Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Mentioned Again [CR2]

[Sporgon]

The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.

If you use the current 24-105L as a 28-105L it doesn't have noticeable distortions - just what you want ! Sometimes I think this site should be called DD - dilbert's deliberations, or perhaps more accurately, DDDD - damned dilbert's daft deliberations.

 

[iMagic]

..... but if you really care about tack sharp (i.e. you are using a 5DSR) then you either need a tripod on very fast shutter speeds with non-IS lenses.

Or flash.

or monopod with good technique? I am planning to try to use my monopod with my upcoming 5Ds R once it arrives. I would think with good technique it should also work

 

[verysimplejason]

The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.

If you use the current 24-105L as a 28-105L it doesn't have noticeable distortions - just what you want ! Sometimes I think this site should be called DD - dilbert's deliberations, or perhaps more accurately, DDDD - damned dilbert's daft deliberations.

Wahahaha!!! I've got a good laugh with this. +1. The 24-105 don't have that much distortions @ 28mm that I don't bother (or forgot) correcting it most of the time.

 

[unfocused]

The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.

If you use the current 24-105L as a 28-105L it doesn't have noticeable distortions - just what you want ! Sometimes I think this site should be called DD - dilbert's deliberations, or perhaps more accurately, DDDD - damned dilbert's daft deliberations.

Wahahaha!!! I've got a good laugh with this. +1. The 24-105 don't have that much distortions @ 28mm that I don't bother (or forgot) correcting it most of the time.

Personally, I don't get trying to correct wide angle distortion. The whole fun of owning a wide angle is the distortion.

 

[privatebydesign]

The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.

If you use the current 24-105L as a 28-105L it doesn't have noticeable distortions - just what you want ! Sometimes I think this site should be called DD - dilbert's deliberations, or perhaps more accurately, DDDD - damned dilbert's daft deliberations.

Wahahaha!!! I've got a good laugh with this. +1. The 24-105 don't have that much distortions @ 28mm that I don't bother (or forgot) correcting it most of the time.

Personally, I don't get trying to correct wide angle distortion. The whole fun of owning a wide angle is the distortion.

It depends on if you are talking about projection distortion, which is inherent to the perspective a wide and ultra wide give you, or if you are talking about lens aberrations like pincushion, barrel and mustache distortion. Most would agree the former should be left alone, but there are times the second needs to be corrected.

However when they do need correcting it really is a simple matter of pushing a button with the slightest of impact on IQ, even quite severe aberration distortions are easily removed and too much is made of them.

 

[Don Haines]

The problem with the 24-70/f4 and the 24-105/f4 is the horrid field curvature at the wide end. I'd be happy if Canon decided to make a 28-105 or 30-105 f/4L IS USM that didn't suck at the wide end.

Have you ever done a test to measure the actual IQ hit from using the lens corrections button in DPP or LR?

Where transformations squeeze data in, image data is lost. Where transformations expand images out, software has to invent pixels using pre-programmed algorithms.

Yes, I've "done that" but see above about LR inventing pixels.

So can you give me an example of an image of yours where auto lens corrections have had a noticeably negative impact at a reasonable output size?

I can show you tens of thousands of images where it does not matter.....

Also, although it is true that pixels are "invented" or "discarded", the image is usually much higher density than the required output image and will be downsampled, making the alleged problem less noticeable.

 

[Flowerpot]

Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an IS tele zoom that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...

I know I won't...

I am happy with 24mm-104 f4 is on my 5d 2, and happy to trade a little reach for the extra aperture, but not the stabilisation... I know l won't be happy with the iq of the 24-104 on a higher res sensor.

Hurry up Canon.

 

[Loswr]

Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an IS tele zoom that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...

Since when is a 24-70mm lens a tele zoom?!?

 

[AvTvM]

Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an IS tele zoom that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...

70-200/2.8 II can "feed" a 100+ MPix sensor. 100-400 II dito. 200-500 as well. Where exactly is the problem?

 

[Flowerpot]

Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an IS tele zoom that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...

Since when is a 24-70mm lens a tele zoom?!?

Sorry, you are right I meant moderately wide angle to mildly tele zoom.

 

[ahsanford]

Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an IS tele zoom that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...

70-200/2.8 II can "feed" a 100+ MPix sensor. 100-400 II dito. 200-500 as well. Where exactly is the problem?

+1. All lenses improve with more pixels -- however, how much it improves and where in the frame it improves varies with the quality of the lens. This should make sense.

I always reference the LensRentals 5DS vs. 5D3 comparison to make this point. The notion that moving to (say) a 5DS means you have to sell all your existing lenses is absurd.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

Sorry, you are right I meant moderately wide angle to mildly tele zoom.

also called "standard-zoom" ... and in earlier days a "trans-zoom"

EF 24-70/4 L IS does have IS and can "feed" a 100+ MP sensor just fine.
But I agree it's a shame Canon has not equipped the 24-70/2.8 L II with IS.

 

[davidmurray]

Sorry, you are right I meant moderately wide angle to mildly tele zoom.

also called "standard-zoom" ... and in earlier days a "trans-zoom"

EF 24-70/4 L IS does have IS and can "feed" a 100+ MP sensor just fine.
But I agree it's a shame Canon has not equipped the 24-70/2.8 L II with IS.

I'm not planning to buy a 24-70/4 because I already have a 24-105/4.

I'm waiting for a 24-70/2.8 with IS. When that lens is announced I'll be the first in the line holding my wallet open for Canon to help themselves to as much as they like - so long as its razor sharp all across the frame at 2.8 and all focal lengths.

If Canon plays it's cards right it'll get me buying another 3 zooms - and the only one without IS would be a 16-35.

Looking to eventually get:
16-35/2.8 mk3
24-105/f4 mk2
24-70/2.8 IS

Of course they all need to be sharp across the frame when wide open.

Wanting to finish building my set of zooms before starting to think about getting any primes.

I am not especially concerned about the weight of an individual lens, but do want best sharpness, best bokeh, and the fastest L zooms made by Canon.

Put those on the market and I'd cash in my pension to buy them (so to speak).

I'm happy with my 5D3, for now. New and better lenses come first.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

...
I'm waiting for a 24-70/2.8 with IS. When that lens is announced I'll be the first in the line holding my wallet open for Canon to help themselves to as much as they like - so long as its razor sharp all across the frame at 2.8 and all focal lengths.

If Canon plays it's cards right it'll get me buying another 3 zooms - and the only one without IS would be a 16-35.

Looking to eventually get:
16-35/2.8 mk3
24-105/f4 mk2
24-70/2.8 IS

Of course they all need to be sharp across the frame when wide open.
...

Your question for sharpness ... is this like saying you'll vote for Trump if he promises world peace?

Whilst Canon have changed the optical formula for the 24-105/f4L II, they haven't changed the size of the front element. I wouldn't bank on it being sharp corner to corner at the wide end. There's a better chance with the 16-35.

It's usually field curvature that causes soft corners of a frame, not the size of the objective lens. Sure a bigger image circle can help, but it won't if the optical design doesn't present a flat image on the sensor plane.

 

[Loswr]

Whilst Canon have changed the optical formula for the 24-105/f4L II, they haven't changed the size of the front element. I wouldn't bank on it being sharp corner to corner at the wide end. There's a better chance with the 16-35.

Is the front element of the 16-36/2.8 III is bigger than the front element of the 16-35/2.8 II?

 

[ahsanford]

...
I'm waiting for a 24-70/2.8 with IS. When that lens is announced I'll be the first in the line holding my wallet open for Canon to help themselves to as much as they like - so long as its razor sharp all across the frame at 2.8 and all focal lengths.

...

Of course they all need to be sharp across the frame when wide open.
...

Your question for sharpness ... is this like saying you'll vote for Trump if he promises world peace?

Whilst Canon have changed the optical formula for the 24-105/f4L II, they haven't changed the size of the front element. I wouldn't bank on it being sharp corner to corner at the wide end. There's a better chance with the 16-35.

+1 to Dilbert, the 16-35 has a much better chance than a 4.5x zoom like the 24-105L II.

But demand much, David Murray? Other than vaguely arguably the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, can you name me a single Canon zoom that is razor sharp across the frame when shot wide open at all focal lengths?

#impossiblestandards

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Whilst Canon have changed the optical formula for the 24-105/f4L II, they haven't changed the size of the front element. I wouldn't bank on it being sharp corner to corner at the wide end. There's a better chance with the 16-35.

Is the front element of the 16-36/2.8 III is bigger than the front element of the 16-35/2.8 II?

[Zing]

I still think Dilbert's right in direction if not in specifics. A 2.2x FL range zoom has a better change to hit David Murray's 300 yard hole-in-one -- however improbable -- than a 4.5x FL range zoom.

- A

 

[Loswr]

I still think Dilbert's right in direction if not in specifics. A 2.2x FL range zoom has a better change to hit David Murray's 300 yard hole-in-one -- however improbable -- than a 4.5x FL range zoom.

Well, that's far better than the norm...

I do agree that the 16-35/2.8L III is much more likely to see a significant IQ boost than the 24-105/4L IS II. The latter is intended as a kit lens (albeit an excellent one), the bar for both perfromance and cost will be lower than a specialized fast UWA zoom.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an IS tele zoom that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...

Since when is a 24-70mm lens a tele zoom?!?

A telephoto is defined by the length of the lens is shorter than the focal length. So 118mm length, but only 70mm focal length...so no it's NOT a telephoto lens. An 85mm f1.2 L is 84mm in length...so that could just be called a telephoto. Interestingly, the 50mm f1.8II is therefore classed as a Telephoto, but the 50mm f1.4 USM isn't...it's 1/2 mm too long in it's length. Neither is the 50mm f1.2, that's quite a bit too long.

 

[davidmurray]

I do agree that the 16-35/2.8L III is much more likely to see a significant IQ boost than the 24-105/4L IS II. The latter is intended as a kit lens (albeit an excellent one), the bar for both perfromance and cost will be lower than a specialized fast UWA zoom.

My point is that I want IS in the 24-70/2.8 and will buy other lenses before I'll buy a standard zoom without IS.