New 24-70mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS

[btaylor]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[btaylor]

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.

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.

[Jayson]

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.

That was funny!

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.

[M_Six]

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.

[Micahouwens]

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.

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...

[HDNitehawk]

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.

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.

I am skeptical of the specifications. Not skeptical a a new 24-70mm f/4 will be released.

[neuroanatomist]

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.

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.

[Trowski]

The MTF charts are on the Canon website: here

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).

So wonderful to come to these forums and read reasonable discussions and opinions.

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.

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.

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.

[Dr Croubie]

If you're going to go through that trouble/expense, then I'd pick up a dedicated macro lens.

Well yeah, but 24-105=$1150, plus one of
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.