Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2 new lenses coming from Canon
#1
An EF 24-70mm f4 L IS USM (probably meant as kit lens for D600), a direct competitor to the new Nikon AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR.

And an EF 35mm f2 IS USM to replace the quite lovely but aging EF 35mm f2.

[Image: ef2470f4is.jpg]

[Image: ef35f2is.jpg]
#2
Hmmh, the MTFs for the 24-70/4L look rather disappointing.
#3
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1352187259' post='20832']

Hmmh, the MTFs for the 24-70/4L look rather disappointing.

[/quote]



The pricing of both lenses is a bit nuts, isn't it ?
#4
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1352187485' post='20833']

The pricing of both lenses is a bit nuts, isn't it ?

[/quote]

Yes, the prices are a bit steep again, just like with the 24mm and 28mm IS USM and 24-70mm f2.8 L II.
#5
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1352187259' post='20832']

Hmmh, the MTFs for the 24-70/4L look rather disappointing.

[/quote]

The MTF's look ok, I think, especially for 70mm... The 24mm MTF is the kinda disappointing one. Looks better than the 24mm-105mm f4 L USM, worse than the 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II.

Compared to the Nikon, the MTF looks not bad again.



It is just the introduction price of the lens that is too steep, though. The weather sealing, constant "aperture", hybrid IS from the 100mm f2.8 L IS USM macro do drive its price up of course. Oh well...



Canon f4:

[Image: mtf.png]

Canon f2.8 II:

[Image: mtf.png]

Canon 24-105mm f4:

[Image: mtf.png]

Nikon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 VR:

[Image: pic_002.png][Image: pic_003.png]
#6
The 35mm f2 IS has improved MTF's compared to the old 35mm f2, and totally different optics:

Old:

[Image: mtf.png]

New:

[Image: mtf.png]

Old:

[Image: lens-construction.png]

New:

[Image: lens-construction.png]
#7
Nikon manufacturer MTFs cannot be compared to Canon MTFs - they are all using different parameters for their data.



As far as the 24-70/4L is concerned - its MTFs should be better than the ones of the 24-70/2.8 II. It's obviously slower and as such way easier to design and given the rather marginal price difference the quality of the used materials should be pretty much up to the same standards.
#8
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1352191569' post='20843']

As far as the 24-70/4L is concerned - its MTFs should be better than the ones of the 24-70/2.8 II. It's obviously slower and as such way easier to design and given the rather marginal price difference the quality of the used materials should be pretty much up to the same standards.

[/quote]

Marginal price difference?



Canon lists the 24-70mm f2.8 L USM II for €2623, and this new 24-70mm f4 L IS USM for €1495. 57% of the price, or €1128 less, that is not marginal in any sense. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

The 24-105mm f4 L IS USM is listed for €1291.



The new f4's MTFs look quite a bit better than the 24-105mm's.



I do agree (as I said before) that the price is too steep.



Do not forget though, that the new EF 24-70mm f2.8 f4 L IS USM doubles as a macro lens, with its hybrid IS system from the EF 100mm f2.8 L IS USM Macro and its 0.7x macro ability (1:1.43 is really good).
#9
When the rumour first surfaced I thought that a 24-70 would be a step back from the 24-105, but with the near macro capability and hybrid IS, I think I'm sold! My camera bags are heavy enough already, so not having to carry a macro lens (unless I'm going seriously macro) would be a nice saving there.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#10
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1352196447' post='20847']

When the rumour first surfaced I thought that a 24-70 would be a step back from the 24-105, but with the near macro capability and hybrid IS, I think I'm sold! My camera bags are heavy enough already, so not having to carry a macro lens (unless I'm going seriously macro) would be a nice saving there.

[/quote]

Popo, you don't need to carry a macro lens, considering you have a 50 F/1.8 and a 135L. Those two work very well in macro ranges with one or more extension tubes <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />. And so does the 100-400L with a 500D closeup lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 1 zoom, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, extension tubes, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II and Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ...
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)