Two New Professional Lenses Coming Ahead of Photokina? [CR1]

Nov 3, 2012
512
212
Talys said:
bitm2007 said:
I'm looking for a standard zoom with better corner sharpness than my aging 24-105mm F4 L mk 1 for landscapes, so am hoping that one of these lenses is the rumored Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L IS.

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-is-development-continues-cr2/

You may want to consider the 24-70 f/4 IS. The size/weight is really good, it has a great MFD, and the image quality is superior in every way to the 24-105 Mk1, at every focal length that they both have and aperture setting. And it's priced well!

Can you provide reputable reviews that support your statement?
The biggest gains of the 24-70 and new 24-105 are in light transmission. Some focal lengths work better in some of the lenses than others.
In any case, the 24-70 is not sharper at >71mm!
 
Upvote 0
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
Frodo said:
Can you provide reputable reviews that support your statement?

yes, we can. :)

The new 24-70 f/4 IS stays in proportion — it’s about the same as the Tamron, not as good as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II, but better than the original Canon 24-70 and the 24-105 f/4 IS.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/

24-24-1.png


70-70.png
 
Upvote 0
Nov 2, 2016
849
648
pwp said:
ethermine said:
I'd be fine if canon never put out another f/1.2 or faster lens ever again. To me, the novelty of the f/1.2 wears off immediately after I observe the lens struggling to do what I need it to do. What's more, anything 1.2 or faster isn't absolutely necessary these days in the professional digital world, as those fast lenses are mostly throwbacks to an age that catered to cameras with the options of the average (100-3200, etc) and grainy ISO/ASA film speeds. A necessity then under some conditions, today not so much. If one of the major prevalent vague subjective arguments these days is the bokeh looks so much dreamier at f/1.2 than f/1.4, then I'll pass.

Give me a lens that'll do what I want it to do with little fail, and produce beautiful imagery, then my criteria have all been met. Canon wants to release a 50 f/1.4 IS with similar build, focus and sharpness qualities of the 35 f/1.4L II and the new 85 f/1.4L IS? Great! I'll take it, and I won't miss anything the f/1.2s had to offer. Sure, the f/1.2s and faster lenses are neat in some ways and all, but they just don't have a legitimate place for me any longer. I'm sure plenty of folks will argue their needs are served by them just fine.
Nicely put Ethermine, I've had both f/1.2 L offerings, the 50 and 85 and rarely used them wide open after the first few disappointing weeks of use. Neither lens is still in my kit. The loss rate was just too high with the very shallow depth of field, not to mention excessive image softness at f/1.2. Photographers who shoot more considered, static subjects may have more luck wide open. I'd probably click a f/1.8 lens down to f/2 or greater to improve my hit rate. I'm perfectly happy to ramp up the iso to previously dangerous levels and confidently deliver high quality files to clients. Those clients are going to be assessing content and composition way ahead of esoteric bokeh evaluation.

Interestingly my need for bright glass glass has taken a new turn since I got a Panasonic G9. With a MFT sensor, the option to ramp up the iso isn't there in the same way it is with my FF bodies. Now bright glass has a value similar to how we valued bright primes in the film days and the early digital days. A useful lens for the G9 is the Panasonic Lumix 43.5 f/1.7. This enables me to keep the iso in the clean range in tough conditions.

So I'm with you, Canon is welcome to skip f/1.2 forever.

-pw

This agrees with what I said earlier. But major companies such as Canon, Leica and Nikon may feel that they need that lens as a marketing tool, so we may get one anyway.
 
Upvote 0
May 20, 2013
368
7
fullstop said:
Frodo said:
Can you provide reputable reviews that support your statement?

yes, we can. :)

The new 24-70 f/4 IS stays in proportion — it’s about the same as the Tamron, not as good as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II, but better than the original Canon 24-70 and the 24-105 f/4 IS.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/

24-24-1.png


70-70.png

That review backs up my previous post regarding this lens being weakest in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.

We did find that 50mm resolution was slightly lower than 70mm for every copy. The center / weighted average at 50mm for the 24-70 f/4 IS was 875 / 700, compared to 920 / 750 at 70mm. Not a huge drop, but it was consistent. This is a bit surprising, but not a total shock. Some wide angle zooms exhibit similar behavior and the dip in resolution isn’t extreme.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 28, 2013
1,612
272
70
I own both the EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM and the EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II. The slower lens I use for landscape and the faster lens for portraits.
The f4 lens is generally a good walk-around lens for Landscape where commonly I'm at f8 or f11. The problems at 50mm only really show when the lens is wide open which for me is rare. By contrast the f2.8 lens is good at 50mm but considering the considerable price difference it should be. This lens I am often shooting at f2.8 and whilst its not as good as it is at f4 or below its very acceptable.

If Canon update the EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM II lens to include IS its going to be larger & heavier, its already a fairly heavy lens so I would need to be convinced that IS works and works well to upgrade.
 
Upvote 0
bitm2007 said:
That review backs up my previous post regarding this lens being weakest in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.

We did find that 50mm resolution was slightly lower than 70mm for every copy. The center / weighted average at 50mm for the 24-70 f/4 IS was 875 / 700, compared to 920 / 750 at 70mm. Not a huge drop, but it was consistent. This is a bit surprising, but not a total shock. Some wide angle zooms exhibit similar behavior and the dip in resolution isn’t extreme.

Seriously? You are worried about a 5% reduction in performance at 50mm?

What Lens Rentals found at infinity at 50mm is consistent with a much larger reduction at 50mm at unrealistically close distances such as some others claimed. It doesn't mean it's significant in itself.
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
stevelee said:
Alexlin said:
Even iphone se 2 has just been announced!

I missed that. Last I saw it was still just rumored.

He actually posted during the keynote that many folks expected an SE 2 to be announced, but it never happened. Still just a 'likely down the road' phone -- I'm actually thinking about downsizing to one when it is announced.

- A
 
Upvote 0

ethanz

1DX II
CR Pro
Apr 12, 2016
1,194
510
ethanzentz.com
ahsanford said:
stevelee said:
Alexlin said:
Even iphone se 2 has just been announced!

I missed that. Last I saw it was still just rumored.

He actually posted during the keynote that many folks expected an SE 2 to be announced, but it never happened. Still just a 'likely down the road' phone -- I'm actually thinking about downsizing to one when it is announced.

- A

I think you are right Adam.

I kept looking at macrumors for the aforementioned SE 2 but couldn't find it lol.
 
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
ahsanford said:
He actually posted during the keynote that many folks expected an SE 2 to be announced, but it never happened. Still just a 'likely down the road' phone -- I'm actually thinking about downsizing to one when it is announced.

My 6S sticks out of my pocket just a little bit, so I guess I'll hang on to it and get the $29 battery replacement before the end of the year. Maybe I can get something SE sized next time if they don't "cripple" it too much. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
bitm2007 said:
fullstop said:
Frodo said:
Can you provide reputable reviews that support your statement?

yes, we can. :)

The new 24-70 f/4 IS stays in proportion — it’s about the same as the Tamron, not as good as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II, but better than the original Canon 24-70 and the 24-105 f/4 IS.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/

24-24-1.png


70-70.png

That review backs up my previous post regarding this lens being weakest in it's middle focal lengths, which is where I would use it most as I already have the excellent 16-35m f4 IS L.

We did find that 50mm resolution was slightly lower than 70mm for every copy. The center / weighted average at 50mm for the 24-70 f/4 IS was 875 / 700, compared to 920 / 750 at 70mm. Not a huge drop, but it was consistent. This is a bit surprising, but not a total shock. Some wide angle zooms exhibit similar behavior and the dip in resolution isn’t extreme.

Just because it is slightly less sharp at 50mm than it is at 24mm or 70mm does not mean it is softer at 50mm that every other 50mm lens on the planet! It is still a very good performer at 50mm that exceeds most, if not all, of the other zoom lens options. The difference between 875/700 and 920/750 is trivial unless you are printing very large display sizes and viewing at very close distances.

Those other options might be as good at 50mm as they are at 24mm or 70mm, but who cares when those other lenses are softer everywhere, all the way from 24-70mm, than the 24-70/4 is at 50mm? Just because it is not at its own best at 50mm does not mean it is not still the best zoom at 50mm.
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
Michael Clark said:
Just because it is slightly less sharp at 50mm than it is at 24mm or 70mm does not mean it is softer at 50mm that every other 50mm lens on the planet! It is still a very good performer at 50mm that exceeds most, if not all, of the other zoom lens options. The difference between 875/700 and 920/750 is trivial unless you are printing very large display sizes and viewing at very close distances.

Those other options might be as good at 50mm as they are at 24mm or 70mm, but who cares when those other lenses are softer everywhere, all the way from 24-70mm, than the 24-70/4 is at 50mm? Just because it is not at its own best at 50mm does not mean it is not still the best zoom at 50mm.

Yeah, what can I say. I use 24-70/4 as a product photography staple and the photographs are perfect. There is nothing lacking in the images, nor any way a client wouldn't be impressed -- even when zoomed to the pixel, which is something that is never done in practice.
 
Upvote 0