24-70/4 MFT charts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
#2
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.

For walkabouts, i stil think the 24-105 is a better deal with more range and almost half the price now. Yes it's not as sharp BUT for walkabouts, sharpness isn't a priority.

For people who want the ultimate in sharpness, pay a little more for the F2.8 version
For videographers, sharpness also isn't that great a deal rigth? After all, at 1080P, i believe even the 24-105 does very well.

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.
 
Upvote 0
#3
A lot of professional landscape photographers use the 16-35 II and not a 24-70 mm lens.

They don´t need IS, because they mostly use professional tripods to get the best image quality.
 
Upvote 0
#5
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.
 
Upvote 0
#6
neuroanatomist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Upvote 0
#7
The 24-70 f4 IS is canons IPAD MINI, they are targeting a specific crowd, amateurs. People who buy the 24-105 buy it for the is rather than the straight reach, and all the amateurs buying a 6d probably are wannabes portrait shooters, so they go for a 24-70, its a cheaper alternative for a 24-70, not a 24-105 replacement, canon isn't expecting everyone to love it.
 
Upvote 0
#8
I just do not understand the pricing.

In Norway a large photography store has listed the lens for 12690,- NOK (exchange rate about ~2300 USD) while the 24-105F4 sells for 8499,- (about ~1500 USD)

The step up to the F2.8 version is not that large. Would have thought that this lens would be a little bit cheaper, if it is supposed to be a kit lens.

Regards,
Espen
 
Upvote 0
#9
neuroanatomist said:
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.
Click to expand...

True and I tend to subscribe to the camp that f2.8 isn't fast enough to stop most action in low light although the 5diii is making me reconsider. I doubt however many pro wedding togs would take this over the f2.8ii or the 24-105 unless they have a quiver of fast primes and a bunch of bodies to mount them on.
 
Upvote 0
#10
SJTstudios said:
The 24-70 f4 IS is canons IPAD MINI, they are targeting a specific crowd, amateurs. People who buy the 24-105 buy it for the is rather than the straight reach, and all the amateurs buying a 6d probably are wannabes portrait shooters, so they go for a 24-70, its a cheaper alternative for a 24-70, not a 24-105 replacement, canon isn't expecting everyone to love it.
Click to expand...

I failed to understand your logic here: I am sure many amateurs buy it for the reach so they don't have to invest in another lens (105 is sufficient tele for many people). And 24-105 is a great portrait lens both on APS-C and FF, so I am not sure what all these 'amateurs' would have missed out if the 6D was shipped with a 24-105.

On the other hand, it makes sense that the 24-70 is targeted towards people who want to shoot macro, or weddings if the IQ is comparable to 24-70 at equivalent apertures (talking real-world, not MFTs). Would be interesting to see how it compares with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC though...
 
Upvote 0
#11
WildEye said:
I just do not understand the pricing.

In Norway a large photography store has listed the lens for 12690,- NOK (exchange rate about ~2300 USD) while the 24-105F4 sells for 8499,- (about ~1500 USD)

The step up to the F2.8 version is not that large. Would have thought that this lens would be a little bit cheaper, if it is supposed to be a kit lens.

Regards,
Espen
Click to expand...

Jeg regner med du mener den gamle 2.8'n Espen og den er nok ikke like bra bildekvalitet og uten IS, men tror mange velger en brukt mk1.

The olden 2.8 will be less sharp and no IS, but I think the second hand market will trade loads of 24-70 f2,8...
 
Upvote 0
#12
MTF (not MFT) Charts show sharpness of a lens, and some only look at sharpness. However, distortion, chromatic abberations, vignetting, coma and likely other factors are important.
I'd not judge a lens just by its sharpness, or you might think that (like DXO apparently does) that the Canon 85mm f/1.8 is the best lens in the world.
 
Upvote 0
#13
spinworkxroy said:
Landscape photographers will usually want something wider? 16-35 maybe.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0
#15
The purpose of this lens is for those who want to trade quality for zoom range. It is higher quality than the 24-105mm It's the highest image quality f/4.0 full frame normal zoom you can buy period.

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. This lens is probably a scaled down version of the monster 95mm filter thread prototype of the 24-70mm f/2.8 IS we heard about.

The fast primes with IS are the other offshoots.

It's an interesting setup actually.
 
Upvote 0
#17
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.
 
Upvote 0
#18
Albi86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Upvote 0
#19
Albi86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Anyone else using COMBO: RF 24-105/2.8 + RF 100-300/2.8 ? Also RF 600/4 = just old tech, what's next in "new" versions?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Deleted member 380853
D
L
RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z
Replies
18
Views
7K
Ozarker
Ozarker
S
135mm SHOOTOUT! Detailed Analysis of the Hand-Holdability and General Sharpness of the RF135/1.8, the RF100-500/4.5-7.1, and the EF135/2
Replies
24
Views
10K
Loswr
L
L
RF 14-35mm f/4L IS – Distortion Correction Testing
Replies
28
Views
16K
LogicExtremist
LogicExtremist
tiggy@mac.com
R5 arrived... First impressions for stills
Replies
90
Views
18K
[email protected]
tiggy@mac.com
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu