# Canon 24-70 2.8 ll or 20-60 2.8 mark 1 ?



## rlarsen (May 12, 2013)

I've been increasingly tempted to replace my 24-70 2.8 with the new mark ll model.
I was surprised and quite disappointed to discover how much wider the new lens is at both ends of the zoom !

I always wished the lens was a little longer, a 24 to 85 would be ideal. Discovering the new lens is now shorter at "70mm" makes me less eager to purchase it even with improvements to sharpness. I wonder what the acceptable tolerances are when naming a lens focal length ? Is it a 20-60 f 2.8 mark 1 ?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 12, 2013)

Focal lengths are listed when the lens is focused at infinity. Most lenses are not parfocal, that is they change focal length when focused and or zoomed, one of the many reasons high end movie lenses are so expensive is that they are parfocal.

So our EOS lenses are so cheap partly because they are not parfocal. Be glad you are not a Nikon owner, their 70-200 f2.8 is close to a 130mm at closest focus distance! Generally that is yet another metric where Canon outperforms Nikon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 12, 2013)

The zoom range focal lengths will be reasonably close to spec, within 8% or less..

As noted, specs are always at infinity. Parfocal is the property of a lens changing focus as you zoom put and has nothing to do with focal length changing at close focal distances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parfocal_lens

Focus breathing is the property that causes focal length to change as you change focus.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/focus_breathing_focal_length_changes.html


----------



## dolina (May 12, 2013)

If I recall correctly the 100-400 IS zoom is shorter than a 400/5.6 prime.


----------



## rlarsen (May 12, 2013)

Interesting stuff, especially the part about the zoom being "cheaper" because it's par focal. The reason I passed on buying the $2,200 zoom is because it is wider than my mark l lens. I appreciate and welcome the explanations, but side by side the new zoom is clearly different than the old zoom in terms of focal length. 70 mm is barely long enough for my needs and the MK ll comes up short. Of course I'm guessing that it's 20 to 60 mm, not sure what it really is. 
What if the 5D Mark lll wasn't quite full-frame, not quite 6 frames per second, didn't really have a 100% viewfinder ?

I wish I could be off by a couple hundred dollars on my payment for the lens and could say it's within tolerance, it's par currency.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> So our EOS lenses are so cheap partly because they are not parfocal.



The 24-70mm f/2.8 mk2 is "so cheap"? Hmmm...


----------



## RomainF (May 12, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > So our EOS lenses are so cheap partly because they are not parfocal.
> ...



Yes it is. All our glasses, even the "high-end" ones like our brand new mk.II are definitely cheap lenses compared to movies lenses. 
I ain't "cheap", for sure, but take a few minutes to have a look at cine glasses and you'll be glad that the 24-70 II is "only" 2K$.


----------



## Vossie (May 12, 2013)

RomainF said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I never understood why cine lenses are saw awfully expensive. Is it because they are parfocal or. Are there other reasons? I guess resolving power is less of an issue than for still photography (4K is only ~8MP).


----------



## Knut Skywalker (May 12, 2013)

Vossie said:


> I never understood why cine lenses are saw awfully expensive. Is it because they are parfocal or. Are there other reasons? I guess resolving power is less of an issue than for still photography (4K is only ~8MP).



Yes, but but cinema cameras have smaller sensors, too. So the pixel density is higher than on a 8MP full-frame.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Be glad you are not a Nikon owner, their 70-200 f2.8 is close to a 130mm at closest focus distance! Generally that is yet another metric where Canon outperforms Nikon.


Interesting ... I did not know that ... thanks for sharing.


----------



## Tanja (May 12, 2013)

> I never understood why cine lenses are saw awfully expensive.




http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/why-cinema-lenses-cost-so-much/

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/content.php?103-Why-We-Need-Cinema-Lenses


----------



## privatebydesign (May 12, 2013)

Mt Spokane was of course correct, I was tired! Parfocal is when zooming and focus breathing is when focusing!




> "The 24-70mm f/2.8 mk2 is "so cheap"? Hmmm..."



Oh yes, take a look at this direct comparison, 

Canon 50 f1.2 $1,439
Arri Master Prime 50 T1.3 $21,950
Indeed Canons own Cine line, the CN-E 50 T1.3 is considered comparatively modest at $ 4,950


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 12, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Mt Spokane was of course correct, I was tired! Parfocal is when zooming and focus breathing is when focusing!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would say 'not as expensive'.


----------



## Surfwooder (May 13, 2013)

Canon has been in this water before. Canon introduced a Canon EF 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 usm. The introduction date was back in the mid 80s. I own one of these lenses, it works fine after all these
years. Although the images are a little soft at 70mm. Now they filled the gap with another "L" f4 lens, priced at $1400.00. I'm wondering what plans they have for the EF 24-105 f4L USM.


----------



## Vossie (May 13, 2013)

Tanja said:


> http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/content.php?103-Why-We-Need-Cinema-Lenses


Very helpful. Thanks!


----------

