New Kit Lens Coming for EOS 5D Mark IV [CR2]

[slclick]

I doubt this is correct. AFAIK the kit lens was the 24-105L

"was" would appear to be the operative word.

Non L series with a 5D4?

Now we have a CR3 to say it's an L. Of course it is, I said it would be on page 2 of this thread. A very robust opinion I might add.
Why not?
If the IQ is there and it makes a kit that new comers to Canon FF photography feel happy with?

There are some very strange prejudices here...

 

[Loswr]

This thread contains an AVTVM contribution with full 'stupid stupid Canon' warpaint on but contrary to a rule I thought to have found no FLAk from Neuro... well times they are changing

I guess there just aren't enough Neuros to go around.

: : :

 

[kphoto99]

What's this obsession with constant aperture? I love my 24-70 F/4, but would love it even more if it was a 24-70 F/2.8-4.0, even if quality dropped a bit at 2.8.
If you want to shoot at F/4, you can simply set the camera to do so. (Heck: it could even be a programmable option to not use a lens below it's highest maximum aperture)

? I'm not sure what you are saying about why people are obsessed with constant aperture.

A constant aperture lens like the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II can be set from f/2.8 all the way up to f/22. Constant aperture means the lens can maintain the set aperture throughout its zoom range. The aperture does not change as one zooms.

What is so hard to understand that a constant aperture lens artificially limits the aperture on the wide end.
Take the 70-200 F4 for example. The size of the front element has to be large enough for F4 at 200mm, the same size front element allows enough light for F1.4 at 70mm.

Yes I know not everything is a straight forward as this, but I'm sure this lens could have been made to be a F2.8-F4 without any size or weight increase. Same thing applies to all fixed aperture zooms, the wide end has more glass then it is needed.

 

[stefang]

What's this obsession with constant aperture? I love my 24-70 F/4, but would love it even more if it was a 24-70 F/2.8-4.0, even if quality dropped a bit at 2.8.
If you want to shoot at F/4, you can simply set the camera to do so. (Heck: it could even be a programmable option to not use a lens below it's highest maximum aperture)

? I'm not sure what you are saying about why people are obsessed with constant aperture.

In this thread, I read a number of replies saying that good zooms must be constant aperture. (And of course, that means constant max aperture)

If at 24mm I set aperture at f/2.8 and then I zoom to 70mm because the scene has changed or I wish to adjust composition, the lens maintains the f/2.8 aperture. In this way the lens acts like a prime lens except that it zooms.

Now that's confusing. Zooming is what differentiates a zoom from a prime... :

I like this because the light gathering ability of the lens doesn't degrade the more I zoom. For a person who shoots in manual mode 99.999% of the time... this is wonderful. I don't have to raise the ISO or shorten the exposure time just because I zoom. When I was obsessed with shooting birds, this was a fantastic thing.

If you shoot manual most of the time, variable aperture isn't an issue at all... Simply choose an aperture that's available throughout the zoom range..

Your post confuses me.

Dito...

 

[Ozarker]

What's this obsession with constant aperture? I love my 24-70 F/4, but would love it even more if it was a 24-70 F/2.8-4.0, even if quality dropped a bit at 2.8.
If you want to shoot at F/4, you can simply set the camera to do so. (Heck: it could even be a programmable option to not use a lens below it's highest maximum aperture)

? I'm not sure what you are saying about why people are obsessed with constant aperture.

In this thread, I read a number of replies saying that good zooms must be constant aperture. (And of course, that means constant max aperture)

If at 24mm I set aperture at f/2.8 and then I zoom to 70mm because the scene has changed or I wish to adjust composition, the lens maintains the f/2.8 aperture. In this way the lens acts like a prime lens except that it zooms.

I like this because the light gathering ability of the lens doesn't degrade the more I zoom. For a person who shoots in manual mode 99.999% of the time... this is wonderful. I don't have to raise the ISO or shorten the exposure time just because I zoom. When I was obsessed with shooting birds, this was a fantastic thing.

If you shoot manual most of the time, variable aperture isn't an issue at all... Simply choose an aperture that's available throughout the zoom range..

Your post confuses me.

Dito...

Sorry Stefang. Now you are the one confused. My post was not cutting you in any way whatsoever.

1. I should have said, "In this way the zoom lens can take the place of several primes." Primes have a constant MAX aperture just like a constant aperture zoom. They can also be stopped down just like a prime can. When we say a constant aperture referring to a zoom lens we mean that the max aperture of the lens can be used throughout the zoom range. Your 24-70 f/4 is one of those.

2.

Zooming is what differentiates a zoom from a prime.

"

It sure does... but you were talking about a constant aperture zoom. In the case of a zoom lens that means the aperture can be set at its widest throughout its zoom range. It does not mean the lens must always stay at f/2.8 and cannot be stopped down manually.

3. A zoom lens that has what you call a variable aperture, like the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, Cannot be set at f/3.5 when zoomed to 135mm. At 135mm the widest one can achieve is f/5.6 with that lens. That is why people like the "constant" aperture f/2.8s and f/4s. No matter where one is in the zoom range it can be set at f/2.8. My 15-30, 24-70, and 70-200 can all be set at f/2.8 no matter what focal length I choose to shoot with. This is an absolute advantage over what you call "variable" aperture.

4. I've not read "many" posts in this thread that say a good zoom has to be a constant aperture zoom.

There are a couple of fine Canon L zooms that have a "variable" aperture. I don't think anyone in this thread said that a zoom has to be a constant aperture to be good. I'd be perfectly happy to see those quotes.

5. You said,

"If you shoot manual most of the time, variable aperture isn't an issue at all... Simply choose an aperture that's available throughout the zoom range.."

It is an issue if I want to remain wide open at the long end of the zoom range. It absolutely affects the photo and how one wants it to look.

Anyway, your question was about the obsession people seem to have concerning constant apertures throughout the zoom range of the lens. I think I answered that. I think I did it in a civil way too.

If you prefer a variable aperture, that is your preference. Some of us would rather have a constant throughout the zoom range. You like what you like just like everyone else. You were wondering why people are so in love with constant aperture zooms. Then you said you'd like the lens to be f/2.8-f/4. That doesn't bother me in the least. Your preference is not what I was responding to. Nor was I saying one is better than the other... but I think constant aperture zooms are more versatile.

I am absolutely inept with the quote feature.

 

[Loswr]

What is so hard to understand that a constant aperture lens artificially limits the aperture on the wide end.
Take the 70-200 F4 for example. The size of the front element has to be large enough for F4 at 200mm, the same size front element allows enough light for F1.4 at 70mm.

Yes I know not everything is a straight forward as this, but I'm sure this lens could have been made to be a F2.8-F4 without any size or weight increase. Same thing applies to all fixed aperture zooms, the wide end has more glass then it is needed.

You're right - it's not that stratghtforward. Which would you prefer?

• A 24-105mm f/4L IS II with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range
• A 24-105mm f/2.8-4L IS with relatively poor IQ at 24-35mm f/2.8 but very good IQ otherwise
• A 24-105mm f/2.8-4L IS with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range that was a couple of hundred grams heavier and a couple of hundred $/£/€ more expensive

 

[StudentOfLight]

...

there are hardly any reasons to buy more Canon products.

Reports of the DSLR's impending death are greatly exaggerated.

"The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." - 5D Mark-Twain

 

[kphoto99]

What is so hard to understand that a constant aperture lens artificially limits the aperture on the wide end.
Take the 70-200 F4 for example. The size of the front element has to be large enough for F4 at 200mm, the same size front element allows enough light for F1.4 at 70mm.

Yes I know not everything is a straight forward as this, but I'm sure this lens could have been made to be a F2.8-F4 without any size or weight increase. Same thing applies to all fixed aperture zooms, the wide end has more glass then it is needed.

You're right - it's not that stratghtforward. Which would you prefer?

• A 24-105mm f/4L IS II with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range
• A 24-105mm f/2.8-4L IS with relatively poor IQ at 24-35mm f/2.8 but very good IQ otherwise
• A 24-105mm f/2.8-4L IS with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range that was a couple of hundred grams heavier and a couple of hundred $/£/€ more expensive

Obviously if money is no object then the last choice would be it, but between the first 2, I would select second over the first, since I don't loose anything with this choice. I can always stop down to f/4 and have what the fist choice offers.
That is my point, you don't loose anything with variable aperture zoom as long as you accept that the good IQ only happens at the smallest max aperture of the zoom. It is then my decision what aperture to use. I'm already paying the weight penalty for large front element, let me use it if I want it.

 

[ahsanford]

You're right - it's not that stratghtforward. Which would you prefer?

• A 24-105mm f/4L IS II with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range
• A 24-105mm f/2.8-4L IS with relatively poor IQ at 24-35mm f/2.8 but very good IQ otherwise
• A 24-105mm f/2.8-4L IS with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range that was a couple of hundred grams heavier and a couple of hundred $/£/€ more expensive

Neuro, you left out the 24-105 f/2.8L IS that weights 4 tons and costs a measly $3k, and you left out the 24-120 f/4L IS that is light, inexpensive and pin-sharp at all FLs -- which we know they can make. :

- A

 

[nc0b]

What would it take for me to decide to replace my 24-105mm L? I shoot a 6D and a 5DsR, and the 24-105 is on one body or the other most of the time. I don't shoot architectural shots, so a few % distortion on one end of the zoom or the other isn't an issue to me. I definitely prefer a constant maximum aperture, and also a lens that doesn't extend as it is zoomed out. 16-35mm f/4 and either 70-200mm f4 or f/2.8 II for example. If a new one was variable aperture, I would not even consider it. If a new one didn't extend in length, I might consider it. Maybe that is impractical over this zoom range. My 100-400mm II has neither of my preferences; it extends and is variable aperture. It is a very nice lens for wildlife, though I prefer the 400 f/5.6 for BIF. Would I spend $1500+ for a new 24-105? Not likely.

 

[ahsanford]

What would it take for me to decide to replace my 24-105mm L? I shoot a 6D and a 5DsR, and the 24-105 is on one body or the other most of the time. I don't shoot architectural shots, so a few % distortion on one end of the zoom or the other isn't an issue to me. I definitely prefer a constant maximum aperture, and also a lens that doesn't extend as it is zoomed out. 16-35mm f/4 and either 70-200mm f4 or f/2.8 II for example. If a new one was variable aperture, I would not even consider it. If a new one didn't extend in length, I might consider it. Maybe that is impractical over this zoom range. My 100-400mm II has neither of my preferences; it extends and is variable aperture. It is a very nice lens for wildlife, though I prefer the 400 f/5.6 for BIF. Would I spend $1500+ for a new 24-105? Not likely.

Re: the red comment above: all Canon 24-something zooms change in length. People insist on a staple walkaround lens to have a compact footprint when they stow it away.

So I would be utterly stunned if Canon deployed a standard zoom lens that 'internally zooms' like the landscape or 70-200 lenses.

- A

 

[Loswr]

...also a lens that doesn't extend as it is zoomed out. 16-35mm f/4 and either 70-200mm f4 or f/2.8 II for example.

Not going to happen. If you want to carry a walkaround lens that's 1.5-2" when not in use than it needs to be, you're certainly in the minority.

Incidentally, the 16-35mm lenses do change length with zooming, but it's all behind the plane of the filter threads.

 

[ahsanford]

...also a lens that doesn't extend as it is zoomed out. 16-35mm f/4 and either 70-200mm f4 or f/2.8 II for example.

Not going to happen. If you want to carry a walkaround lens that's 1.5-2" when not in use than it needs to be, you're certainly in the minority.

Incidentally, the 16-35mm lenses do change length with zooming, but it's all behind the plane of the filter threads.

Yep, you can play around with it here to see what Neuro means:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=412&LensComp2=0&LensComp=949

(Mouseover the non-hooded MFD / infinity symbols and stare at that front glass element vs. the filter ring.)

So the front element is absolutely moving then you zoom, but critically, those 16-35 lenses don't have the outer sliding barrel action going on -- they slide inside of the outer barrel the filter ring is on. That's huge: a filter blocks dust/dirt ingress on the 16-35s, but a filter does nothing to help that outer sliding barrel action of the 24-something zooms.

- A

 

[Loswr]

o the front element is absolutely moving then you zoom, but critically, those 16-35 lenses don't have the outer sliding barrel action going on -- they slide inside of the outer barrel the filter ring is on. That's huge: a filter blocks dust/dirt ingress on the 16-35s, but a filter does nothing to help that outer sliding barrel action of the 24-something zooms.

True, but the outer barrel of the 24-xx zooms has weather sealing, whereas the inner barrel of the 16-35 lenses and the 50/1.2L are not sealed, so those lenses require a front filter to complete the sealing.

Incidentally, the 16-35 are inner focusing, so lens' inner barrel doesn't move with focusing, but moves with zooming. In the TDP tool you have to compare the W vs T focal length, comparing MFD to infinity at the same FL you don't see the movement. The 50L moves with focusing.

 

[slclick]

lock this nonsense.

 

[ahsanford]

lock this nonsense.

Could you be more specific? We've only had one '1-Post Wonder' give YAPODFC proclamations, and dynamic range is nowhere to be found on this thread.

I say "Let utopia flourish" on this one.

- A

 

[slclick]

Most of us moved on, I understand if it's hard to do but the real CR3 thread on this topic has all those fun attributes we all cherish.

 

[amfoto1]

The 5D Mark IV is supposed to carry on the tradition of being an exceptional video camera...

As such, for a kit lens it will likely get a new version of either the EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or an EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Mark II. This will be compatible with the Power Zoom module, that's currently only usable on the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM. Makes sense, for a camera with high hopes for video uses.

USM lenses weren't ideal for video in the past... however apparently the EF-S 18-135mm is using a new type of USM that's quieter and smoother, yet still gives at least 2X as fast focus as the STM version of that lens.

 

[Antono Refa]

The 5D Mark IV is supposed to carry on the tradition of being an exceptional video camera...

As such, for a kit lens it will likely get a new version of either the EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

That one is STM.

however apparently the EF-S 18-135mm is using a new type of USM that's quieter and smoother, yet still gives at least 2X as fast focus as the STM version of that lens.

That one is nano USM.

Both require DPAF. I'm waiting for that one to appear on FF cameras.

 

[Hardwire]

"A 24-105mm f/2.8-4L IS with very good wide open IQ across the zoom range that was a couple of hundred grams heavier and a couple of hundred $/£/€ more expensive"

Yes please....I had the original 24-105 when I got the 5dII and loved it as a walk around lens, same on the 5dIII....however when my home was broken into and kit stolen I replaced my glass with a 16-35, 24-70 and a 70-200 all 2.8 and thought I would never look back at the F4 glass.

However reading this news I am now back to thinking that it would make holidays more easy with just the 24-105 in place of taking both the 24-70 and the 70-200 (I also have a 1.4 tc so could almost replace it on that basis)....but I actually want this new lens...strangely.