Rumors > Lenses

24-70/4 MFT charts

<< < (11/11)


--- Quote from: spinworkxroy on November 06, 2012, 05:39:06 AM ---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.

--- End quote ---

Not necessarily. For many shots wider than 24mm is too wide. Many landscape shooters actually use a 70-200/300 at least as much as a 24mm prime or 24-70/105 sort of lens. I've never even gotten around to getting a wider than 24mm lens yet myself, although now and then it would have been useful.

IS would help for general shots and even for landscape for the times you are hiking with friends or simply want to see a lot of stuff and don't have time to use tripods non-stop and yet still want to get the best picks you can manage even though it's not a 100% ultimate dedicated picture taking outing, such scenarios can occur very often.

And the MTF makes it look a lot better than 24-105, which some have found disappointing, on FF, on the wide end when you want edge to edge crisp little landscape details. Many simply can't afford the 24-70 II.

--- Quote ---For people who want the ultimate in sharpness, pay a little more for the F2.8 version

--- End quote ---

I may end up keeping my 24-70 II in part because of that.

--- Quote ---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 priceā€¦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.

--- End quote ---

It does seems a touch pricey since the MTF don't quite match the 24-70 II at the wide end.
But maybe real world it will do as well?


--- Quote from: Kernuak on November 06, 2012, 02:00:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: spinworkxroy on November 06, 2012, 05:39:06 AM ---
Landscape photographers will usually want something wider? 16-35 maybe.

--- End quote ---

Landscape photographers use whatever focal length is best for the scene in front of them. Contrary to popular belief, landscape photography isn't all about wideangle lenses. Landscapes can work just as well (or sometimes better) at medium to long telephoto as wideangle. I actually found my 17-40 too wide on full frame, for the type of landscapes I do and you start getting more problems with vignetting and even filter adaptors visible in frame the wider you go. While everyone is different and different people have access to different types of landscapes, there is no such thing as the perfect landscape lens, beyond the one you have with you. Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is the same. That is one thing that I find frustrating about CR, there are many people that judge things from their perspective and fail to understand that not everyone has the same perspective. What may be the right camera or lens for one person is the wrong one for someone else.

--- End quote ---

Indeed. I'd bet that I'd need wider than 24mm for landscapes only 5% of the time, more likely only 1-2%.

The 24-70 f4 lens is being offered as the kit lens with a 6D at Camera Canada for $3299.00.  $400 more than the kit with the 24-105 f4.  I think the 24-70 will make a pretty good match for an advanced amateur camera.  By adding a fast fixed lens for night shooting and perhaps the 70-200 f2.8 II as a future prize it could be a relative cheap way for amateurs to enter the FF market and have a system with fairly high IQ, admittedly with limitations.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version