24-70/4 MFT charts

[Marsu42]

- For those 'amateurs' looking for a good lens, they are probably on an APS-C sensor, and therefore have MUCH better and less expensive choices like the 17-55 f2.8 IS.

Since Canon obviously is not able to release something better than the very iso-limited 18mp sensor (i.e. everything above iso 800 is crappy) it makes sense even for an amateur to get ff. When the 6d price drops it won't be far away from the 7d which some people only get for the sturdy build & sealing and not for the af or fps.

 

[birtembuk]

I really fail to see this lenses purpose as well as others (and I don't think the 24-70 mII is a great success from a technological point of view, its a great success commercially because people just *have* to have the latest and priciest, but I believe, as others, that Canon 'failed' with that lens - which doesn't mean people are not buying it... perhaps we are talking about different types of 'fail' here - )

Rafa.

Look, if I had to have only one lens in my bag, it would probably be the 24-105. Don't want to be controversial here, but from what I understand, this lens is usually considered good but not really stellar. If the MTF (sorry for misspelling...) charts deliver what they promise, this 24-70/4 should be markedly better - at least in sharpness - than the 24-105 and close to 24-70/II.

I am rather a prime shooter. Yet sometimes I am a bit annoyed at having to swap lenses all the time. I miss a general photo zoom in this range for happy-go-lucky shooting. I won't go for the 24-105. I think a bit far from what I am used with primes, I guess. I'm still holding going for the 24-70/II as I still have to swallow the +700/800 bucks for new 82mm filters.

So, when this 24-70/4 comes in with IS, 0.7x macro, 77mm thread and promising MTF charts, I think it looks like a sound package. Well, to me at least.

 

[RafaPolit]

...Since Canon obviously is not able to release something better than the very iso-limited 18mp sensor (i.e. everything above iso 800 is crappy) it makes sense even for an amateur to get ff...

Well, I disagree with you apparently in every front . I have a T2i and can count on ISO1600 for everything, even big and important shots, and I can count on ISO3200 for semi-decent results (if I nail the exposure... underexpose a 1/3th of a stop and you are dead!), but I might concede to the fact that we are limited in ISO.

But to claim that amateurs can go for a FF is really a bold statement. Most amateurs (or even some budget-limited half-time professionals like me) simply cannot afford FF, both in camera and glass. So crop sensor + good lenses for us is quite a different approach all togther.

So, while I see where your reasoning is coming from, its not really true for a lot of us who simply cannot afford a $2500 camera and another $2500 lens!

Best regards,
Rafa.

 

[RafaPolit]

...Look, if I had to have only one lens in my bag, it would probably be the 24-105. Don't want to be controversial here, but from what I understand, this lens is usually considered good but not really stellar. If the MTF (sorry for misspelling...) charts deliver what they promise, this 24-70/4 should be markedly better - at least in sharpness - than the 24-105 and close to 24-70/II...

Glad to see the perspective of the actual buyers this lens might be targeted to (I really failed to see cases like yours). My only note on your decision making process is that you are basing it on charts. When we saw the 24-70 mII charts we all thought: Ok, nothing will touch this lens... but on-the-field experiences have shown that it is good, but not that much better than the mI (certainly NOT $1000 extra!).

So, I'm sure Canon is not about to butcher their own sells of the mII producing a sharpness-matching $1500 lens, they'd have to be crazy! So I believe we can all assume that the f4 would be considerably less good than the f2.8 mII (for the 2.8 to be still a viable choice!). So I believe you'll see marginal (if any) improvements over the 24-105! This is, of course, speculation, I have no hard facts to support this, I'll just have to wait until there is reasonable out on the field samples.

At any rate, I'm glad you see in this your niche lens. Perhaps I really don't know the market at all. Best regards,
Rafa.

 

[Marsu42]

So, I'm sure Canon is not about to butcher their own sells of the mII producing a sharpness-matching $1500 lens, they'd have to be crazy!

However the 24-70/4 has the latest IS system and near-macro capability, so it's really in a different class than the 24-70/2.8 which are pure event lenses where the IS wouldn't have time to lock anyway - internal competition should be minimal in this case.

When we saw the 24-70 mII charts we all thought: Ok, nothing will touch this lens... but on-the-field experiences have shown that it is good, but not that much better than the mI (certainly NOT $1000 extra!).

How much "worth" $1000 is certainly depends on how deep your pockets are, and the mk2 has better af quality with the 1dx/5d3 af system next to being sharper @f2.8 across the frame.

But as the LensRentals review suggests the mk2 has a more sturdy build that is less prone to decentering when taking a hit - so you have to substract the price of some tours to Canon service from the mk2 price and add it to the mk1.

 

[turtle]

Radiating, have you used the new 24-70II that you suggest is a failure? I have and it is by far the best zoom lens I have ever used on any camera (then again I do not own the 70-200 L II). Expensive it is, but it is also breathtakingly good. it is every bit as good as the best L primes I have, yet all from a zoom.

The new 24-70 f4L is, IMO, a great walkaround lens for people who have a 70-200 F4 and do not need the overlap from 70-105. By offering higher IQ than the 24-105 and a smaller package, it would be more appealing to me for example (I have a 70-200 F4 L).

The 24-105 does not cut it in the corners at the wide end, but that might be because I am used to Leica, Zeiss and L primes for careful static work. The new 24-70 II is dramatically better and if the new f4 lens comes close to this, then it will be good news for those frustrated by the 24-105's corners.

 

[35mm Film]

My wife is going to buy one, also this lens might go great with the EOS M.

 

[sawsedge]

My $0.02.

I just sold half of my gear to pay for the 5D3. I was left with the 50 f/1.4, 100 macro, and 100-400. I've been using the 50 as my walkaround lens, and just love the IQ. I'm kind of spoiled by it.

So I'm in the market for a general purpose zoom, with a taste for quality (tough spot to be in, on a budget ). When I want wide, I've found, historically, that 24mm is usually just right for me. I was eyeing the 24-105 as a great range, but just a little put off by the not-quite-stellar performance at 24mm. I have a feeling I wouldn't be happy with the 24-105 on the wide end, and adding the 24mm f/2.8 IS kind of puts me close to the 24-70 II price range...

Enter the 24-70 f/4L IS. While not a bargain, it might be closer to what I have in mind, IQ-wise, and be a bit more affordable, cheaper and more convenient than other combinations I've considered. I'd still prefer a 24-105, but I'm also likely to take the IQ over the range. I'm waiting to see test results, including bokeh.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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.

Yeah... for investing in Canon L lenses.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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 ?

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_4l_is_usm

I had hoped, but at 24mm it actually scores a fair bit lower on MTF at the corners and edges than the 24-70 II 2.8 it looks like. Maybe it has field curvature or a sort that works out really well in the real world and it will do about as well anyway???

It certainly looks like it will show up the 24-105L for what it is, a very convenient and yet a lens that has IQ that is relatively whatever for an L.

But to be priced THAT much more than the 24-105 it sure would have been nice for the MTF to fully match the 24-70 II at the wide end.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Landscape photographers will usually want something wider? 16-35 maybe.

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.

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

 

[andy]

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.