assuming was designed for crop censors

 

It's full frame and very low distortion. I use it for professional real estate photography, where things like distortion matter, and it's fine. It's more of a problem that nothing more than a few years old in San Francisco is level or parallel/perpendicular due to earth shifting, but that's not a lens issue.

I'm reading about the poor performance of the 24-70 f4 at 50mm. I might just turn my attention back to primes. A nice 24mm f/1.4L II backed up by a cheap 85 1.8 USM...a little gem of a lens I hear.

I'm reading about the poor performance

 

The old rule about 90% being crap, way underestimates what one sees on the internets.

Haven't used the newest 24-70 2.8 L, but used the older one for years. Very sharp, rugged lens. I can't give it anything but praise optically. It is heavy, though, and lacks IS, and I just don't want to carry that weight around anymore. The 24-70 f4 isn't, in my opinion, as good optically...but it is still very good and I really appreciate the weight reduction.

There is also the 24-105, which will take you past that 70mm transition, between the 24-70 and the 70-200.

 

I have determined that for the stuff that I generally do, the Nikon equivalent, the 24-120 is a better choice, for me. It eliminates the issue of switching between the 24-70 and 70-200, when I am in the transition range.

I was referring to barrel/pin cushion distortion at the widest angle often associated with cheap lenses. I just wanted to make sure that skimping on price wasn't going to affect the quality of the lens. I always loved the 40mm on my medium format set up, so I wouldn't go much wider than 24mm on a 35mm camera, so that rules out the 16-35 which i'm assuming was designed for crop censors anyway.

 

I've been tempted to sell the Hasselblad kit and put ZEISS Milvus lenses on the Canon, but I'm doing very little slow landscape work to justify another set of expensive lenses, although I want that look and image quality again!

 

This is not the case with the 16-35 being for crop sensor. I get much flatter lines, less distortion and darkening in the corners when I shoot with my Canon 17-40 F4L at 24mm than when I shoot with the Canon 24-70 F2.8L. No comparison for shooting buildings, horizons, framed windows or anything with parallel lines nothing other than maybe a tilt-shift lens beats the Canon 17-40 F4L on a 5D or EFS camera. I shoot full frame and love the 17-40 for landscapes but use the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC for event work where I need the faster focusing, F2.8 for low light without flash and the better image stabilization. But it has noticeable vignetting when at 24mm whereas the 17-40 has no vignetting or distortion at all at 24mm and very little at 17. I compared this once to the 24-105 F4L and hated that lens, horizons where so bent they looked like hills.

I've got the 24-70 F/4 a couple of years ago to use on my 1Ds II and I love it. (also have the 17-40, 70-200 F/4 IS, 50 F/1.8 and 85 F/1.8)

It's sharp across the range, starting from F/4. I'm not a pixel peeper, so it can be that 50mm is a bit less sharp as some test say.

It does have a bit distortion as Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 USM L IS - Full Format Review / Test Report - Analysis says, but for critical photo's, the distortion can easily be corrected using Canon DPO. (Just like any modern mirrorless does)

Never used the F/2.8, but what I love in the F/4 compared to the F/2.8 is the image stabilizer and the fact that it's a quite usable macro lens. (and of course it's cheaper and lighter)