24-70/4 MFT charts

[bbasiaga]

Is there a legend describing the axies and various line styles for the MTF chart?  I really don't know what I'm looking at.

-Brian

[Albi86]

Canon again acted like there was no one else on the market.

Why would you spend double as much as for the 24-105?

Why would you spend considerably more than for the Tamron 24-70?

I hoped this lens was supposed to be priced in the same league of the 17-40. Charging 1500$ for a 24-70 f/4 zoom is ridiculous.

[pdirestajr]

Canon again acted like there was no one else on the market.

Why would you spend double as much as for the 24-105?

Why would you spend considerably more than for the Tamron 24-70?

I hoped this lens was supposed to be priced in the same league of the 17-40. Charging 1500$ for a 24-70 f/4 zoom is ridiculous.

Maybe because you are getting 2 lenses in 1! You get a standard zoom + a Macro HIS! The price is just MSRP. It'll drop in price a little, then get hit with a rebate, and all of a sudden peeps will feel the urge...

[Aglet]

Canon again acted like there was no one else on the market.

Why would you spend double as much as for the 24-105?

Why would you spend considerably more than for the Tamron 24-70?

I hoped this lens was supposed to be priced in the same league of the 17-40. Charging 1500$ for a 24-70 f/4 zoom is ridiculous.

Canon had provided 2 very good midrange zooms in the last couple months. Both kind of pricey.
which might have an unintended effect of making Tamon's fast stabilized version look like the best possible compromise and price point.

[sagittariansrock]

It seems to me that Canon spent a ton of money trying to make a professional grade 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, failed...

That's an interesting observation...

[drjlo]

Maybe because you are getting 2 lenses in 1! You get a standard zoom + a Macro HIS! The price is just MSRP. It'll drop in price a little, then get hit with a rebate, and all of a sudden peeps will feel the urge...

Well, the price will drop eventually, but it will likely take years before it drops to levels the 24-105 dropped to considering MSRP is still listed as $1149 on Canon site. 

I must admit 0.7x magnification at minimum focusing distance of 7.87 does seem awfully handy, especially since a small macro extension tube (with electrical contacts preferably) will easily make it a true Macro lens.. Hope the Canon can match the sheer incredible sharpness of Sigma 70mm macro lens. 

[mortadella]

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.

I can't imagine the 24-70 f/4 being the kit-lens for the 6D - form price point of view (even if the price will drop a little) I can see however the 24-105 as kit-lens. Also because it will offer the entry FF market a real walkaround from focal length point of view and having no telezoom

I get what you are saying about it being a kit lens but if you look at the discount from the $1150 price of the 24-105 to $800 (30% off) for the kit a similar discount on the 24-70f4 would put it at $1000.  A $200 price increase on their kits would seem a bit modest for Canon as of late.  The more I think about it the more I think it might actually end up being the kit lens.  I guess we'll have to wait and see. 

Personally I feel that if they don't make it the kit lens and off the 24-105 its not likely this lens will be any sort of success.

[neuroanatomist]

I must admit 0.7x magnification at minimum focusing distance of 7.87 does seem awfully handy, especially since a small macro extension tube (with electrical contacts preferably) will easily make it a true Macro lens.

No, actually - it won't. Add a 12mm tube, and the max mag goes down. Add a 25mm tube and it goes up to a 0.72x (at the wide end, it's 0.4x at the long end with the 25mm tube).

[drjlo]

I must admit 0.7x magnification at minimum focusing distance of 7.87 does seem awfully handy, especially since a small macro extension tube (with electrical contacts preferably) will easily make it a true Macro lens.

No, actually - it won't. Add a 12mm tube, and the max mag goes down. Add a 25mm tube and it goes up to a 0.72x (at the wide end, it's 0.4x at the long end with the 25mm tube).

Huh, can you point me to the calculator or formula you are using?

I'm getting 0.94x magnification with 20mm extension tube added to the 70mm telephoto end using the stated minimum focus distance of 20 cm.  I'm using this calculator:

http://www.flybacon.com/Cameras/Macro.aspx

                                                                                                                       
 

[neuroanatomist]

http://eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=jlcalc

But, actually, I missed the point about the shorter MFD of 20 cm that I just read in the description, vs. 38 cm as stated in the Canon specifications.  Thanks for pointing that out!

Let's think about the practical implications.  An MFD of 20 cm, with the Canon flange-focal distance of 4.4 cm and a lens that when extended to 70 mm focal length is 12 cm long (DPR's spec is a little longer, I subtracted for the part of the mount that extends behind the flange).  So the working distance of the bare lens is ~3.6 cm, and if you put on a Canon EF 25 II extension tube (which is actually 27mm long), your working distance is 0.9 cm, i.e. to get that almost 1:1 magnification, your subject is less than a finger-width from the front element.  Yikes!  H-IS for longer exposure or not, with the apparent light loss at high reproduction ratios, it's going to be pretty hard to use this lens for macro.

[well_dunno]

Landscape photographers use whatever focal length is best for the scene in front of them.

+1.  Here's the 100L Macro as a 'landscape lens':

+1, and Neuro, that is one beautiful image!

[drjlo]

http://eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=jlcalc

your working distance is 0.9 cm, i.e. to get that almost 1:1 magnification, your subject is less than a finger-width from the front element.  Yikes!  H-IS for longer exposure or not, with the apparent light loss at high reproduction ratios, it's going to be pretty hard to use this lens for macro.

As scary as that sounds, those of us coming from the MP-E 65 macro lens at least understand what that entails.

Honestly, 0.7x is pretty darn good already, and if I ever buy the 24-70 f/4 IS, I likely will forgo extension tubes and just shoot at 0.7x and crop a bit in post..

[neuroanatomist]

As scary as that sounds, those of us coming from the MP-E 65 macro lens at least understand what that entails.

Yeah, but even at 5x on the MP-E 65mm there's a working distance of 4 cm (the bare 24-70/4L IS has less WD).  At less than 1 cm of WD, there's not even room to put an MT-24EX on there (the step-down ring, Macrolite adapter, and mount ring would mean you'd only be able to backlight your subject with the twin lite).

That's ok, though - there's a workaround.  Imagine it...the 24-70mm f/4L IS as a very convenient, dual purpose walk around lens - general purpose zoom and macro.  Made only slightly less convenient by the necessary lighting for macro shooting...   

[Zlatko]

It seems to me that Canon spent a ton of money trying to make a professional grade 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, failed and so they are trying to get some of their money back by releasing some offshoot products.

How did they fail?  The 24-70/2.8L II seems to be a great success.  I've found it to be excellent so far.  It is the reason why I won't be buying the 24-70/4L, which will no doubt be a fine lens, but won't be as useful for indoor photography due to its f/4 aperture.

[PackLight]

I have a question, what is a MFT chart? I can't find one any where. The only one I could find was for an investment fund.

But here is what I say if I were a buyer of this lens;

"I just bought a 6D, I choose this lens because I want an all purpose zoom and I enjoy taking closeup pictures of my flowers and butterfly's in my back yard."