24-700 f4 I so want to see that lens!Originally Posted by Micahouwens
24-700 for only double what the 24-105 is worth? That's a bargain.
I hope that's an "L"
24-700 f4 I so want to see that lens!24-700 for only double what the 24-105 is worth? That's a bargain.
I hope that's an "L"
Last edited by Raid; 11-06-2012 at 05:53 AM.
Canon EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22, EF 24-105L, EF 50 f1.2L, EF 70-300L, 430EX.
"Criticism is something you can easily avoid, by saying nothing, doing nothing and being nothing." - Tara Moss
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?
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
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_usm
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: 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).
My Flickr page
Canon Eos 1DIII, Canon Eos 20D, Canon Eos T3i, Canon Eos M, Canon EF 400mm f5.6L, Canon EF 300mm f4L IS, Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II, Canon EF 180mm f3.5L macro, EF Canon 24-70mm f2.8L, Canon EFs 60mm f2.8, Canon EF 50mm f1.4, Canon EF 50mm f2.5 compact macro, Canon EF 40mm f2.8, Canon EF-M 22mm f2, Canon 430EX II
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.
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.
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.
- Trowski
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.
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
Gear Photos
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote