Canon Announces EF 16-35 f/2.8L III & EF 24-105 f/4L IS II

[[email protected]]

I do think it's interesting that the Blue Goo gets rolled out only occasionally, and not necessarily for the most expensive lenses. This may be because CA is controlled via other means in many designs. But that 24-105 appears to need some help. Maybe it'll perform better in the flesh than is suggested in the charts.

 

[pj1974]

The 24-105 not being a huge jump in optical quality is pretty much expected. Recall the new 50mm f1.8 STM not being much of an improvement in sharpness to the 50mm f1.8 II. It just had better build quality and handling. Also the jump in retail price isn't huge.

In fairness (can someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the 50mm f/1.8 II and STM are the same optical formula. Different focus system, aperture, and some coating on the lens, but the optics were the same.

Good or bad, Canon has hit so many home runs lately on lens releases that the bar has been set a bit high. Anything that is not a home run probably comes across a bit disappointing.

I have owned 2 copies of Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 ii – using both extensively some years ago. I exchanged one, and sold the second copy.
Since May 2015 I own a Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM.

The 50mm STM indeed has the same optical formula (i.e. same glass elements and arrangement of these). Canon indeed employed new glass coatings to improve contrast, boost resolution and reduce flare. My STM is noticeably better than either copy of my 50mm ii on each of these aspects (notable without pixel peeping). In addition, build quality (lens feels more solid, has tighter assembled components) and handling are improved on the 50mm STM compared to its 50mm ii predecessor.

But where the 50mm STM really shines is in its autofocus speed, accuracy and consistency, compared to the 50mm ii. They are just worlds apart. Sure, there is a possibility of having an even more improved option (true ring type USM or nano-USM). However STM is 70% of the way there. I really disliked the 50mm ii’s AF, it was just way too inaccurate, inconsistent and slow to provide consistently adequate images within the purposes I use and want a 50mm prime for.

Regards,

Paul 8)

 

[Meatcurry]

I do think it's interesting that the Blue Goo gets rolled out only occasionally, and not necessarily for the most expensive lenses. This may be because CA is controlled via other means in many designs. But that 24-105 appears to need some help. Maybe it'll perform better in the flesh than is suggested in the charts.

I thought the Blue Spectrum optics only work on prime lens?

 

[Tangent]

A few higher-res samples of the 16-35: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm-lens-sample-images/

Thanks for the link. At first I thought, sure but this is stopped down a bit, right? No, the EXIF does indeed as indicated show f2.8. Exposure 10 seconds. It was shot with a 5dMkIV at ISO 6400. ISO6400? That's some low noise for that speed.

Impressive.

 

[meson1]

I'd like to see a comparison between the new EF 24-105 f/4L IS II and the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II.

I know they're different lenses for different purposes, but I'd still just like to see how close the new 24-105 gets to the 24-70 f/2.8L II.

 

[Loswr]

I'd like to see a comparison between the new EF 24-105 f/4L IS II and the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II.

I know they're different lenses for different purposes, but I'd still just like to see how close the new 24-105 gets to the 24-70 2.8 II.

At this point, all you can compare are the (theoretical) MTF curves.

 

[meson1]

I'd like to see a comparison between the new EF 24-105 f/4L IS II and the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II.

I know they're different lenses for different purposes, but I'd still just like to see how close the new 24-105 gets to the 24-70 f/2.8L II.

At this point, all you can compare are the (theoretical) MTF curves.

Yes. Patience required until some reviewers get their hands on it.

The thing is, I expect most reviewers will compare it to the on EF 24-105 f/4L IS and the slightly newer EF 24-70 f/4L IS and the usual third party suspects. I'm not sure how many reviews we'll see comparing it to the f2.8L II.

AS I say though. Early days. Patience.

 

[Loswr]

I'd like to see a comparison between the new EF 24-105 f/4L IS II and the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II.

I know they're different lenses for different purposes, but I'd still just like to see how close the new 24-105 gets to the 24-70 f/2.8L II.

At this point, all you can compare are the (theoretical) MTF curves.

Yes. Patience required until some reviewers get their hands on it.

The thing is, I expect most reviewers will compare it to the on EF 24-105 f/4L IS and the slightly newer EF 24-70 f/4L IS and the usual third party suspects. I'm not sure how many reviews we'll see comparing it to the f2.8L II.

AS I say though. Early days. Patience.

When TDP posts their test results, you'll be able to do your own pairwise head-to-head comparisons of the new lens against whatever other lenses you want, for sharpness, vignetting, distortion, and flare. I expect Bryan will include the 24-70/2.8L II in his discussion of comparative lenses.

 

[sulla]

WOOOOOO, that price tag for the 16-35 III is hefty. I guess I'll keep my mark II version a little longer, after all, I guess the limiting factor in photos I take with this lens is anyway: MMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEE