Printable View
I know we don't always believe what gets posted on canon rumors but this one looks pretty well done and dusted.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/e...s-ef-35-f2-is/
What do you think? Personally, I don't see what void an f/4 version of this lens fills when the impressive 24-105mm f/4L IS is already in the lineup.
Hmmmm... still waiting on that 35mm f/1.4L II :(
If those specs are true, a 0.7x max mag is pretty darn close to a true macro, and much higher than any other non-macro lens in the lineup. (the 24-105 is 0.3x, 24-70 is 0.29x, 24-70 II is 0.21x). The use of H-IS would be consistent with that high max mag.
So, it would seem to 'fill the void' of a combination general purpose zoom and macro lens.
Cost and competition with Nikon. If the street price of the 24-70 f/4 IS ($849 reported by CR-which will be the least expensive "L" zoom lens in Canon's lineup) is accurate, it's list price is $300 less than the 24-105 f/4 ($1,149 on Canon's website). Typically the 24-105 is ~$800 in kits with other cameras. Assuming that the ~$350 "kit" discount translates to the new lens, Canon's kits just got about $300 cheaper with a versatile lens, both in terms of focal length and near macro ability.
So, in competing against the D600 (whose kit includes the the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR for $2,700) Canon can now offer the 6D with the 24-70 f/4 IS for ~$2,600 (6D base of $2,100 plus $849 minus the $349 "kit" discount). Canon now wins on cost, constant aperture and near macro ability.
Regarding the 35 f/2 IS. That could be a tempting lens for me. I am excited to see the MTF chart.
I agree... I am very interested in seeing how this one turns out. Especially price-wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
I missed this spec initially but I certainly would make it a more useful lens, good pick up as always John. I guess this is why you're the one working on brains and I blow stuff up for a living. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
If the specs hold up, and this were some type of general purpose macro zoom, one would think it would be a crazy sharp lens. Wouldn't that be nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I am skeptical of the specifications. Not skeptical a a new 24-70mm f/4 will be released.
The 35mm f/2 IS could well be my Christmas present...
Assuming it's not stupidly expensive.
That was funny! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by btaylor
As for the release of the 24-70, I am very interested. I have considered trading my current 24-70 f/2.8 vI for the 24-105 for size and weight purposes. I love the focal length, but it is to darn heavy to run around chasing my kids with and I elect for my Tammy more often. I am outside most of the time and f/4 really isn't an issue. I have primes for inside if I need or the Tammy for f2.8. I would trade my 35mm f/2 in a heartbeat for the new one if the price is right. Never really liked that lens, but I think it was more the AF motor bugging me.
Zoiks. The 24-70 is about twice what you can pick up a 24-105 for these days. It *can't* be that much better. The 24-105 is an awesome lens in its own right.
No big surprises with the 35 f2IS. Maybe a tad steeper than it's wider siblings.
24-700 for only double what the 24-105 is worth? That's a bargain. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by M_Six
I think it is an intriguing lens for sure...the 0.70 maximum magnification? Thats near macro. And with the Hybrid IS, it all adds up pretty good to me. That said however, I'm perfectly content with my 24-105 at the moment. I have other things on my list...
24-700 f4 I so want to see that lens!Quote:
Originally Posted by Micahouwens
I hope that's an "L"
24-70 f4 IS. Hmmmm interesting.
vs. 2.8 24-70 Lose one stop, pick up IS, save $750
vs. 24-105 lose 35mm of zoom, lose $750 - must pick up crazy sharp????
So push ISO +1 to recover the shutter speed for the interior shots of the ever moving grandkiddos - subject movement
Pick up IS for when no one is moving too fast - camera movement...oops already have that w/ 24-105!
This will have to be crazy sharp, crazy fast AF, AND come down in price.
I am not thrilled with the softness in the corners of my 24-105 - but not willing to go minus 35mm in zoom and minus $750 for a little corner softness.
Perhaps the 1dx has the ISO performance to start at f4 vs. f2.8 to shoot +1 on the ISO for interiors.
My two work horse lenses are the 24-105 and the 70-200. I like the long overlap in focal length as it allows me to use my onestepzoom feature on the margins before having to swap lenses a great deal of the time. I pick the predominant lens and then only shift when my setting shifts i.e. in/ex-teriors.
If it is crazy sharp it might be a landscape zoom?
There goes my cost argument for the 24-70 f/4 IS.
But, regarding the 35 f/2. Any thoughts? I was hoping for a bit more from the MTF chart, but it still is pretty darned good and on par with several "L" lenses. Seems to drop off gradually as you move away from the center wide open, but not too bad. The price is about what I was expected based on recent releases.
Seems like a really good little lens.
Where's the MTF chart? Has it been linked to in here?
Just came in to post that I've seen "estimated to cost US$1,500 and US$850 in the US"... $850 is a lot for the little 35mm isn't it?
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...5mm_f_2_is_usmQuote:
Originally Posted by ham
It is a good amount. But it is in line with the recently announced 24 mm f/2.8 IS (released for $849, currently rebated by $150 here in the US) and 28 mm f/2.8 IS (released for $799, currently rebated by $100). I was concerned for f/2.0 they'd add a couple of hundred, but they didn't. But, compare to the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 (no IS) at $489 or the Canon 35 f/1.4 L (no IS) at $1,329. So, it is right in the middle.
The MTF charts are on the Canon website: hereQuote:
Originally Posted by ham
It seems like I'm in the minority, but I think the 24-70 f4L IS looks like a sweet lens. I'm actually thinking about dumping the 24-70mm f2.8L for this; i.e., I only use the 24-70mm f2.8L as a walk-around-town traveling lens, I never shoot portraits, and I have a fast 50mm when I need narrow depth of field. This new 24-70mm would do everything I use my current 24-70mm for, but also add macro (which I do a lot of). If the IQ is the same or greater (hoping for greater) I'm going to jump on this lens.
And yes, I think $850 is a little much for the 35mm f2 IS. Personally, I would prefer a redesigned 35mm f2 without IS (and the same with the 50mm f1.4).
Looking at the price of the new 24-70 f/4 IS, I don't think I am going to sell my already good 24-70mm f/2.8 vI for it. I was considering it thinking that I might save a little money, but not for this price. I wonder if it will drop like the 24-105 dropped in price once it starts shipping in kits. (crosses fingers).
As for the 35mm, I am considering letting my 35mm f/2 and my pancake go to get this one. Pancake is a little tight indoors on my cropper and 35mm gives me just a little more room. My kids are getting bigger so I need something a little wider.
Hi max mag is great. Working distance is going to be an issue - to achieve that 0.7x, you're at the MFD of 7.9". MFD is measured from the sensor - with the lens extended to 70mm, the front element will be about 6.2" from the sensor (basing estimate on extended length of 24-70/2.8L II). That means the subject will be ~1.75" from the end of the lens (the hood will be almost that long). Getting anything other than side or back lighting for 0.7 mag shots with this lens is going to be a challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
So wonderful to come to these forums and read reasonable discussions and opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by dsiegel5151
I also think the 24-70mm f/4L IS looks interesting, and I would be interested in it if I didn't already own the new f/2.8 II. I was never particularly thrilled with the image quality of the 24-105mm, and if the new lens is sharper with less distortion, I think Canon will have a winner. I think the price might be a little high to start, but it's inline with other recent releases like the 70-300L. Like that lens, in a year I bet you'll be able to pick up the new 24-70 f/4 for $200 to $300 less with rebates.
The price of the 35mm f/2 IS is exactly what I expected it to be. Next year we'll see $150 rebates on that lens too. $700 for it sounds like a more attractive price.
This is disappointing... That working distance is pretty ridiculous and will make it difficult to actually be useful. I'll be interested in seeing what reviewers say, but I worry the macro mode won't be as useful as I originally thought. You could rig up some sort of macro flash with brackets... but now that's defeating the purpose. If you're going to go through that trouble/expense, then I'd pick up a dedicated macro lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Well yeah, but 24-105=$1150, plus one ofQuote:
Originally Posted by Trowski
50mm macro (which is only 0.5xMM and no IS) $300, $1450 total,
100mm usm macro (with no IS) $600, $1750 total,
100mm L IS macro $1050, $2150 total
Compare that to the new 24-70 at $1500 and you get:
Lose 70-105, go from 0.5x to 0.7x MM, gain HIS, pay $50 more.
Lose 70-105, lose 1.0 to 0.7x MM, gain HIS, save $250.
Lose 70-105, lose 1.0 to 0.7x MM, save $650.
Sure, it's not going to be as 'convenient' as a real macro lens, but don't forget that this is aimed at the same consumers as the 6D rebel-upgraders, especially the ones who want decent IQ, small/light/walkaround, and especially the ones who don't like changing lenses. Hell, even I'd consider this over the 24-105 if I were going FF and needed a walkaround-zoom (even though I'd probably stick to the primes I have and I'd take a 2nd-hand 5D2 over a 6D any day), were I to travel again (without the 7D), this would be my lens.
The 24-105 list price is $1150, but they can be found at much lower prices. Hopefully the same will occur with the 24-70 F4 after a few months or a year. Once they make it a kit lens, the street price will drop to something more in line with other F4 lenses. (He predicted with no authority whatsoever.:p)
will the 24-70 replace the 24-105 or will they continue to make both?
That's another question. If the prices on 24-105s continue to fall and the price of the 24-70 does not, sales of the 24-70 could be impacted. I think a lot is going to depend on the IQ of the 24-70. Canon's latest releases have all shown marked improvements in IQ over their predecessors, so there's no reason to think the 24-70 won't do so as well. That fact alone could tip the scales for pros and devout hobbyists.
Definitely might be interesting for handheld landscape HDR. This is where IS at f4 and these focal lengths would please me. Always better to use a tripod, but I often hike with my wife who is less than thrilled when my photography dominates the pace. Of course, I agree the IQ has to be great for me to be tempted toward this application.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles
I saw the f/4, and the IS, and wondered what Canon was doing. Then the press released mentioned the 6D, and I saw the price, and it clicked.
It seems Canon watches what I browse used on Adorama. They announce budget replacement versions of things I look at, the very next day. Unlike the 1Ds2 / 6D fiasco, I didn't hit buy last night. This seems to happen every time I visit Adorama, so this shouldn't have surprised me. I'm in the market for a full-frame compatible general purpose zoom. I was on Adorama last night, seeing what was available. I was, once again, looking at used because I'm on a budget. It seems, once again, I am Canon's target market, in terms of timing, budget, and product description. I want sharp and cheap. I guess, if I must, I'll sacrifice a bit of aperture to get it.
I'm not sure how I feel about being a budget-minded enthusiast product category, but it appears that's what I am.
I've tried the 24-105mm on crop before, and wasn't always impressed with the results. Whether it was my copy, or the 24-105mm in general, I don't know, but I wasn't intending to try again. So, while the 24-105mm lens may be cheaper, and it may be Bryan's "If I can only have one lens, this is it" lens, it's not for me. The fact that it was an f/4 lens, or an f/4 on a crop body, can't be what I didn't like, as I think the 70-300L performs well. (Note, the 70-300L is a budget-minded enthusiast product).
So my choices were the super expensive 24-70 II, the sharp, but not super sharp, and often has issues 24-70 I, or more primes. Well, I decided against having pure primes in the general purpose range. I toyed with the idea of the used 20-35mm f/2.8, but decided it was too small of a range for the price. And old.
Hmmm. What to buy. I sleep, wake up, and Canon has an answer. (Seriously, should I be concerned that Canon is cyber-stalking me?!? :) )
If this lens is super sharp, and not as insanely expensive as the other current sharp full-frame compatible lenses, then I might end up with this lens. And that saddens me a bit.
I'd be more concerned that Canon has a time machine. They watch what you browse, go back in time 1 year, and start R&D on a new lens just for you...Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
I often thought Canon should make this lens, but at this price I'm not sure if many 24-105mm would swap to this lens. But it looks very nice indeed!
John.
What amazes me is that people look this new 24-70mm and discount it against the 24-105mm and discount it because of the extra 35mm and price.
I am looking at this lens and from what I see it may be superior to the 24-105mm in ways that matter to those of us who spend the extra money to buy L lenses.
While there are those that buy the L lenses for weather sealing and low light abilities, I think if you compared everything together IQ is going to be the top reason.
What I am hearing about the new 24-70mm is it has Macro capabilities at the long end. So to speculate a bit, the IQ and resolution will have to be very good at the long end to make this worthwhile.
If you look at the MTF charts side by side and compare what you see is that the new 24-70mm isn't any better than the new 24-70mm II or the old 24-105mm. You gain nothing by going with the 24-70mm f/4 for landscape and wide. However, if you compare at 70mm you see that the 24-70mm f/4 is showing the best performance on the charts compared to the 24-70mm II and the 70-200 f/2.8 II, the new 24-70mm f/4 is better than all three.
I think what we are going to get with this lens is the best IQ performance of any zoom in the 70mm range, average performance on the wide end and the ability to do extreme close ups at 70mm. The question to weigh will probably be; vs the 24-105 do we give up 35mm and $600 for the close ups and IQ, vs the 24-70mm II it will come down to f/2.8 vs IS.
I will be real curious to see how the reviews come out for this lens.
This lens is for people who want awesome IQ without spending the money on the 24-70mm II, and who don't need the fast aperture. There are other reasons but I think IQ and IS is going to be the biggest reason.
John.
I recently bought a 5D Mark II and it introduced me to the high ISO performance of full frame sensor that I had never seen in an APS-C body. I no longer shoot my f/2.8 L zooms wide open as much as I had done before. ISO 1600 is so clean and ISO 3200 seems better than ISO 800 on my 7D. I can't imagine you guys with newer bodies like the 5D III and 1D X. With the announcement of the 24-70 f/4L IS I am seriously considering selling all my f/2.8L zooms and switching to f/4 L IS zooms. 70-200 f/2.8L IS will make room for 70-200 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L will make room for 24-70 f/4L IS, I no longer use the 16-35 f/2.8L because 16 is just too wide. I'm giving up the f/2.8 zooms because I don't shoot at f/2.8 anymore and they are too heavy and I don't get any younger, I turn 28 in 2 months :(! What do you guys think? Smart decision to switch to f/4?
Nate,
You'll be trading a stop of background blur, a stop of shutter speed, and a bit of AF precision in exchange for gaining back some cash, lighter weight, and IS.
Only you know whether that's a good trade-off for your subjects and style. I imagine the 24-70 won't be good for BIF. ;)
Probably one of the better lenses for Birds-Walking-By though :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
Blasphemy! There's no such this as too wide! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
You've been hanging out at the Gold Coast again haven't you Doc. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, the 28-70mm f/2.8 L, the 24mm f/2.8 & the 40mm f/2.8. I wouldn't give up any of them. I especially like the aperture range between f/2.8 and f/4. Also, image stabilization doesn't help you when your subject is moving--but a shutter speed twice as fast (at any given ISO) certainly does.
Nate....I guess it all depends upon what you want to shoot. For awhile now I have been very happy with slower glass. And for a lot of uses, including a lot of my common subjects, you don't really need fast glass. But I am actually trying to head the other direction. There is a certain creative aspect to photography I think you need fast glass for.
As an example that is currantly motivating my thoughts on how to add to my kit. I attended several weddings recently and took a lot of photos. In comparing my photos to the photos from the wedding pros I am mostly pleased with my shots, but I am definitely noticing that mine look a little "snap-shot"-ish in comparison. They lack a certain "pop" in comparison to some of the shots form the wedding pros.
In comparing the differences in photos I've come up with four things...
1. The pros were using the 5dii's or 1DIV, and I think you can see the benefits. They also used combinations of 50 f/1.4 or a 24-70 f/2.8 with a 70-200 f/2.8 (depending on the wedding).
2. Their post processing was better, typically going higher contrast/saturation/vibrance than I typically do.
3. They had better DOF than I did. Not in every shot, which surprised me. But in certain shots it really stands out.
4. This surprised me, but the entire scene in most of the Pros shots was well lit, not just the subjects. I liked this a lot as it give a better feel for the event. I had counted on my 580EXII to properly light the subjects, which resulted in the scene behind the subjects being darker in my shots. I assume the effect from the Pros shots was a combination of faster aperture and higher ISO.
I guess that is a long way of saying, faster apertures certainly open up at least two avenues from above to being more creative with your photography and taking better photos. Whether you want that or not is up to you.
Good luck...and when are we going to see you post some birds :p
Brant
EDIT---I didn't mention the skill level of the pros, but that, of course, went into the quality of their photos.
I sold my 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark I and bought a 70-200 f/4 IS. I LOVE the f/4. It feels like a toy in comparison to the f/2.8 version which I see as a great thing. I also added the 24-105 f/4 IS to back up my 24-70 f/2.8. The 24-70 f/2.8 rarely sees the light of day anymore so I guess I should sell it. If I want/need shallower DoF then I have primes for that. Like anything else in photography of course there are compromises, but for some people they make sense. For me they did and it sounds like they may for you.
If you have them I would keep them, even if you don't use wide apertures all the time they can come in handy and mabye you should try to take advatage of the thinner DOF.
I LOVE thin DOF and lots of background blur (or foreground blur as the case may be). Thats why I only have one zoom, but I would like to replace it with primes (Minolta MD 70-210mm f/4). Since I don't use it as much as my wider focal lengths I'm not in a huge hurry to replace it. Mabye because it's to slow for my liking.
John.
The new 24-70 actually looks quite exciting.
I'm actually considering selling the 100mm macro and 17-55 f/2.8 and going for the 24-70 F/4 IS (with possibly adding the 10-22 later). Where I'd want background blur, I find I more often use the 70-200 f/4 IS anyway, and have been using the 50 f/1.4 a lot for low light.