EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Sample Images

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

From Canon UK
Canon UK has posted some sample images from the two recently announced lenses, the EF 24-70 f/4L IS and EF 35 f/2 IS.

Both sets of sample images are obviously going to be good, we’re still waiting on the real world stuff.

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

• 2 Samples of 1920×1280 pixels
• http://www.canon.co.uk/……

The shot at 1/2sec really shows off the ability of the IS if the camera was being hand held, which I’d assume was one of the points of the image.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

• 1 Sample 1280×1920 pixels
• 2 Samples 5760×3840 pixels
• http://www.canon.co.uk/…..

Colour looks great, some distortion, but nothing too crazy. I’m really looking forward to trying both lenses and probably owning the EF 35 f/2 IS for myself.

Preorders:
EF 24-70 f/4L IS $1499 at Amazon | B&H Photo | Adorama | EF 35 f/2 IS $849 at Amazon | B&H Photo | Adorama

thanks Ronaldo

cr

[zim]

EF 35 f/2 IS

Well that's a first, two images from Canon I really like!! 

That's making me think 6D + 35mm could be a really good low light/street setup

[Zv]

Yeah I think the 35 f/2 IS will be good as a light walk around solution or when hiking too plus the bonus of being able to use it in low light. Can't wait for the reviews!

[spinworkxroy]

I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..
The distortion looks bad…even at 70mm, the model's face looks really weird..

[crasher8]

I'm waiting somewhat impatiently for the Sigma 35 vs Canon 35 IS threads. With an initial $50 difference and the differences mainly being about stop action vs low light hand hold ability, this should be a good showdown. I'm wondering just how far either will need to be stopped down for max sharpness. If the Canon is sharp wide open then 4 stops of IS will be amazing. Unless your beautiful model is moving lol.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I'm impressed with the photos taken with the 35mm f/2 IS USM, the first seems to demonstrate IS work very well. It also demonstrates the expected motion blur, which makes IS irrelevant for my (current personal, not everybody's ever) needs.

[7enderbender]

Quite unimpressive in my book. Not interested one bit.

[EchoLocation]

I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..
The distortion looks bad…even at 70mm, the model's face looks really weird..

There is something kind of strange about her face...
however, those 35mm pictures look pretty nice. I'm not sure if i'd pay 900 for this lens, especially given it's an f2, but the pictures were nice.
Anyone know where those 35mm pictures were taken? I think I really just liked the location.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I am really interested in the 35mm f/2 IS lens (I seriously doubt the 24-70mm is going to budge my 24-105L, 100L Macro, and/or Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC).  I have had a strange love for the 35mm f/2 on full frame anyway, despite it's limitations (and it certainly has them).  Despite the eye-browing raising price of the new non-L IS primes, the reviews have been overwhelmingly favorable for them.  I have held off on replacing my 35mm f/2 with a 35L until the reviews are in on this new lens.

If it as sharp as the other new primes wide open, improves the transition to OOF area, and has color rendering that somewhat rivals the 35L, it is going to be a hit even at that price.  The IS is only a bonus.  I really like the 35mm focal length on FF, and this lens looks to address all of the issues of the first generation lens - just at a price that is about $200 higher than what I would have liked it to be.  I would expect the prices to drop by a $100 or so within six months, and I will probably snap it up then.

I would love to see them give this treatment to a 20mm prime that is sharp into the corners.  I would gladly let my 17-40L go for something like that.

[kubelik]

I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..
The distortion looks bad…even at 70mm, the model's face looks really weird..

There is something kind of strange about her face...
however, those 35mm pictures look pretty nice. I'm not sure if i'd pay 900 for this lens, especially given it's an f2, but the pictures were nice.
Anyone know where those 35mm pictures were taken? I think I really just liked the location.

I think her face is just at a bit of an odd angle, I don't think you can blame that one on the lens, unless we're expecting a 24-70 to also do spot-tilt-shifts?  I've also never heard of a lens that comes with an uglify filter, so, yeah I'm going to blame that one on the photographer's direction or lack thereof.

[Matej N]

I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..
The distortion looks bad…even at 70mm, the model's face looks really weird..

There is something kind of strange about her face...
however, those 35mm pictures look pretty nice. I'm not sure if i'd pay 900 for this lens, especially given it's an f2, but the pictures were nice.
Anyone know where those 35mm pictures were taken? I think I really just liked the location.

Looks to me like marakkech, not 100% sure but if u like this location you will love Marakkech

[Marsu42]

24-70 is not equal to 24-70 ... it will be interesting to see how long and wide the f4 lens goes in comparison to the mk2 f2.8.

That's because the f2.8 mk2 is noticeably more limited in zoom range than the mk1 - so in all fairness you have to compare the mk2 distortion and edge sharpness to the mk1 @26mm or @66mm (numbers are rough guesses) ... same might be true for the new f4 lens.

I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..

The imho most unimpressive shot is the "macro" one because of very mediocre sharpness @f4, though the bokeh is nice. And the lens has a very short working distance, so the object is lit from the side and back.

[lastcoyote]

something not right about those 24-70 sample images. no way there is that much distortion. the images have been squashed or something surely? 

[caMARYnon]

something not right about those 24-70 sample images. no way there is that much distortion. the images have been squashed or something surely? 

Look at jpg, it's all right. Thumbnails are wrong scaled.

[spinworkxroy]

something not right about those 24-70 sample images. no way there is that much distortion. the images have been squashed or something surely? 

Look at jpg, it's all right. Thumbnails are wrong scaled.

I did
I downloaded the FULL res image of the model…
Kinda made it worse actually because, i ended up pixel peeping hehe..and well, that image impressed me even less after looking at it close up..Yes, it'e better than what a 24-105 can do BUT the 24-105 is donkey years older than this…and this is supposed to be somewhat on par with the 2.8 version..all i can say is..i won't be even considering this lens…
The 35mm however, is a different story..download the full res image and it was beautiful!

I could blame a bad photograher for the 24-70 sample BUT the very fact it was taken off a Canon website, surely someone would've agreed to allow it to be posted? So maybe that IS the actual image quality of the lens… not very impressive at all