EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

[MX5]

New lenses ... Canon UK announcement.

So that's a 24-70L f/2.8 Mark II (none IS) and 24-70L f/4 IS in the range. Wonder if they'll produce 2 more variants to complement the 70-200 range?

Question I can seeing being asked on this forum ... why buy the 24-70L f/4 IS when you can get the 24-105L for a lot less money!

[Hereford_EOS]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

A 24-70mm f/4L IS that's interesting and unexpected.
So now there are two lenses covering the 24mm to 70mm range with max aperture of f/4 and Image Stabiliser, 24-70mm f/4L IS and the 24-105mm f/4L IS.

[Nathaniel]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

Perhaps it is "one upmanship" regardless of the money

[MX5]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

Happen the workhorse 24-105L is moribund?

Now if the 24-70L f/4 IS has IQ that is superb++ ... but I've been disappointed by what I've read about the 24-70L f/2.8 MarkII ... who knows what Canon are thinking. Happen there will be a 24-200L f/4 IS ... nah can't see that. I think they are still missing a zoom lens (and it would need stellar performance) between the 8-15 and 16-35 ... their take on the 14-24

[Hereford_EOS]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

Happen the workhorse 24-105L is moribund?

The lens is now 7 years old but still a very popular lens.
The new 24-70mm f/4L IS is 70g lighter than the 24-105mm lens and features 2 UD elements and a 4-stop image stabiliser compared to the 3-stop on the 24-105mm.
What price ?

Spec:

[Neilly]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

Hi All,

Interesting stuff - I didn't realise the 24-105mil lens was 7 years old, it just shows how far in front of the game it was when it came onto the scene. The thing is, it's still the walkabout lens to beat. The new lens might be slightly lighter (I seriously doubt anyone will really notice that) and have 1 more stop of IS (I seriously doubt anyone will notice that, either!), but I bet the price tag will be a lot higher than 'Old Faithful' - the 24-105.

So, you have a new lens that is slightly lighter, 1 extra stop of IS and probably a lot more expensive, up against a well proven lens that has an extra 35mil of range and is cheaper. In my book there's no contest - the 24-105 wins every time.

On the point of newer lenses - a couple of months ago I had a go with the 300mm f2.8 MkII lens and to be honest apart from the lens was lighter (after a few minutes it seemed just as heavy as my Mk1) I can't tell any difference in the picture quality. So, is the MkII lens worth the extra couple of grand over the old MkI - I don't think so.............but..........????

TTFN,
Neil

[MX5]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

What price ?

$1499 (cf 24-105L at $1149) at B&H (as an example).

[DrJon]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

One of the interesting things about the f4 24-70 is it's pretty much a macro lens too, with 0.7x magnification.

I don't get why anyone would be disappointed by the new 24-70 though, the optical performance looks amazing. Compare the MFT chart here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm

With the 24-105 one:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_105mm_f_4l_is_usm

Then remember the 24-70 wide-open results (in black, blue is f8) are a stop faster than the 24-105, so if you did a MFT chart at f4/f8 like the 24-105 it would be insane. (I still like my 24-105 though.) At f8 it looks (a lot) better than any of the L primes in its focal range (it's not fair to compare wide-open as they are f1.x).

[Hereford_EOS]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

One of the interesting things about the f4 24-70 is it's pretty much a macro lens too, with 0.7x magnification.

I don't get why anyone would be disappointed by the new 24-70 though, the optical performance looks amazing. Compare the MFT chart here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm

With the 24-105 one:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_105mm_f_4l_is_usm

Then remember the 24-70 wide-open results (in black, blue is f8) are a stop faster than the 24-105, so if you did a MFT chart at f4/f8 like the 24-105 it would be insane. (I still like my 24-105 though.) At f8 it looks (a lot) better than any of the L primes in its focal range (it's not fair to compare wide-open as they are f1.x).

That's the MTF chart for the 24-70mm f/2.8L and not the new 24-70mm f/4L IS.

Let's see was the actual retail and performance is when it arrives.

[MX5]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

I don't get why anyone would be disappointed by the new 24-70 though, the optical performance looks amazing.

All goes to show I shouldn't (and normally don't) read too much into reviews ... it's just what I've read has been on the minus side of negative. Although I wouldn't compare the 24-70L f/2.8 Mark II with the 24-105L ... when I borrowed a 24-70L f/2.8 Mark I is was quietly impressed. Thanks for the charts Jon - I need a bit of common-sense to enter the ring. Yes the macro facility of the 24-70L f/4 is an important differentiator (cf. 24-105L) but I can't help feeling some may feel the lack of that 35mm a loss too far. Anyway we'll see ... like the 6D I need to get my old paws on them and see for myself.

[DrJon]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

That's the MTF chart for the 24-70mm f/2.8L and not the new 24-70mm f/4L IS.

Let's see was the actual retail and performance is when it arrives.

I was answering a comment about the 2.8 II lens. If you want the charts/specs/etc. for the new lenses they are here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_4l_is_usm

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_35mm_f_2_is_usm

[Hereford_EOS]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

I was answering a comment about the 2.8 II lens. If you want the charts/specs/etc. for the new lenses they are here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_4l_is_usm

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...5mm_f_2_is_usm

My apologies Jon.

That MTF chart for the new 24-70mm f/4L IS looks good and better than the 24-105mm.
Thanks for the link.

[Trevoreast]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

I was answering a comment about the 2.8 II lens.

John I hear these impressive reports and read the charts relating to the 24-70 2.8 mk2 and I value the information.
LOL. You're doing a good job of making me think less of my current lenses, and I can't upgrade at the moment. :-)

Having a 24-70 2.8L Mk1, I wait for signs of a consistent flood or even trickle of images that make me think, !!! WOW !!!! I must upgrade to a Mk2 ! I couldn’t possibly take that pic with my current lens. I mean in theory, on a good day.

I imagine it’s the same for many people , owners of 85 mm mk1, 70-200 2.8 IS Mk 1, 500 f4Mk1. With these lenses you’d be upgrading at a relatively substantial cost, not to mention parting with a lens you know well for at best, a small % improvement.

We all know in the real world you can have good days, and not so good days with any lens ?
Or maybe I'm just trying to justify not spending money LOL

My thoughts on the 24-70 F4IS no thanks I'm not giving up a stop, 35 F2 maybeee, but I wouldn't pay north of £500:-) If it's more, they can keep it !

Trev

[MX5]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

Trev - it's called Roystons Law (after David Bailey) ... when a Mark X+1 model is released all Mark X (and earlier) models suddenly loose their vavavoom and cease being good. Same applies to cars, tablets, mobiles, ....

[DrJon]

Re: EF 24-70L f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS

I like the idea of the 24-70 f2.8 II but the cost is silly for the times I'd use it and I'm getting a bit fed up with all the weight I'm carrying around, so another big heavy lens isn't grabbing me enough. I suspect I might buy a newer m43 body next (waiting for the GH3 reviews) and keep the Canon kit pretty much as it is, well until they come up with a full-frame body with north of 12 stops of Dynamic Range (plus either Bluetooth or WiFi built in and 5DmkIII-ish AF).

While I really like my 70-200 f2.8 II and wouldn't have bought the mk I as the f4 ones just seemed better, I think I'll stick with the 300 2.8 for, err, well, ever at those prices... seems good enough for me and even with a lottery win I suspect I'll have better things to do with the money... (Or perhaps finally get a Tilt-Shift lens, who knows...)

Then again I could trade in the 85/1.2 II for the 24-70 I guess... tho it is probably my favorite lens... perhaps not... well... good glass is much too addictive you know...