Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS II
#1
New:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-...ec/mtf.png


Old:

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-...ec/mtf.png


Still issues at 24mm in the corners. 

I was already wondering why Canon didn't include any UD glass in there.

#2
Hi Klaus,

 

Would UD glass make some much difference? Has it to do with price of UD glass that they didn't put it in?

 

Kind regards,


Reinier

#3
It has to do with the optical design, that no UD is used. The design choices, probably with price.

 

Sigma does use "UD" glass in their lens:

[Image: 635-lens-construction_0.png][Image: lens-aspherical-sgv.jpg][Image: lens-fld-sgv.jpg][Image: lens-sld-sgv.jpg]

It does not "magically" make corners great:

[Image: 635_mtf-chart.gif]

#4
Quote:Hi Klaus,


Would UD glass make some much difference? Has it to do with price of UD glass that they didn't put it in?


Kind regards,


Reinier
There was some UD glass even in a few non-L lenses, or a couple of lower end Red rings like the 70-200/4 non-IS. There must be a different explanation...
#5
At the end of the day everything is a matter of design.

However, the lack of UD elements is a bit puzzling in the year 2016.

UD elements are often used to lower CAs.

By today's standards the lens is reasonably priced which may indicate some cost cutting measures.

#6
UD glass in itself is no magic sauce: I've perused the Canon camera museum a little and even the 17-40 has a Super UD glass element inside - but we all know the 17-40 is not a "wow" lens by any stretch of imagination. Ditto the 70-300 non-L (which has one UD piece inside). I guess we should hold our judgement until Klaus reviews the new 24-105... but again, there would be probably no way to directly compare them since I don't think you're going to test either the 24-105 II on a 5D Mark II or the 24-105 non-II on a 5DSR to give us a direct comparison. Or are you?

#7
Quote:UD glass in itself is no magic sauce: I've perused the Canon camera museum a little and even the 17-40 has a Super UD glass element inside - but we all know the 17-40 is not a "wow" lens by any stretch of imagination. Ditto the 70-300 non-L (which has one UD piece inside). I guess we should hold our judgement until Klaus reviews the new 24-105... but again, there would be probably no way to directly compare them since I don't think you're going to test either the 24-105 II on a 5D Mark II or the 24-105 non-II on a 5DSR to give us a direct comparison. Or are you?
 

Depends
#8
I feel sorry for prodding you though.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)