24-70/4 MFT charts

[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.

 

[Loswr]

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

 

[Loswr]

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..

 

[Loswr]

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."

 

[K-amps]

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)

Can't disagree but there something (from a Psycho-sales perspective) that 6D + 24-70/4 = $3499 and 5diii Body only $3499....


give or take...

 

[Marsu42]

I have a question, what is a MFT chart?

It tells you about sharpness, contrast reproduction and bokeh quality at wide open and (for Canon) @f8. It doesn't tell you about vignetting, distortion, flare or onion bokeh.

This is what you want to read (and then read again and again trying to remember it ): http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml

 

[Loswr]

I have a question, what is a MFT chart?

It tells you about sharpness, contrast reproduction and bokeh quality at wide open and (for Canon) @f8. It doesn't tell you about vignetting, distortion, flare or onion bokeh.

No, it doesn't. You seem to be describing an MTF chart. That's not answering PackLight's question. Might want to re-read the post...

 

[Marsu42]

Might want to re-read the post...

Whoops, the auto-spelling correction in my eyes seamlessly transformed the abbreviation - and it might have really been a question about mtf since the concept isn't self-explanatory. But thanks for notifying me

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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.

A Kenko 1.4X TC might be better than tubes for a lens like this if you want macro. I'm not recommending it, but putting the objective a fraction of a inch from the subject makes it very difficult to illuminate and easy to get squashed bug on your lens.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I'm wondering if this will effectively kill-off the 24-105, which I own. I find the extra 35mm invaluable as a travel lens.

 

[birtembuk]

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...

Neuro, talking macro here, could you kindly tell about those wonderful extending arms fit on this MT-24EX ? Been trying hard to find this sort of contraption, but not to avail yet. I sometimes use one of the flashes by hand for back-lighting but when doing macro, I'd prefer to keep my third hand to hold the umbrella

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, talking macro here, could you kindly tell about those wonderful extending arms fit on this MT-24EX ? Been trying hard to find this sort of contraption, but not to avail yet. I sometimes use one of the flashes by hand for back-lighting but when doing macro, I'd prefer to keep my third hand to hold the umbrella

That's a Really Right Stuff flash bracket setup. For the MT-24EX, look in the Off-Camera Flash section, FR-87-QR bracket, a second B-87-QRFM mount, and a pair of FA-QREX2 extenders. RRS gear is exceptionally high quality, but not cheap. The setup above will run you about the same as the current price MT-24EX itself, a little more if you have to add the Arca-Swiss-type plate to mount the bracket (a lens plate for a collared lens like the 180L, or multipurpose rail w/ clamp to convert the 'sideways' body plate/L-bracket to a fore-aft plate for the flash bracket).

I'll be ordering the above setup, plus a B-150B macro rail, in the next few days.

 

[birtembuk]

That's a Really Right Stuff flash bracket setup. For the MT-24EX, look in the Off-Camera Flash section, FR-87-QR bracket, a second B-87-QRFM mount, and a pair of FA-QREX2 extenders. RRS gear is exceptionally high quality, but not cheap. The setup above will run you about the same as the current price MT-24EX itself, a little more if you have to add the Arca-Swiss-type plate to mount the bracket (a lens plate for a collared lens like the 180L, or multipurpose rail w/ clamp to convert the 'sideways' body plate/L-bracket to a fore-aft plate for the flash bracket).

I'll be ordering the above setup, plus a B-150B macro rail, in the next few days.

Terrific ! Thanks for this invaluable info. Price will be secondary issue compared to how, in SEA, I'm going to be able to put my hand (the remaining one) on this incredible stuff.

 

[RafaPolit]

I myself fail completely to see the market for this lens. Sure, if they are going to 'force it down your throat' as a Kit lens, maybe... but lets see who would choose this lens:
- For versatility, the 24-105 has the same widest aperture, and considerably longer reach.
- For speed, you have any of the 24-70 2.8 options (including the mI) in Canon and even other brands.
- 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 .

Again, if it would be on the $1K range... then I can see this as a good lens which several people will chose: newer better optics vs. the extra 35mm reach of the 24-105 could be interesting, but not paying TWICE as much!!! Never! As mentioned, for APS-C sensors, the shorter focal range zooms are actually more in the 'normal' range, the 17-40 included, which sells for about $700!.

So this lens is certainly best for FF cameras, and those having them will either pay the extra for the 2.8 versions or go for primes. I really only see them ditching the 24-105 (which would be purely from a marketing point of view as it is a fantastic lens! they would really be ill-treating customers if they dropped it!) and forcing this new 24-70 f4 as a kit lens.

So, IMHO, I see a purely commercial move that will involve some very 'wrong' (from the customer point of view) decisions. I see no other 'great' scenario for this lens. The 17-40 is better for most landscapers and crop sensors, the 24-70 mI, mII and Tamron are better choices for professionals and the 24-105 is a better choice for an all around lens.

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.