Rumors > Lenses

24-70/4 MFT charts

(1/11) > >>

Judging by the MFT charts of the 24-70/4 - to be taken with a grain of salt as usual - we should see a marked improvement from the 24-105. At least comparatively at 24mm. Furthermore, at f/8 the new lens does seem to be on par with the 24/70 II. This should be good news to landscapers, isn't it ?

I don't think so.
Landscape photographers will usually want something wider? 16-35 maybe.
They also won't need IS.
I'm just curious what this lens was meant for, landscapes? Portraits? Walkabout?
It just doesn't seem to fall in anywhere at that price.

For walkabouts, i stil think the 24-105 is a better deal with more range and almost half the price now. Yes it's not as sharp BUT for walkabouts, sharpness isn't a priority.

For people who want the ultimate in sharpness, pay a little more for the F2.8 version
For videographers, sharpness also isn't that great a deal rigth? After all, at 1080P, i believe even the 24-105 does very well.

If this lens was closer to $1k, i can see how it can be for people who want similar f2.8 performance at a fraction of the price. But at this price…it's a little out of reach for people wanting their first L lens and it's also not stellar to go for this instead of the f2.8.

A lot of professional landscape photographers use the 16-35 II and not a 24-70 mm lens.

They don´t need IS, because they mostly use professional tripods to get the best image quality.

A hardcore landscapephotog uses the TS lenses...

But please, there are a few other categories than landscape sports and walkout. Just sayin..

Weddings?  With ISO 6400 or higher delivering good results on new bodies, f/4 isn't the handicap it was, plus sometimes f/2.8 is a compromise between enough light and not enough DoF.  Near macro for ring/flower shots.

I still don't see it as a popular lens, though, with the 24-105mm still available as a kit lens.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version