Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS Hands-on Review


In this video, we take a look at Canon’s 24-70mm f/4 L IS( lens, which seems to fit in right between the 24-105mm f/4L IS( and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II( Or does it? With less range, does it seem like a worse choice than the 24-105mm, which is considerably cheaper? Watch the video to find out.

Special Thanks to D.O.G.Power –

Pricing Reference:
Canon 24-70mm f/4 L IS
Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II

Connect with us:

Fancy Reading?
Bokeh by DigitalRev:
The fresher and funner photography read

Watch More DRTV Videos

Join DigitalRev Social and share your photos:

Shop DigitalRev Online Store:


Xem thêm bài viết khác:


  1. I would choose the 24-70 f/4 L IS USM over the 24-105 f/4 L IS USM for the following reasons:

    Price: by now, 2018, the prices are really similar and you can even get the 24-70 f/4 for the same price, so that helps us now compare the two with very little bias like I believe Kai did because of the high price of the 24-70.

    IS: Canon claims that the 24-70 f/4 have an extra stop of image stabilization than the 24-105, not only this, but the 24-70 f/4 introduces the 'Hybrid IS' system. It has four stops of shutter speed compensation for angular and shift camera shake, rather than the three stops of the 24-105. In low light conditions, that makes a huge difference!

    Sharpness: Sharpness is pretty much the same overall, really. However, I find it is sharper at 24mm and 70mm than the 24-105.

    Vignetting: The 24-70 f/4 has a much improved vignetting performance, far better than the 24-105.

    Weight and size: The 24-70 f/4 is much smaller than the 24-105, and in return is also much lighter. If you're a travel photographer or somebody who does long shoots, the savings in weight is good.

    Against the 24-70 2.8: As much as I love low aperture bokehliciousness, you don't need f/2.8. Wedding photographers may disagree, but when you take in all of the factors, the 24-70 f/4 is much more convenient. I'd rather have image stabilization at f/4 than f/2.8. Not only that, the difference in price is not worth it either. If you are obsessed with low apertures, get some primes.

    The extra 35mm: You may be thinking that you need the extra 35mm at the long end of the 24-105, but I don't think you really do. If you need telephoto, buy a telephoto lens in addition (70-200 f/4 L USM for example, you can get it for roughly $400USD, it's sharp, fast, easy, high quality and convenient.) I'm upgrading to the 24-70mm f/4 from an old 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6, and I almost never use the 135mm end because I don't need it when I have a 70-200.

    What you shoot: I shoot travel, street, and landscape photography mainly. In travel, you need a really versatile lens like the 24-70 or -105, because you can't switch lenses often. In street, you don't need much, maybe low aperture primes. In landscape, wide angles or telephoto. For me, when I mix all of those together I pretty much need an all-around high-quality lens that I can use everywhere. For my use, that's the 24-70 f/4 L IS USM.

    Shooting: If you're a wedding photographer, for example, you have to endure long shoots and you can't switch lenses easily. You need an all-around good lens. OR, like travel photographers, you just need one lens that can do many things easily and efficiently. In this case, the 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 may be a good option because you then have f/2.8 on one, which is considered a must-have to some, and the extra 35mm on the 24-105.

    Video: If you're doing video work, I'd get the 24-70 f/4 L IS USM. Although it is darker than the 24-70 f/2.8, it has really good image stabilization, which is an absolute MUST when shooting video. The extra 35mm on the -105 WOULD be very useful in video work as high-quality images don't matter so much, but the IS isn't as good and the vignetting is pretty noticable.

    It really just depends on what you need. Anybody who needs an all-around lens with image stabilization, get the 24-70 f/4 L IS USM, if you don't need IS, then get the 24-70 f/2.8 edition. If you believe you need the extra 35mm and want to save about maybe $50-$200 (while sacrificing the price for worse vignetting, IS and chromatic aberration), then get the 24-105 and use the extra money you saved to buy a 50mm or something else to add to your gear fleet.

  2. The lens is sharper than a 24-105 and has a reportedly good macro feature. The limited range is not a problem if one has one of the 70-200mm lenses. The reduced barrel and pincushion distortion, the sharper images plus being $200 cheaper than the 24-105 f4 L IS II USM (as of this writing) makes opting for this lens an easier choice. Almost a no-brainer. Cheers.

  3. Does anyone else hates the fact that he uses an external flash for a already perfect lightning and composition? It was so perfect…

  4. Canon EF 24-70mm f / 2.8L II I decided to buy this lens; But esta has no image Stabilization and my question is not recorded on camera video Much would affect me to take pictures? Or stabilization is only for movies

  5. if this is going to replacee my kit lens and be my main walk around lens, should i go with the 24-70 f4l or 24-105 f4l ? why?

  6. If you only have 1 lens then get the 24 – 105 but why did you get a DSLR? The 24 -70 F4 is a pretty good lens, better IQ than the longer one. At 70mm it is ALMOST as good as the 70 – 200 F4 at 70mm. Kai is a clown, his reviews are fun and not a test chart in sight – they are about the real world use. So if you have a longer zoom or plan to get one then this is a better choice, certainly worth considering as Kai suggests. Anyway who ever had a zoom that they wish wouldn't go wider and longer? The bigger the range the more distortion, vignetting and CA as well as being heavier to carry. This is a fair review and should be seen as posing the questions rather than answering them!

  7. if you already have 24-105 or 24-70 (f2.8) no need for this lens. if you don't it is a good inbetweener, plus it is the only one with the macro if you do any extreme close ups. if you have the $ get the 2.8, otherwise it is a toss up between this lens and tamron f2.8. or you can get the older 24-105 for the range.

  8. With that sort of distortion, how Canon had the sheer nerve to put the 24=105 L lens on the market, I do not know.

  9. Hi there, love this video, I am going to get canon 70d but I am not sure with which lens, I am confused with two, canon is USM lenses 24-70 and and 24-105, which lens is more sharper than the other or should I go with a kit lens 18-135 stm lens, I am a makeup artist planning to make videos onwards but can't compromise on my images. It'll be a great help if you could recommend any of them or any of your personal recommendation.

  10. Even though the beginning with the lens cap was done in jest… the newer design is 3489234890248023 (approx.) better.

  11. I respect your style of review videos, but it is more of a show than a review; they also are missing the product characteristics – you spend a lot of time on describing your surrounding than the product specs – I need a fair amount of information on how a lens react in a video mode, how a lens focus motor sound during a video shoot, how a still taking picture react during a video shoot, how the lens work with external mic…. etc. thing that I would like to know and not a show for your friend.

  12. Any idea with which lens is this picture taken?

  13. Why would someone spend that much on this if the could get the tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC for about the same price? Its maybe not that sharp but its a good lens none of the less

  14. The 24-70 f/4 have transmission rated as 4 TStops.
    The 2.8 version have 3.6 TStops and the 24-105mm have Tstop of 5.3.
    So in fact the 24-70 f/4 is more close to the 2.8 version in turns of light and low light performance. Go for the 2.8 only if you need the depth of field… Or just get 50mm f/1.8.

  15. Hi would u pls advice me if 24-70 f4 respond on 70d and gives me more sharpness for macro, portrait to landscape shooting as well as video?

  16. Got it for 650 € with 200 € cashback from canon in feburary. First lens with first camera (still crop), and very satisfied with it. The macro is limited because it sometimes casts a shadow, so you are a bit limited in what angle you shoot macros, but yet still when you know about that it's perfectly fine!

  17. Highly considering this lens since its overall sharper than the 24-105 L. The price is not bad either.

  18. I love Kai, but it seems like he was just in a bad mood the day he shot this. Unless you really need the 70-105mm FL, I see this as a no brainer. I have the 70-200II for >70mm, and am about to add this lens (replacing 24-105).

  19. I'm getting a 5D markIII and I'm gonna use it for Video which should i get 24-70 F4L or 24-105 F4L no doubt that 24-70 F2.8 is better but looking at a low cost range first can u guys suggest which is the best 

  20. Great review as always, but why is it that 24-70 f 2.8 is non IS, what was canon thinking when they were making that lens? Maybe they assumed that those who have a fortune to spend on it wont be nervous using it and therefore avoid the blur.

  21. this lens has an over all good macro close up that the 24-105/4 dos not offer,but  24-105/4 is over all a better walk around lens for day to day use.

  22. Just compared the 24-70 f4 to the 24-105 f4, I did a few tests and quite honestly the 24-70 f4 walks it by miles, the 24-105 is quite soft on sharpness. The 24-70 f4 has less distortion and colour fringing. Also I've read so many reviews on the awful reliability of the 24-105, I would stay away from that lens, even if it does have the extra focal length.

  23. with prices dropping (+Canon CashBack) its almost as expansive as the 24-105…
    Its much sharper, lighter, better corrected and has macro… the only thing i am missing is the range! But I am still satisfied with selling my 24-105 and buying this one!

  24. Just get the Sigma 24-105 f4 instead – you'll get the sharpness of the 24-70 and the range of the 24-105, plus you'll save a few hundred bucks.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here