Canon to release a new 24-70 f4 L and 35mm f2 lenses WITH IS!!!

Rant and negativity as usual. Since when is more options a bad thing?

Personally I find both the 24-70 2.8 & 24-105 to be inferior lenses for photography, the usable zoom range is limited unless you dig lack of sharpness and heavy distortion. Canon's newer lenses (like the very good 70-200 f4) produce excellent IQ and I would expect these new lenses to be top notch at their price point. Of course it would be better with 2.8, but then there is a different pricing and fewer costumers...

Of course, this doesn't matter so much on a 2MP image...
 
Last edited:
Oller Visuals said:
Rant and negativity as usual. Since when is more options a bad thing?
Click to expand...
It's not about more options but about useless options, redundant products cannibalizing each other.
"Let me get that trailer hitch for my Porsche so I can haul dirt out of my back yard" kind of options.
What they could have put their resources in is a wide sub 20mm sub f2 prime to compliment their prime line. Sigma has one so the argument of "impossible" and "too expensive and big" does not hold water.
They would have sold a lot more of them than this new zoom. For a lot more as well. Video guys have been asking for a wide fast prime for ever. And they sold milions of 5D2s to video guys.
Or they could work on a internal zooming- non telescoping mid range zoom- but not f4 for Gods sake! So the video guys can put a decent matte box on it.
Or yes, they could have worked on putting IS in the 24-70 II lens.
I'm sure I could have come up with more of these but I digress.....
 
optitek said:
What they could have put their resources in is a wide sub 20mm sub f2 prime to compliment their prime line. Sigma has one so the argument of "impossible" and "too expensive and big" does not hold water.
Click to expand...

Well, just because Sigma has one doesn't make it any good: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-20mm-f-1.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx

"Unfortunately, I consider the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens to be unusable at f/1.8 unless you are looking for a soft-focus effect. This lens is one of the softest I've seen wide open. Realistically, this will be an f/2.8 lens to most people as the center does not become decently sharp until this aperture."

The rest of the review is even less flattering.


optitek said:
Or they could work on a internal zooming- non telescoping mid range zoom- but not f4 for Gods sake! So the video guys can put a decent matte box on it.
Or yes, they could have worked on putting IS in the 24-70 II lens.
I'm sure I could have come up with more of these but I digress.....
Click to expand...

I've got some good news for you! http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480633cf0

edit: Unfortunately, they don't cover full frame. :( They could probably make one, but it will be larger and more expensive, so save your pennies.
 
Hahahaha- where is the GOOD news!
$40K a pop- I'd go and buy a house in Lancaster- much better investment...
Oh yeah and there is nothing optically wrong with the Sigma- I tested it.. The guy that tested it must have buzzed the focus haha!
What sucks about the Sigma is the electronics- so loud and inconsistent- but they (Sigma) reverse engineered the protocol so no wonder....
 
cowpunk52 said:
Well, just because Sigma has one doesn't make it any good: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-20mm-f-1.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx

"Unfortunately, I consider the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Lens to be unusable at f/1.8 unless you are looking for a soft-focus effect. This lens is one of the softest I've seen wide open. Realistically, this will be an f/2.8 lens to most people as the center does not become decently sharp until this aperture."

The rest of the review is even less flattering.




I've got some good news for you! http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480633cf0

edit: Unfortunately, they don't cover full frame. :( They could probably make one, but it will be larger and more expensive, so save your pennies.
Click to expand...

Ripp off. I wll spend money on Duclos 11-16 or Red pro 17-50 which fos some reason is discontinued. Jacek any news why RED PRO 17-50 is no longer for sale?
 
optitek said:
Hahahaha- where is the GOOD news!
$40K a pop- I'd go and buy a house in Lancaster- much better investment...
Oh yeah and there is nothing optically wrong with the Sigma- I tested it.. The guy that tested it must have buzzed the focus haha!
What sucks about the Sigma is the electronics- so loud and inconsistent- but they (Sigma) reverse engineered the protocol so no wonder....
Click to expand...

Maybe it's good enough for you, but I've never seen a positive professional review of that lens. Here's more that echo the first:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/297-sigma-af-20mm-f18-ex-test-report--review?start=2
http://slrlensreview.com/web/review.../150-sigma-20mm-f18-ex-dg-asph-rf-lens-review

It's very difficult to make a fast wide-angle lens like that. When/if Canon is able to make one that is up to their optical standards, I'm certain they'll release it. But you seem happy with the Sigma, so why worry about Canon making one?

Oh, and the compact Canon cine zooms are only $24,500! Maybe a better deal now?
 
Samuel H said:
...we still don't know how good it actually is, so it's way too early for reaching any conclusions...
Click to expand...

I think almost all of us would agree with this statement. I certainly do. If this lens is better, people will notice and care. If it's not better, people will notice, gripe for a few weeks and move on.

The only reason I can possibly see to be mad about this lens is if you go out and buy it and it sucks. And if that happens, you should be mad at yourself for not waiting to see reviews & samples, renting it for a weekend, etc.

I'm with Oller Visuals, why rant about more options? If your current lens meets all your needs, what's the big deal about one more lens on the market?

If I were to take your approach to this debate, perhaps I should rant about Canon wasting its time making a 24-105 because I already own a great 24-70 and a phenomenal 70-200!
 
I think the general feeling is that the presence of the 24-70 F4 IS pretty much pushed the 24-105 F4 IS II out into the future. I would be happy to pay the $2,000+ pricetag for the 24-105 version II if it were made as it is such a versitile lens (photo & video).
 
Last edited:
cowpunk52 said:
Maybe it's good enough for you, but I've never seen a positive professional review of that lens. Here's more that echo the first:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/297-sigma-af-20mm-f18-ex-test-report--review?start=2
http://slrlensreview.com/web/review.../150-sigma-20mm-f18-ex-dg-asph-rf-lens-review

It's very difficult to make a fast wide-angle lens like that. When/if Canon is able to make one that is up to their optical standards, I'm certain they'll release it. But you seem happy with the Sigma, so why worry about Canon making one?

Oh, and the compact Canon cine zooms are only $24,500! Maybe a better deal now?
Click to expand...
Not really- may as well cost a million....
FYI I've been testing lenses and repairing them for 25 years now so I have pretty good idea about the industry standards...
And what are they comparing this to?
The 20mm f1.8 Canon and Nikon? oh wait -there aren't any haha... Only ones they have are 25% longer- that's a big difference...
Sigmas problem is not the IQ, it's the inconsistent IQ from one copy to another- they are known for this in Asia.
Add to this not so reliable encoders and motors and the focusing suffers.
When I worked for a lens manufacturer we dealt with these issues every day- they were the main challenge...
 
optitek said:
Hahahaha- where is the GOOD news!
$40K a pop- I'd go and buy a house in Lancaster- much better investment...
Click to expand...

Completely off-topic but do you realize that housing prices have only significantly outgrown the rate of inflation twice in the last 200 years? I can't find the research at the moment but I think it was done by Smart Money about 5 years ago. Go look it up. Here's an interesting article for ya. This article only goes back 100 years. The result? Housing prices up about 0.2% per year after inflation. Abysmal!

I'll rent it out, you say? Sure thing. How much revenue will you earn per month on a $40k house? What will your expenses look like? Does that outweigh the money you could make on a $40k lens? Maybe. Maybe not. I dunno. But it's not as simple of a statement as you make it seem.
 
avro said:
Ripp off. I wll spend money on Duclos 11-16 or Red pro 17-50 which fos some reason is discontinued. Jacek any news why RED PRO 17-50 is no longer for sale?
Click to expand...
AFAIK RED gets their deals (and profit on resale) the old school way- they order in big quantities (considering) 1000, 2000, 3000 pieces.
That's their leverage for bargaining. Once they sell out they renegotiate (if the product still has life left in it). But there is a lead time involved from when they place the order and sign till delivery. I think , if Red decided to reorder the 17-50, we are in the lead time period now...
 
The 24-70 f/4 will no doubt beat the 24-105 in sharpness and distortion, but unless it's significantly better, I just don't see anyone paying extra for less reach...
 
Donald Ong said:
The 24-70 f/4 will no doubt beat the 24-105 in sharpness and distortion, but unless it's significantly better, I just don't see anyone paying extra for less reach...
Click to expand...

By specifications released already, 24-70 f/4L seems indeed a great general-purpose zoom lens, better than 24-105. Its MSRP is only about 30% more expensive than that of 24-105. For the extra money, here is what you get: more effective IS (1 stop better and more), quiet AF, no protruding moving part (that's the main thing I don't like on 24-105), shorter, lighter, and - the sweetest part of the deal - an integrated 70mm .70x macro lens!!

The 24-70 f4's macro mode is very useful and should make the loss of 71-105mm range much less relevant. In a lot of scenarios, the end result of zooming in from 70mm to 105mm is just to get something roughly equivalent to a macro effect. And in other scenarios where you really need the extra reach of 35mm, you could just walk up closer to compensate; this is a tradeoff between focal length zoom and subject distance. With 24-70 f4, if that tradeoff cannot be made, of course you do have to use 70mm when and where 105mm would be more desirable.


If I were to pick my lenses again today, I would go for 24-70 f4 instead of 24-105. And I also would prefer 24-70 f4 over 24-70 f2.8 (the f2.8 is not worth its extra cost).

In my opinion, to most shoppers, the biggest advantage of 24-105 over 24-70 f4 is not extra 35mm reach, but its actual sale price (at least on US market). Adding extra $100, I sold my over-5-year-old copy of 24-105 and bought a brand new copy of the same lens! The actual price of a new 24-70 f4 could nearly double that of a new 24-105. If $$$ matters more, go for 105, which by itself is a great L lens.
 
Oller Visuals said:
Personally I find both the 24-70 2.8 & 24-105 to be inferior lenses for photography, the usable zoom range is limited unless you dig lack of sharpness and heavy distortion. Canon's newer lenses (like the very good 70-200 f4) produce excellent IQ and I would expect these new lenses to be top notch at their price point. Of course it would be better with 2.8, but then there is a different pricing and fewer costumers...

Of course, this doesn't matter so much on a 2MP image...
Click to expand...


The two lenses are not inferior in any way. The red ring on their body and the L letter have earmarked their superior status among all the Canon lenses. In fact, they are among the best zoom lenses that money can buy in this world as of today. Their usable zoom ranges cover their entire focal lengths. They are sharp, fast, solid. Their optical distortion is well under control. In overall IQ, 70-200 f4 is no better than 24-70 f2.8, is probably only slightly sharper (for and only for pixel peepers) than 24-105.

Even with a 2MP image (video or not), the difference between an inferior and a superior lens should be very noticeable.
 
henryqiu said:
By specifications released already, 24-70 f/4L seems indeed a great general-purpose zoom lens, better than 24-105. Its MSRP is only about 30% more expensive than that of 24-105. For the extra money, here is what you get: more effective IS (1 stop better and more), quiet AF, no protruding moving part (that's the main thing I don't like on 24-105), shorter, lighter, and - the sweetest part of the deal - an integrated 70mm .70x macro lens!!

The 24-70 f4's macro mode is very useful and should make the loss of 71-105mm range much less relevant. In a lot of scenarios, the end result of zooming in from 70mm to 105mm is just to get something roughly equivalent to a macro effect. And in other scenarios where you really need the extra reach of 35mm, you could just walk up closer to compensate; this is a tradeoff between focal length zoom and subject distance. With 24-70 f4, if that tradeoff cannot be made, of course you do have to use 70mm when and where 105mm would be more desirable.


If I were to pick my lenses again today, I would go for 24-70 f4 instead of 24-105. And I also would prefer 24-70 f4 over 24-70 f2.8 (the f2.8 is not worth its extra cost).

In my opinion, to most shoppers, the biggest advantage of 24-105 over 24-70 f4 is not extra 35mm reach, but its actual sale price (at least on US market). Adding extra $100, I sold my over-5-year-old copy of 24-105 and bought a brand new copy of the same lens! The actual price of a new 24-70 f4 could nearly double that of a new 24-105. If $$$ matters more, go for 105, which by itself is a great L lens.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I really couldn't care less about macro and would rather have the extra 35mm...but that's just me, anyway.
But the better IS and non-protruding barrel (does it apply for zooming?) seems quite nice.

But I doubt it will sell as well as the 105 is offered as a kit with the 6D and 5D, so i would think most people would just take that with the kit (in which it only costs $800) than pay extra for the 24-70 f/4...but hey, we'll have to see if the optics are significantly better. If distortion and vignetting at 24mm is gone, it would be a winner.
 
I have used the 24-105 extensively (more photo than video) and can say the best part of this lens is the extra 35mm reach along with its great color. It is not the sharpest tool, but by no means is it soft. I have found the IS to be wonderful which has allowed me to handhold 24mm images at 1/5th of a second and have 100% zoomed in sharpness. I have also found the minimum focusing distance to be very favorable. The distortion on the wide end is its downfall.

On a portrait shoot, it is frustrating to stop at 70mm if you are taking wider style shots but need a tighter shot. When I shoot sports teams (groups and individuals), the groups are shot at around 50mm and the individuals are 70mm on up. Just pointing out that 24-70 means more lens changes and 24-105 means less lens changes.

I am sure Canon will update the 24-105 at some point, I just wish it would have come before the 24-70. As the lens redesigns really do reach a new level of detail. My first shots back with the 70-200 F4 IS coming from a 70-200 f2.8 were a nice step forward.
 
Lensrentals resolution tests:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

Summary:
24-70 f/2.8 (first version) and 24-105 f/4 IS were about tied
24-70 f/2.8 II is sharper than anything else
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC was right between the canon f/2.8 I and II
The new Canon 24-70 f/4 IS ends up basically tied with the Tamron, so, sharper than the 24-70 f/2.8 (first version) and 24-105 f/4 IS, but nowhere close to the 24-70 f/2.8 II

Given the prices, I'd say it's either "save and go for the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II" if you want the sharpest zoom available, and can live without IS, or go for the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC if you don't want to spend the extra $900. The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS can't beat it for sharpness, but it's slower and more expensive.

Except: there's more than sharpness...
First field reviews should be out soon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top