24-70 F/4L IS - Why I will Buy/Not Buy this lens.
- Thread starter RLPhoto
- Start date
- Status
imo, i would pick up this one as if i do not have 24-105mm. why? because of its macro at the end of tele (might save me a lens swap - yes i am just lazy in changing lens - and couple hundred dollars from buying 100mm macro)... i think that it might sharper than 24-70mm 2.8 even version II since it comes with is and macro capability but not i am not pretty sure... let see
Upvote
0
I am buying the 24-105mm f4L IS for reach. I will buy the 24-70mm f2.8L IS whenever it finally comes out. The 24-70mm f4L IS is just completely redundant. However, I do like that it has a 77mm filter thread.
Upvote
0
Personally, if I were to buy a standard zoom for a FF, I would go f/2.8. An f/4 will only give me the same DoF at equivalent lengths as an APS-C f/2.8, so what is the benefit of going FF if I lose a unique advantage?
Of course, this is totally subjective.
Of course, this is totally subjective.
Upvote
0
Two reasons.
1- I already have the 24-105 f/4 and that fits my needs perfectly.
2- Had I bought a 7D, I would have picked up the 24-70 f/2.8 II instead.
1- I already have the 24-105 f/4 and that fits my needs perfectly.
2- Had I bought a 7D, I would have picked up the 24-70 f/2.8 II instead.
Upvote
0
Actually, I think Canon has done a comparatively smart move with this one. If the price level drops to around 1000-1100 €, I'm actually very tempted. I'll still keep the 24-70/2.8 mk I for different purposes, it is just that awesome lens in my hands ;D 24-70/2.8 would remain in my bag just because of the very good bokeh, not to mention other capabilities!
But this new F/4L, I could not believe my eyes when I saw macro 0,7x ratio! That's just insane and shows the guys in the lens department at Canon Inc. have indeed been working! For a general walk around lens, I always thought 24-105 just did not have the close focusing capability like the 24-70 does.
What's even better, the new 24-70 lens is a lot lighter than 2.8 variants and does provide image stabilization for some lower light photography. For me, this would be the thing I'd take for trekking or travelling, especially since it is smaller and lighter. Not to mention the massive improvement in macro capabilities. It sounds like Canon has indeed listened to our collective whining
I'll wait for them to work out the kinks and the price to drop some tens of percents, then it is most likely a deal. Any ideas of the distortion of this one, though?
But this new F/4L, I could not believe my eyes when I saw macro 0,7x ratio! That's just insane and shows the guys in the lens department at Canon Inc. have indeed been working! For a general walk around lens, I always thought 24-105 just did not have the close focusing capability like the 24-70 does.
What's even better, the new 24-70 lens is a lot lighter than 2.8 variants and does provide image stabilization for some lower light photography. For me, this would be the thing I'd take for trekking or travelling, especially since it is smaller and lighter. Not to mention the massive improvement in macro capabilities. It sounds like Canon has indeed listened to our collective whining
I'll wait for them to work out the kinks and the price to drop some tens of percents, then it is most likely a deal. Any ideas of the distortion of this one, though?
Upvote
0
I think this lens provides a really good option.
If people want a 24-105 it is still available for around $800 reasonably often. The 24-70L f/2.8 ii is $2300, which makes it $800 more than the 24-70 f/4 IS.
Clearly not everyone will want this lens, but I think judging by the MTF charts, MFD and latest IS, the lens potentially offers much greater value than some of the recent releases.
If people want a 24-105 it is still available for around $800 reasonably often. The 24-70L f/2.8 ii is $2300, which makes it $800 more than the 24-70 f/4 IS.
Clearly not everyone will want this lens, but I think judging by the MTF charts, MFD and latest IS, the lens potentially offers much greater value than some of the recent releases.
Upvote
0
risc32 said:
I was referring to the difference between the new 24-70 f/4 IS lens and the f/2.8 ii, not the 24-105L. i amended to make it clearer.
I am not criticising the 24-105L. For $749 as was recently offered it is a cracker. However, I would imagine the new lens will offer some good improvements for those that are interested.
I guess when it comes down to it, I like the variety that is available and, for me, I like Canon pursuing optimal image quality more than absolute versatility in focal length.
Upvote
0
For hiking I use my 24-105 plus Samyang 14. I do have the 70-200 f4, but with the 24-105 going into the 70-200's range, I get more use out of the 14mm, and so when weight is an issue, the 70-200 stays home. And for event photography, its nice not having to change lenses or swap to another body.
So for me the extra reach is very important.
So for me the extra reach is very important.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
