[toni-a]

Well when you are choosing 24-105f4L IS over the excellent 24-70f4IS it's clear you are after range and ready for the compromise

[Arthur Macmillan]

 

<div style="color:rgb(29,33,41);font-family:Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">
<div>(IS group ? I hate image stabilizers ...)
</div>
</div>

 

This seems to be a very popular Euro outlook.  In fact, I've been hanging around here so much I'm starting to feel that way myself, just a little bit.  I still like IS, but now I consider it the lesser of two evils, rather than god's gift to photographers. 


It is nice to have this aspect pointed out to me so thanks to you and Bright Colors, and the rest.


LOL-  I am rejoining this party way late, but I had silly hopes for this lens, even though after looking at the specs, design, and Canons own MTF charts I couldn't really see where the improvement is.  Time to read the rest of the comments


I guess my comment doesn't warrant an answer.  Just wanted to give props to you and the forum for helping me in my way to lens nerd status!

[Arthur Macmillan]

Manufacturers need to keep the testers awake and kicking. Bad headlines are better than no headlines. With bad headlines the *cough* fanboys are willing to defend their decisions which always gives a view, that not all is crap from a certain manufacturer. 

 

Let's be clear!  Are you knocking Sigma fanboys?  I don't have a single modern sigma lens, from the Global View Era.  But I might qualify as a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 art fanboy since they've managed to sell me on that one - and I've never even seen one! 


Or do you mean Canon L lens fanboys which I might be someday.  The problem is, I've only used three L-lenses, and nothing as iffy as any version 24-105 F/4L.  Since the 24-70mm F/xL all seem well received, I don't think I will go with a ? for the extra 35mm on the long end.

[Arthur Macmillan]

Alternatively, get 24L II, 35LII, 50L, 85L II and 135L <GDR>.

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

I guess your not sold on the new lens either!  I'd take any one of those over it.  Probably starting with the 85 Lii.

[Arthur Macmillan]

Well when you are choosing 24-105f4L IS over the excellent 24-70f4IS it's clear you are after range and ready for the compromise

 

I agree!  But I also seems less risky to go with a lens with an established track record.  Add the fact that it is much lighter, and has the ability to .7x magnification, and it is an all around funner choice for a walk around lens to me.  


But I was hoping!  If they had pulled it off, it would be nice to have the extra reach, but It just doesn't seem ready for prime time yet.

[JJ_SO]

Let's be clear!  Are you knocking Sigma fanboys?  I don't have a single modern sigma lens, from the Global View Era.  But I might qualify as a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 art fanboy since they've managed to sell me on that one - and I've never even seen one! 


Or do you mean Canon L lens fanboys which I might be someday.  The problem is, I've only used three L-lenses, and nothing as iffy as any version 24-105 F/4L.  Since the 24-70mm F/xL all seem well received, I don't think I will go with a ? for the extra 35mm on the long end.

First, making sarcastic fun to me is not "knocking" but I'm no native speaker so you could as well describe what I did precisely in your words.

Second, I mean fanboys in general. As long as a manufacturer surprises me by doing things better than I expected, I'm pleased and on the step of becoming fanboy. I cross that step when I defend an objective disadvantage with slightly weird reasons, like "yes, IQ could be better, but the pouch they put in the box is very nice"

[wim]

I guess your not sold on the new lens either!  I'd take any one of those over it.  Probably starting with the 85 Lii.

 

I am generally not a big fan of zoom lenses. And the 24-105L, although I had one, was ok-ish except in darker situations, where the rendering never pleased me at all. Somehow a lot less sharp to start with.

 

Since I have been a prime shooter from an early age - there wasn't anything else for a long time -, and I generally use zooms at their extremes, I went back to only primes again, and much happier that way. The only compromise is the 100-400L, but then, to get equivalent primes gets uncomfortable with the extra weight .

With MFT it is simple, I am still experimenting, but I am gravitating more and more towards primes there as well - generally lighter and more compact .

 

Regarding using Canon or other glass: non-Canon glass never satisfied me, I just love the way Canon L glass renders images, especially the primes. I am not a fanboy per se, I'll recommend anything to anybody depending on budget and preference.

I do have specific preferences myself, however, f.e., I do not like how Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses render at all, and I have tried very many of those. Just not my style.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[Arthur Macmillan]

First, making sarcastic fun to me is not "knocking" but I'm no native speaker...

 

Joju, I was not trying to be sarcastic.  I was the one who was unclear.  I wanted to know if you were taking a position that Sigma, or Canon L-lenses were over hyped.  By the time I finished reading all of the comments in this, and another thread I realized you were possibly saying, "I'd just by a Sigma, but go ahead and tell me why I'm wrong..."  More or less.

 

I enjoy your comments, and hey, I love the pouches that come with L-lenses!

 

Lastly, I was interested if it was a Sigma vs. L-lens position because I have never had one of the Global Vision "Art" lenses.  I want the 50/1.4 art based on reviews.  It seems better than the EF 50/1.2L.  I'm also looking for a 35 and an 85.  Sigma and Tamron have contenders.  So I just like to here what people think of them.  Until recently I'd just say buy Canon, or throw your lens away when it breaks in a few years.  Now...That may no longer be the case. 

 

Look, I don't speak two languages fluently!  I don't make fun of people because of language skills!

[Arthur Macmillan]

Regarding using Canon or other glass: non-Canon glass never satisfied me, I just love the way Canon L glass renders images, especially the primes. I am not a fanboy per se, I'll recommend anything to anybody depending on budget and preference.

I do have specific preferences myself, however, f.e., I do not like how Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses render at all, and I have tried very many of those. Just not my style.

 

Kind regards, Wim

 

This is the kind of comment I am after!  For a long time I relied on Tamron SP glass because of price.  But as soon as I tried Canon L glass, it was very solid and very pleasing.  Currently I have all of 3 L-lenses. 

 

Yet there are intangibles.  I got the Voigtlander APO Lanthar 90mm F/3.5 SL-2, and I just love it!  It is a joy to use.  I think it has something like 270 degrees of smooth as silk focus ring.  I'm not the greatest with manual focus, but I'd say my keeper ratio with this lens is pretty good.  Maybe even 100%.  The rendering is not nearly as good as my 70-200L.  And though that is a zoom lens, I consider it to render better than any of my other lenses.

 

But in general, your words pull me pack a little from the Sigma Fever that is spreading.  Has Sigma really slayed the Red Ring Kings?  I have read some reviews state that one of the Sigma Art lenses was the best lens they have every used, bar none.  Big words! 

[wim]

This is the kind of comment I am after!  For a long time I relied on Tamron SP glass because of price.  But as soon as I tried Canon L glass, it was very solid and very pleasing.  Currently I have all of 3 L-lenses. 

 

Yet there are intangibles.  I got the Voigtlander APO Lanthar 90mm F/3.5 SL-2, and I just love it!  It is a joy to use.  I think it has something like 270 degrees of smooth as silk focus ring.  I'm not the greatest with manual focus, but I'd say my keeper ratio with this lens is pretty good.  Maybe even 100%.  The rendering is not nearly as good as my 70-200L.  And though that is a zoom lens, I consider it to render better than any of my other lenses.

 

But in general, your words pull me pack a little from the Sigma Fever that is spreading.  Has Sigma really slayed the Red Ring Kings?  I have read some reviews state that one of the Sigma Art lenses was the best lens they have every used, bar none.  Big words! 

In the end it is not likely just about how sharp a lens is, but about your photographs with a lens .

 

Sigma has not really "slayed" the RRKs, or the pro Nikon glass, it is just that some of the new lenses are slightly better (note: some, and slightly) than the existing kings. F.e., the 12-24 FF doesn't look much better than the old EX version to my eyes, and I absolutely hated that. Also, speaking for canon, the 85L II is quite an ancient lens by today's standards .

 

The question really is whether you like the way a lens renders on your camera. In my case, Voigtländer only gets sharp stopped down quite a bit, and appears hazy to me from a tonal POV. Same with Zeiss, although slightly less so. My Canon lenses OTOH have great contrast, and it looks like that is one of the characteristics I like. Also, I find the sharpness roll-off to be not as abrupt as, f.e., Nikkors. That's another thing I like. What I don't like so much is that the newer lenes are getting bigger and heavier all the time , but that appears to be a necessity with higher MP sensors ....

 

BTW, rendering is one of the reasons why I have taken a big liking to MFT these days.

 

BTW2: If I had know what I know now, rather than acquiring a 350D back at the time when I did, I would have gone straight away for a 5D, which was available as well at that time, plus some L-lenses . I would have saved myself a lot of money . Eventually I went that route anyway.

 

Kind regards, Wim