Messages

46

Lenses / Re: 40mm f/2.8 Wow what a lens

« on: March 20, 2013, 12:10:06 AM »

Great little lens! I'm so glad that Canon made it.

47

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-b Images Leak & a New Kit Lens

« on: March 19, 2013, 01:32:53 PM »

Where's the problem here - new small camera to extend the popularity of the EOS brand - ideal for parents to buy their kids, ideal for people with small hands, ideal as a starter camera to tie new buyers into the EOS system.

It will create more profit for Canon to keep the shareholders happy and reinvest in development - a win-win situation in my book.

Exactly!  Small cameras are delightful.  So many people wish for small cameras that offer good quality photos.  They have plenty of other things to carry and they want to carry as little camera as possible, but they don't want the image quality compromises of tiny point & shoots.  Cameras like this one meet a real need.

Photography forums seem to be crowded with negative people who complain about any camera that doesn't meet their personal needs at this moment. 

48

Lenses / Re: Where can I send my 24-70mm to be worked on? (somewhere besides Canon)

« on: March 09, 2013, 10:20:08 PM »

Toshio is highly regarded for service of Canon gear:

TF Camera Repair Service
27 Brunswick Woods Drive
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
(732) 238-8806

49

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 07, 2013, 03:34:19 PM »

Sure, it's not an improvement because of the reduced 35mm of range ... if focal length range is your measure of improvement.  In that case, 10X or 20X super-zoom would be the ultimate improvement.  But focal range is not the usual measure of improvement.  The facts are as shown by the numbers in ahsanford's post above.  Those numbers clearly show an overall improvement in IQ.

Of course, owners of the 24-105 aren't "throwing it out" to buy this 24-70.  That doesn't reflect on the 24-70 at all.  The 24-105 is a fine lens in its own right and remains a good value.  So no one is crazy enough to throw it out.  The 24-70 is an alternative with some improvements and differences, not an obvious replacement.  Many people will find the 24-105 meets their needs and budget better.  That doesn't mean that other people won't find that this new 24-70 meets their needs and budget better.  That's the beauty of alternatives.  They meet the needs of different people with different needs and applications.

Optical perfection is a very high standard.  You don't get it for an extra $400-$600 from any manufacturer.

That's the problem.

Your logic clashes with the reality of facts being that this lens is going to replace the 24-105 as FF kit lens. And I can see why people react with a loud WTF.

Also, achieving optical improvements at the expense of zoom range is hardly something to rave about. At its best, these two lenses are equal. Then why is the new one supposed to cost so much more?

By the way, this lens is also hardly any sharper than the Tamron 24-70 @f/4 - which is one full stop faster, if you need it.

My logic clashes with your prediction of the future, not with reality or facts.  If you look at Canon's lens lineup, there is lots and lots of duplication.  How many versions of the 70-200?  And of the 70-300?  There are four 50's.  It's not a stretch to conceive that maybe the 24-105 is not being replaced by this 24-70.

50

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 06, 2013, 12:55:46 PM »

BTW ... I'd still go for the 24-70 2.8 over the f/4. It's not that much extra.

Crystal ball: Canon releases a 24-70 2.8L IS at $2400, and the non-IS version settles in at $1600 - $1800

I don't see it.  If and when that pickle jar of a 2.8 IS lens is offered, those jerks will want extortion money for it -- I'd say $3k.  It's a holy grail sort of lens.

That said, if Nikon offers one first, Canon will only punish us with a nasty markup, and then your prediction will be right in line.

- A

Sure, everyone one wants optical excellence and great durability at bargain prices.  Who wouldn't?  But is that realistic?  Are they "jerks" for not offering that?  Are photographers who charge high prices for excellent photography and service also "jerks"? 

Try buying the real estate for a lens factory, building your own lens factory and hiring your own highly skilled workforce, and paying for all of the materials, training, benefits, upkeep, taxes, etc. that go with that, and then see how cheaply you'll want to sell your professional grade lenses.  My guess:  not very cheaply.

51

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 06, 2013, 12:45:25 PM »

FINALLY reviewers are starting to take note of focus shift, a topic which had been buried as a footnote as all everybody cares these days is 100% crops of some stupid black and white chart.

it is however surprising to see such absurd amount of focus shift on a slow zoom lens. I kind of expect that behavior on f/1.8 glass or faster.

FWIW, this poster on the FM forum says he tried to replicate the focus shift with his new 24-70/4L and could not find it:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1194688/1#11395622

... but of course, that's not the last word on the topic, as others may get different results.

52

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 06, 2013, 12:06:40 PM »

... whereas a 24-70 f/4 sold for 1600$ has to be epitome of optical perfection itself - and it's not.

It was introduced at $1499.  It is now $1449.  It will likely be less in the months ahead, and even less if included as part of a kit.

No one has ever made a perfect zoom for $1449.  The epitome of optical perfection itself would cost a lot more than $1,449.  For $1449 you get an improved lens, not the epitome of optical perfection.

The fact is that it's not an improvement because it left as much as 35mm of range behind its predecessor. It's likely that most of the optical advantages derive from this alone.

What you get is a lens whose specs and performance hardly justify its price. And in fact I don't see many owners of a 24-105 throwing it out and running to buy this 24-70.

So yes, when you charge 1450$ for such a lens it'd better be flat-out amazing.

Sure, it's not an improvement because of the reduced 35mm of range ... if focal length range is your measure of improvement.  In that case, 10X or 20X super-zoom would be the ultimate improvement.  But focal range is not the usual measure of improvement.  The facts are as shown by the numbers in ahsanford's post above.  Those numbers clearly show an overall improvement in IQ.

Of course, owners of the 24-105 aren't "throwing it out" to buy this 24-70.  That doesn't reflect on the 24-70 at all.  The 24-105 is a fine lens in its own right and remains a good value.  So no one is crazy enough to throw it out.  The 24-70 is an alternative with some improvements and differences, not an obvious replacement.  Many people will find the 24-105 meets their needs and budget better.  That doesn't mean that other people won't find that this new 24-70 meets their needs and budget better.  That's the beauty of alternatives.  They meet the needs of different people with different needs and applications.

Optical perfection is a very high standard.  You don't get it for an extra $400-$600 from any manufacturer.

53

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 06, 2013, 11:06:50 AM »

... whereas a 24-70 f/4 sold for 1600$ has to be epitome of optical perfection itself - and it's not.

It was introduced at $1499.  It is now $1449.  It will likely be less in the months ahead, and even less if included as part of a kit.

No one has ever made a perfect zoom for $1449.  The epitome of optical perfection itself would cost a lot more than $1,449.  For $1449 you get an improved lens, not the epitome of optical perfection.

54

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 04, 2013, 08:21:50 PM »

Interestingly, someone on the Fred Miranda Canon forum read the same Photozone review and started a thread titled:  "24-70 f/4 IS tests really well on photozone" ...

55

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 04, 2013, 08:08:48 PM »

How big a deal is it in practice though? The 24-70 II also has a huge focus shift near MFD but does anyone complain about it regular shooting?

I've never noticed it with the 24-70 II.  Now I'll have to look for it! 

56

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 04, 2013, 08:06:23 PM »

Ignore what Klaus says and look at his raw numbers and you'll do a lot better. He also said the 24-105 was better than the 24 1.4 II LOL!!!!! Just because the 24 1.4 II was blurry at the edges under f/2.8!!! LOL
And yet all his numbers showed it utterly spanking the 24-105 aperture for aperture!

Good point.  Look at the numbers, not the interpretation.  The numbers show an excellent lens in a compact size. 

Reviewers are often biased against a product because of its introductory price.  Give them the price a year after release, and they may give a different interpretation.  Reviewers also have a bias based on their personal needs for a lens.  If they don't want it, they figure no one else wants it.  There is one reviewer always lauding the Sigma 35/1.4 over the Canon 35/2 IS because he prizes sharpness at f/1.4 and doesn't seem to care how big/heavy the lens is or whether it has IS.  Each lens has its value, but maybe to a different photographer.

57

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 04, 2013, 07:55:50 PM »

It will be an attractive lens to someone who wants the "all in one" approach such as for travel.  The price gets bashed by everyone, but that is the introductory price.  The price of the fantastic much-in-demand 24-70/2.8II is already down a few hundred dollars, so this one will likely head the same way.

The focus shift should be investigated further.  They only tried it at 70mm and without autofocus.  Apparently, the lens is not sharp for close-up work at 70mm at f/4, but who buys a macro for wide-open aperture work?  Their example shows a much sharper lens in the f/8 example (not just more depth of field).  Someone should test whether the focus shift is a genuine problem at smaller apertures, or whether depth of field covers it.  It's possible that at 50mm and f/8 and smaller there is no problem at all.

It may not meet some people's strict definition of "macro", but at 0.7X it is more macro than the 50/2.5 compact macro.  For some photographers this is a win:  it means one less lens to carry, one less lens to change.

58

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 04, 2013, 05:03:16 PM »

This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.

+1
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...

Cheers!

Or even

28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2

or

24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)

or

5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8

or

1500$ worth of frito lays.

Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro?  None.  There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.

Image quality wouldn't matter at $1499?  Then the 24-70/2.8II was DOA at its introductory price of $2299.  But it wasn't.

59

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 04, 2013, 04:51:46 PM »

Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance. 

The cheaper one is better?  I don't think so.  As I read the resolution numbers on Photozone, the new 24-70/4L is mostly better than the 24-105/4L.  And it offers a much closer minimum focusing distance.  And it's smaller and lighter.  Except for the initial price, it would make a very attractive kit lens.

60

Lenses / Re: Photozone spanks the 24-70 F4 USM L IS

« on: March 04, 2013, 02:50:30 PM »

By their own numbers, resolution is excellent at every aperture.  Just be sure to stop down for macro shots ... Standard operating procedure for any macro work.