# 24-70/4 MFT charts



## birtembuk (Nov 6, 2012)

Judging by the MFT charts of the 24-70/4 - to be taken with a grain of salt as usual - we should see a marked improvement from the 24-105. At least comparatively at 24mm. Furthermore, at f/8 the new lens does seem to be on par with the 24/70 II. This should be good news to landscapers, isn't it ? 

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


----------



## spinworkxroy (Nov 6, 2012)

I don't think so.
Landscape photographers will usually want something wider? 16-35 maybe.
They also won't need IS.
I'm just curious what this lens was meant for, landscapes? Portraits? Walkabout? 
It just doesn't seem to fall in anywhere at that price.

For walkabouts, i stil think the 24-105 is a better deal with more range and almost half the price now. Yes it's not as sharp BUT for walkabouts, sharpness isn't a priority.

For people who want the ultimate in sharpness, pay a little more for the F2.8 version
For videographers, sharpness also isn't that great a deal rigth? After all, at 1080P, i believe even the 24-105 does very well.

If this lens was closer to $1k, i can see how it can be for people who want similar f2.8 performance at a fraction of the price. But at this price…it's a little out of reach for people wanting their first L lens and it's also not stellar to go for this instead of the f2.8.


----------



## M.ST (Nov 6, 2012)

A lot of professional landscape photographers use the 16-35 II and not a 24-70 mm lens.

They don´t need IS, because they mostly use professional tripods to get the best image quality.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 6, 2012)

A hardcore landscapephotog uses the TS lenses...

But please, there are a few other categories than landscape sports and walkout. Just sayin..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2012)

Weddings? With ISO 6400 or higher delivering good results on new bodies, f/4 isn't the handicap it was, plus sometimes f/2.8 is a compromise between enough light and not enough DoF. Near macro for ring/flower shots. 

I still don't see it as a popular lens, though, with the 24-105mm still available as a kit lens.


----------



## candyman (Nov 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Weddings? With ISO 6400 or higher delivering good results on new bodies, f/4 isn't the handicap it was, plus sometimes f/2.8 is a compromise between enough light and not enough DoF. Near macro for ring/flower shots.
> 
> I still don't see it as a popular lens, though, with the 24-105mm still available as a kit lens.


 
I can't imagine the 24-70 f/4 being the kit-lens for the 6D - form price point of view (even if the price will drop a little) I can see however the 24-105 as kit-lens. Also because it will offer the entry FF market a real walkaround from focal length point of view and having no telezoom


----------



## SJTstudios (Nov 6, 2012)

The 24-70 f4 IS is canons IPAD MINI, they are targeting a specific crowd, amateurs. People who buy the 24-105 buy it for the is rather than the straight reach, and all the amateurs buying a 6d probably are wannabes portrait shooters, so they go for a 24-70, its a cheaper alternative for a 24-70, not a 24-105 replacement, canon isn't expecting everyone to love it.


----------



## WildEye (Nov 6, 2012)

I just do not understand the pricing.

In Norway a large photography store has listed the lens for 12690,- NOK (exchange rate about ~2300 USD) while the 24-105F4 sells for 8499,- (about ~1500 USD)

The step up to the F2.8 version is not that large. Would have thought that this lens would be a little bit cheaper, if it is supposed to be a kit lens.

Regards,
Espen


----------



## robbymack (Nov 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Weddings? With ISO 6400 or higher delivering good results on new bodies, f/4 isn't the handicap it was, plus sometimes f/2.8 is a compromise between enough light and not enough DoF.



True and I tend to subscribe to the camp that f2.8 isn't fast enough to stop most action in low light although the 5diii is making me reconsider. I doubt however many pro wedding togs would take this over the f2.8ii or the 24-105 unless they have a quiver of fast primes and a bunch of bodies to mount them on.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 6, 2012)

SJTstudios said:


> The 24-70 f4 IS is canons IPAD MINI, they are targeting a specific crowd, amateurs. People who buy the 24-105 buy it for the is rather than the straight reach, and all the amateurs buying a 6d probably are wannabes portrait shooters, so they go for a 24-70, its a cheaper alternative for a 24-70, not a 24-105 replacement, canon isn't expecting everyone to love it.



I failed to understand your logic here: I am sure many amateurs buy it for the reach so they don't have to invest in another lens (105 is sufficient tele for many people). And 24-105 is a great portrait lens both on APS-C and FF, so I am not sure what all these 'amateurs' would have missed out if the 6D was shipped with a 24-105.

On the other hand, it makes sense that the 24-70 is targeted towards people who want to shoot macro, or weddings if the IQ is comparable to 24-70 at equivalent apertures (talking real-world, not MFTs). Would be interesting to see how it compares with the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC though...


----------



## Viggo (Nov 6, 2012)

WildEye said:


> I just do not understand the pricing.
> 
> In Norway a large photography store has listed the lens for 12690,- NOK (exchange rate about ~2300 USD) while the 24-105F4 sells for 8499,- (about ~1500 USD)
> 
> ...



Jeg regner med du mener den gamle 2.8'n Espen og den er nok ikke like bra bildekvalitet og uten IS, men tror mange velger en brukt mk1.

The olden 2.8 will be less sharp and no IS, but I think the second hand market will trade loads of 24-70 f2,8...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 6, 2012)

MTF (not MFT) Charts show sharpness of a lens, and some only look at sharpness. However, distortion, chromatic abberations, vignetting, coma and likely other factors are important.
I'd not judge a lens just by its sharpness, or you might think that (like DXO apparently does) that the Canon 85mm f/1.8 is the best lens in the world.


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 6, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> Landscape photographers will usually want something wider? 16-35 maybe.



Landscape photographers use whatever focal length is best for the scene in front of them. Contrary to popular belief, landscape photography isn't all about wideangle lenses. Landscapes can work just as well (or sometimes better) at medium to long telephoto as wideangle. I actually found my 17-40 too wide on full frame, for the type of landscapes I do and you start getting more problems with vignetting and even filter adaptors visible in frame the wider you go. While everyone is different and different people have access to different types of landscapes, there is no such thing as the perfect landscape lens, beyond the one you have with you. Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is the same. That is one thing that I find frustrating about CR, there are many people that judge things from their perspective and fail to understand that not everyone has the same perspective. What may be the right camera or lens for one person is the wrong one for someone else.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> Landscape photographers use whatever focal length is best for the scene in front of them.



+1. Here's the 100L Macro as a 'landscape lens':




EOS 1D X, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 1/100 s, f/5.6, ISO 200


----------



## Radiating (Nov 6, 2012)

The purpose of this lens is for those who want to trade quality for zoom range. It is higher quality than the 24-105mm It's the highest image quality f/4.0 full frame normal zoom you can buy period.

It seems to me that Canon spent a ton of money trying to make a professional grade 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, failed and so they are trying to get some of their money back by releasing some offshoot products. This lens is probably a scaled down version of the monster 95mm filter thread prototype of the 24-70mm f/2.8 IS we heard about.

The fast primes with IS are the other offshoots.

It's an interesting setup actually.


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 6, 2012)

Is there a legend describing the axies and various line styles for the MTF chart? I really don't know what I'm looking at. 

-Brian


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 6, 2012)

Canon again acted like there was no one else on the market.

Why would you spend double as much as for the 24-105?

Why would you spend considerably more than for the Tamron 24-70?

I hoped this lens was supposed to be priced in the same league of the 17-40. Charging 1500$ for a 24-70 f/4 zoom is ridiculous.


----------



## pdirestajr (Nov 6, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Canon again acted like there was no one else on the market.
> 
> Why would you spend double as much as for the 24-105?
> 
> ...



Maybe because you are getting 2 lenses in 1! You get a standard zoom + a Macro HIS! The price is just MSRP. It'll drop in price a little, then get hit with a rebate, and all of a sudden peeps will feel the urge...


----------



## Aglet (Nov 6, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Canon again acted like there was no one else on the market.
> 
> Why would you spend double as much as for the 24-105?
> 
> ...



Canon had provided 2 very good midrange zooms in the last couple months. Both kind of pricey.
which might have an unintended effect of making Tamon's fast stabilized version look like the best possible compromise and price point.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 6, 2012)

Radiating said:


> It seems to me that Canon spent a ton of money trying to make a professional grade 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, failed...



That's an interesting observation...


----------



## drjlo (Nov 6, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> Maybe because you are getting 2 lenses in 1! You get a standard zoom + a Macro HIS! The price is just MSRP. It'll drop in price a little, then get hit with a rebate, and all of a sudden peeps will feel the urge...



Well, the price will drop eventually, but it will likely take years before it drops to levels the 24-105 dropped to considering MSRP is still listed as $1149 on Canon site. 

I must admit 0.7x magnification at minimum focusing distance of 7.87 does seem awfully handy, especially since a small macro extension tube (with electrical contacts preferably) will easily make it a true Macro lens.. Hope the Canon can match the sheer incredible sharpness of Sigma 70mm macro lens.


----------



## mortadella (Nov 6, 2012)

candyman said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Weddings? With ISO 6400 or higher delivering good results on new bodies, f/4 isn't the handicap it was, plus sometimes f/2.8 is a compromise between enough light and not enough DoF. Near macro for ring/flower shots.
> ...



I get what you are saying about it being a kit lens but if you look at the discount from the $1150 price of the 24-105 to $800 (30% off) for the kit a similar discount on the 24-70f4 would put it at $1000. A $200 price increase on their kits would seem a bit modest for Canon as of late. The more I think about it the more I think it might actually end up being the kit lens. I guess we'll have to wait and see. 

Personally I feel that if they don't make it the kit lens and off the 24-105 its not likely this lens will be any sort of success.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2012)

drjlo said:


> I must admit 0.7x magnification at minimum focusing distance of 7.87 does seem awfully handy, especially since a small macro extension tube (with electrical contacts preferably) will easily make it a true Macro lens.



No, actually - it won't. Add a 12mm tube, and the max mag goes down. Add a 25mm tube and it goes up to a 0.72x (at the wide end, it's 0.4x at the long end with the 25mm tube).


----------



## drjlo (Nov 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > I must admit 0.7x magnification at minimum focusing distance of 7.87 does seem awfully handy, especially since a small macro extension tube (with electrical contacts preferably) will easily make it a true Macro lens.
> ...



Huh, can you point me to the calculator or formula you are using?

I'm getting 0.94x magnification with 20mm extension tube added to the 70mm telephoto end using the stated minimum focus distance of 20 cm. I'm using this calculator:

http://www.flybacon.com/Cameras/Macro.aspx


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2012)

http://eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=jlcalc

But, actually, I missed the point about the shorter MFD of 20 cm that I just read in the description, vs. 38 cm as stated in the Canon specifications. Thanks for pointing that out!

Let's think about the practical implications. An MFD of 20 cm, with the Canon flange-focal distance of 4.4 cm and a lens that when extended to 70 mm focal length is 12 cm long (DPR's spec is a little longer, I subtracted for the part of the mount that extends behind the flange). So the working distance of the bare lens is ~3.6 cm, and if you put on a Canon EF 25 II extension tube (which is actually 27mm long), your working distance is *0.9 cm*, i.e. to get that almost 1:1 magnification, your subject is _less than a finger-width from the front element_. Yikes! H-IS for longer exposure or not, with the apparent light loss at high reproduction ratios, it's going to be pretty hard to use this lens for macro.


----------



## well_dunno (Nov 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Kernuak said:
> 
> 
> > Landscape photographers use whatever focal length is best for the scene in front of them.
> ...



+1, and Neuro, that is one beautiful image!


----------



## drjlo (Nov 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> http://eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=jlcalc
> 
> your working distance is *0.9 cm*, i.e. to get that almost 1:1 magnification, your subject is _less than a finger-width from the front element_. Yikes! H-IS for longer exposure or not, with the apparent light loss at high reproduction ratios, it's going to be pretty hard to use this lens for macro.



As scary as that sounds, those of us coming from the MP-E 65 macro lens at least understand what that entails.

Honestly, 0.7x is pretty darn good already, and if I ever buy the 24-70 f/4 IS, I likely will forgo extension tubes and just shoot at 0.7x and crop a bit in post..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2012)

drjlo said:


> As scary as that sounds, those of us coming from the MP-E 65 macro lens at least understand what that entails.



Yeah, but even at 5x on the MP-E 65mm there's a working distance of 4 cm (the bare 24-70/4L IS has less WD). At less than 1 cm of WD, there's not even room to put an MT-24EX on there (the step-down ring, Macrolite adapter, and mount ring would mean you'd only be able to backlight your subject with the twin lite). 

That's ok, though - there's a workaround. Imagine it...the 24-70mm f/4L IS as a very convenient, dual purpose walk around lens - general purpose zoom and macro. Made only slightly less convenient by the necessary lighting for macro shooting...


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 7, 2012)

Radiating said:


> It seems to me that Canon spent a ton of money trying to make a professional grade 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, failed and so they are trying to get some of their money back by releasing some offshoot products.



How did they fail? The 24-70/2.8L II seems to be a great success. I've found it to be excellent so far. It is the reason why I won't be buying the 24-70/4L, which will no doubt be a fine lens, but won't be as useful for indoor photography due to its f/4 aperture.


----------



## PackLight (Nov 7, 2012)

I have a question, what is a *MFT* chart? I can't find one any where. The only one I could find was for an investment fund.

But here is what I say if I were a buyer of this lens;

"I just bought a 6D, I choose this lens because I want an all purpose zoom and I enjoy taking closeup pictures of my flowers and butterfly's in my back yard."


----------



## K-amps (Nov 7, 2012)

candyman said:


> I can't imagine the 24-70 f/4 being the kit-lens for the 6D - form price point of view (even if the price will drop a little)



Can't disagree but there something (from a Psycho-sales perspective) that 6D + 24-70/4 = $3499 and 5diii Body only $3499.... 


give or take...


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 7, 2012)

PackLight said:


> I have a question, what is a *MFT* chart?



It tells you about sharpness, contrast reproduction and bokeh quality at wide open and (for Canon) @f8. It doesn't tell you about vignetting, distortion, flare or onion bokeh.

This is what you want to read (and then read again and again trying to remember it ): http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question, what is a *MFT* chart?
> ...



No, it doesn't. You seem to be describing an *MTF* chart. That's not answering PackLight's question. Might want to re-read the post...


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Might want to re-read the post...



Whoops, the auto-spelling correction in my eyes seamlessly transformed the abbreviation - and it might have really been a question about mtf since the concept isn't self-explanatory. But thanks for notifying me


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> http://eosdoc.com/manuals/?q=jlcalc
> 
> But, actually, I missed the point about the shorter MFD of 20 cm that I just read in the description, vs. 38 cm as stated in the Canon specifications. Thanks for pointing that out!
> 
> Let's think about the practical implications. An MFD of 20 cm, with the Canon flange-focal distance of 4.4 cm and a lens that when extended to 70 mm focal length is 12 cm long (DPR's spec is a little longer, I subtracted for the part of the mount that extends behind the flange). So the working distance of the bare lens is ~3.6 cm, and if you put on a Canon EF 25 II extension tube (which is actually 27mm long), your working distance is *0.9 cm*, i.e. to get that almost 1:1 magnification, your subject is _less than a finger-width from the front element_. Yikes! H-IS for longer exposure or not, with the apparent light loss at high reproduction ratios, it's going to be pretty hard to use this lens for macro.


A Kenko 1.4X TC might be better than tubes for a lens like this if you want macro. I'm not recommending it, but putting the objective a fraction of a inch from the subject makes it very difficult to illuminate and easy to get squashed bug on your lens.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 8, 2012)

I'm wondering if this will effectively kill-off the 24-105, which I own. I find the extra 35mm invaluable as a travel lens.


----------



## birtembuk (Nov 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > As scary as that sounds, those of us coming from the MP-E 65 macro lens at least understand what that entails.
> ...



Neuro, talking macro here, could you kindly tell about those wonderful extending arms fit on this MT-24EX ? Been trying hard to find this sort of contraption, but not to avail yet. I sometimes use one of the flashes by hand for back-lighting but when doing macro, I'd prefer to keep my third hand to hold the umbrella


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2012)

birtembuk said:


> Neuro, talking macro here, could you kindly tell about those wonderful extending arms fit on this MT-24EX ? Been trying hard to find this sort of contraption, but not to avail yet. I sometimes use one of the flashes by hand for back-lighting but when doing macro, I'd prefer to keep my third hand to hold the umbrella



That's a Really Right Stuff flash bracket setup. For the MT-24EX, look in the Off-Camera Flash section, FR-87-QR bracket, a second B-87-QRFM mount, and a pair of FA-QREX2 extenders. RRS gear is exceptionally high quality, but not cheap. The setup above will run you about the same as the current price MT-24EX itself, a little more if you have to add the Arca-Swiss-type plate to mount the bracket (a lens plate for a collared lens like the 180L, or multipurpose rail w/ clamp to convert the 'sideways' body plate/L-bracket to a fore-aft plate for the flash bracket).

I'll be ordering the above setup, plus a B-150B macro rail, in the next few days.


----------



## birtembuk (Nov 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's a Really Right Stuff flash bracket setup. For the MT-24EX, look in the Off-Camera Flash section, FR-87-QR bracket, a second B-87-QRFM mount, and a pair of FA-QREX2 extenders. RRS gear is exceptionally high quality, but not cheap. The setup above will run you about the same as the current price MT-24EX itself, a little more if you have to add the Arca-Swiss-type plate to mount the bracket (a lens plate for a collared lens like the 180L, or multipurpose rail w/ clamp to convert the 'sideways' body plate/L-bracket to a fore-aft plate for the flash bracket).
> 
> I'll be ordering the above setup, plus a B-150B macro rail, in the next few days.



Terrific ! Thanks for this invaluable info. Price will be secondary issue compared to how, in SEA, I'm going to be able to put my hand (the remaining one) on this incredible stuff.


----------



## RafaPolit (Nov 8, 2012)

I myself fail completely to see the market for this lens. Sure, if they are going to 'force it down your throat' as a Kit lens, maybe... but lets see who would choose this lens:
- For versatility, the 24-105 has the same widest aperture, and considerably longer reach.
- For speed, you have any of the 24-70 2.8 options (including the mI) in Canon and even other brands.
- For those 'amateurs' looking for a good lens, they are probably on an APS-C sensor, and therefore have MUCH better and less expensive choices like the 17-55 f2.8 IS .

Again, if it would be on the $1K range... then I can see this as a good lens which several people will chose: newer better optics vs. the extra 35mm reach of the 24-105 could be interesting, but not paying TWICE as much!!! Never! As mentioned, for APS-C sensors, the shorter focal range zooms are actually more in the 'normal' range, the 17-40 included, which sells for about $700!.

So this lens is certainly best for FF cameras, and those having them will either pay the extra for the 2.8 versions or go for primes. I really only see them ditching the 24-105 (which would be purely from a marketing point of view as it is a fantastic lens! they would really be ill-treating customers if they dropped it!) and forcing this new 24-70 f4 as a kit lens.

So, IMHO, I see a purely commercial move that will involve some very 'wrong' (from the customer point of view) decisions. I see no other 'great' scenario for this lens. The 17-40 is better for most landscapers and crop sensors, the 24-70 mI, mII and Tamron are better choices for professionals and the 24-105 is a better choice for an all around lens.

I really fail to see this lenses purpose as well as others (and I don't think the 24-70 mII is a great success from a technological point of view, its a great success commercially because people just *have* to have the latest and priciest, but I believe, as others, that Canon 'failed' with that lens - which doesn't mean people are not buying it... perhaps we are talking about different types of 'fail' here - )

Rafa.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 8, 2012)

RafaPolit said:


> - For those 'amateurs' looking for a good lens, they are probably on an APS-C sensor, and therefore have MUCH better and less expensive choices like the 17-55 f2.8 IS.



Since Canon obviously is not able to release something better than the very iso-limited 18mp sensor (i.e. everything above iso 800 is crappy) it makes sense even for an amateur to get ff. When the 6d price drops it won't be far away from the 7d which some people only get for the sturdy build & sealing and not for the af or fps.


----------



## birtembuk (Nov 8, 2012)

RafaPolit said:


> I really fail to see this lenses purpose as well as others (and I don't think the 24-70 mII is a great success from a technological point of view, its a great success commercially because people just *have* to have the latest and priciest, but I believe, as others, that Canon 'failed' with that lens - which doesn't mean people are not buying it... perhaps we are talking about different types of 'fail' here - )
> 
> Rafa.



Look, if I had to have only one lens in my bag, it would probably be the 24-105. Don't want to be controversial here, but from what I understand, this lens is usually considered good but not really stellar. If the MTF (sorry for misspelling...) charts deliver what they promise, this 24-70/4 should be markedly better - at least in sharpness - than the 24-105 and close to 24-70/II.

I am rather a prime shooter. Yet sometimes I am a bit annoyed at having to swap lenses all the time. I miss a general photo zoom in this range for happy-go-lucky shooting. I won't go for the 24-105. I think a bit far from what I am used with primes, I guess. I'm still holding going for the 24-70/II as I still have to swallow the +700/800 bucks for new 82mm filters.

So, when this 24-70/4 comes in with IS, 0.7x macro, 77mm thread and promising MTF charts, I think it looks like a sound package. Well, to me at least.


----------



## RafaPolit (Nov 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ...Since Canon obviously is not able to release something better than the very iso-limited 18mp sensor (i.e. everything above iso 800 is crappy) it makes sense even for an amateur to get ff...


Well, I disagree with you apparently in every front  . I have a T2i and can count on ISO1600 for everything, even big and important shots, and I can count on ISO3200 for semi-decent results (if I nail the exposure... underexpose a 1/3th of a stop and you are dead!), but I might concede to the fact that we are limited in ISO.

But to claim that amateurs can go for a FF is really a bold statement. Most amateurs (or even some budget-limited half-time professionals like me) simply cannot afford FF, both in camera and glass. So crop sensor + good lenses for us is quite a different approach all togther.

So, while I see where your reasoning is coming from, its not really true for a lot of us who simply cannot afford a $2500 camera and another $2500 lens!

Best regards,
Rafa.


----------



## RafaPolit (Nov 8, 2012)

birtembuk said:


> ...Look, if I had to have only one lens in my bag, it would probably be the 24-105. Don't want to be controversial here, but from what I understand, this lens is usually considered good but not really stellar. If the MTF (sorry for misspelling...) charts deliver what they promise, this 24-70/4 should be markedly better - at least in sharpness - than the 24-105 and close to 24-70/II...


Glad to see the perspective of the actual buyers this lens might be targeted to (I really failed to see cases like yours). My only note on your decision making process is that you are basing it on charts. When we saw the 24-70 mII charts we all thought: Ok, nothing will touch this lens... but on-the-field experiences have shown that it is good, but not that much better than the mI (certainly NOT $1000 extra!).

So, I'm sure Canon is not about to butcher their own sells of the mII producing a sharpness-matching $1500 lens, they'd have to be crazy! So I believe we can all assume that the f4 would be considerably less good than the f2.8 mII (for the 2.8 to be still a viable choice!). So I believe you'll see marginal (if any) improvements over the 24-105! This is, of course, speculation, I have no hard facts to support this, I'll just have to wait until there is reasonable out on the field samples.

At any rate, I'm glad you see in this your niche lens. Perhaps I really don't know the market at all. Best regards,
Rafa.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 8, 2012)

RafaPolit said:


> So, I'm sure Canon is not about to butcher their own sells of the mII producing a sharpness-matching $1500 lens, they'd have to be crazy!



However the 24-70/4 has the latest IS system and near-macro capability, so it's really in a different class than the 24-70/2.8 which are pure event lenses where the IS wouldn't have time to lock anyway - internal competition should be minimal in this case. 



RafaPolit said:


> When we saw the 24-70 mII charts we all thought: Ok, nothing will touch this lens... but on-the-field experiences have shown that it is good, but not that much better than the mI (certainly NOT $1000 extra!).



How much "worth" $1000 is certainly depends on how deep your pockets are, and the mk2 has better af quality with the 1dx/5d3 af system next to being sharper @f2.8 across the frame.

But as the LensRentals review suggests the mk2 has a more sturdy build that is less prone to decentering when taking a hit - so you have to substract the price of some tours to Canon service from the mk2 price and add it to the mk1.


----------



## turtle (Nov 8, 2012)

Radiating, have you used the new 24-70II that you suggest is a failure? I have and it is by far the best zoom lens I have ever used on any camera (then again I do not own the 70-200 L II). Expensive it is, but it is also breathtakingly good. it is every bit as good as the best L primes I have, yet all from a zoom.

The new 24-70 f4L is, IMO, a great walkaround lens for people who have a 70-200 F4 and do not need the overlap from 70-105. By offering higher IQ than the 24-105 and a smaller package, it would be more appealing to me for example (I have a 70-200 F4 L).

The 24-105 does not cut it in the corners at the wide end, but that might be because I am used to Leica, Zeiss and L primes for careful static work. The new 24-70 II is dramatically better and if the new f4 lens comes close to this, then it will be good news for those frustrated by the 24-105's corners.


----------



## 35mm Film (Nov 8, 2012)

My wife is going to buy one, also this lens might go great with the EOS M.


----------



## sawsedge (Nov 8, 2012)

My $0.02. 

I just sold half of my gear to pay for the 5D3. I was left with the 50 f/1.4, 100 macro, and 100-400. I've been using the 50 as my walkaround lens, and just love the IQ. I'm kind of spoiled by it. 

So I'm in the market for a general purpose zoom, with a taste for quality (tough spot to be in, on a budget ). When I want wide, I've found, historically, that 24mm is usually just right for me. I was eyeing the 24-105 as a great range, but just a little put off by the not-quite-stellar performance at 24mm. I have a feeling I wouldn't be happy with the 24-105 on the wide end, and adding the 24mm f/2.8 IS kind of puts me close to the 24-70 II price range...

Enter the 24-70 f/4L IS. While not a bargain, it might be closer to what I have in mind, IQ-wise, and be a bit more affordable, cheaper and more convenient than other combinations I've considered. I'd still prefer a 24-105, but I'm also likely to take the IQ over the range. I'm waiting to see test results, including bokeh.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 12, 2012)

PackLight said:


> I have a question, what is a *MFT* chart? I can't find one any where. The only one I could find was for an investment fund.



Yeah... for investing in Canon L lenses.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 13, 2012)

birtembuk said:


> Judging by the MFT charts of the 24-70/4 - to be taken with a grain of salt as usual - we should see a marked improvement from the 24-105. At least comparatively at 24mm. Furthermore, at f/8 the new lens does seem to be on par with the 24/70 II. This should be good news to landscapers, isn't it ?
> 
> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_4l_is_usm



I had hoped, but at 24mm it actually scores a fair bit lower on MTF at the corners and edges than the 24-70 II 2.8 it looks like. Maybe it has field curvature or a sort that works out really well in the real world and it will do about as well anyway???

It certainly looks like it will show up the 24-105L for what it is, a very convenient and yet a lens that has IQ that is relatively whatever for an L.

But to be priced THAT much more than the 24-105 it sure would have been nice for the MTF to fully match the 24-70 II at the wide end.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 13, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> I don't think so.
> Landscape photographers will usually want something wider? 16-35 maybe.
> They also won't need IS.
> I'm just curious what this lens was meant for, landscapes? Portraits? Walkabout?
> It just doesn't seem to fall in anywhere at that price.



Not necessarily. For many shots wider than 24mm is too wide. Many landscape shooters actually use a 70-200/300 at least as much as a 24mm prime or 24-70/105 sort of lens. I've never even gotten around to getting a wider than 24mm lens yet myself, although now and then it would have been useful.

IS would help for general shots and even for landscape for the times you are hiking with friends or simply want to see a lot of stuff and don't have time to use tripods non-stop and yet still want to get the best picks you can manage even though it's not a 100% ultimate dedicated picture taking outing, such scenarios can occur very often.

And the MTF makes it look a lot better than 24-105, which some have found disappointing, on FF, on the wide end when you want edge to edge crisp little landscape details. Many simply can't afford the 24-70 II.



> For people who want the ultimate in sharpness, pay a little more for the F2.8 version



I may end up keeping my 24-70 II in part because of that.




> If this lens was closer to $1k, i can see how it can be for people who want similar f2.8 performance at a fraction of the price. But at this price…it's a little out of reach for people wanting their first L lens and it's also not stellar to go for this instead of the f2.8.



It does seems a touch pricey since the MTF don't quite match the 24-70 II at the wide end.
But maybe real world it will do as well?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 13, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > Landscape photographers will usually want something wider? 16-35 maybe.
> ...



Indeed. I'd bet that I'd need wider than 24mm for landscapes only 5% of the time, more likely only 1-2%.


----------



## andy (Nov 15, 2012)

The 24-70 f4 lens is being offered as the kit lens with a 6D at Camera Canada for $3299.00. $400 more than the kit with the 24-105 f4. I think the 24-70 will make a pretty good match for an advanced amateur camera. By adding a fast fixed lens for night shooting and perhaps the 70-200 f2.8 II as a future prize it could be a relative cheap way for amateurs to enter the FF market and have a system with fairly high IQ, admittedly with limitations.


----------

