# EF 24-70 f/4L IS & EF 35 f/2 IS Sample Images



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 19, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is-sample-images/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/11/ef-24-70-f4l-is-ef-35-f2-is-sample-images/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>From Canon UK


</strong>Canon UK has posted some sample images from the two recently announced lenses, the EF 24-70 f/4L IS and EF 35 f/2 IS.</p>
<p>Both sets of sample images are obviously going to be good, we’re still waiting on the real world stuff.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>2 Samples of 1920×1280 pixels</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Wide_Angle/EF_35mm_f2_IS_USM/">http://www.canon.co.uk/……</a></strong></li>
</ul>
<p>The shot at 1/2sec really shows off the ability of the IS if the camera was being hand held, which I’d assume was one of the points of the image.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>1 Sample 1280×1920 pixels</li>
<li>2 Samples 5760×3840 pixels</li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Standard_Zoom/EF_24-70mm_f4L_IS_USM/">http://www.canon.co.uk/…..</a></strong></li>
</ul>
<p>Colour looks great, some distortion, but nothing too crazy. I’m really looking forward to trying both lenses and probably owning the EF 35 f/2 IS for myself.</p>
<p><strong>Preorders:


</strong>EF 24-70 f/4L IS $1499 at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A2BVAN8/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00A2BVAN8&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898652-REG/Canon_6313b002_EF_24_70mm_f_4_0L_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA24704U.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | EF 35 f/2 IS $849 at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A2BVBTG/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00A2BVBTG&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-REG/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA352ISU.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></p>
<p><em>thanks Ronaldo</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## zim (Nov 19, 2012)

EF 35 f/2 IS 

Well that's a first, two images from Canon I really like!! ;D

That's making me think 6D + 35mm could be a really good low light/street setup


----------



## Zv (Nov 19, 2012)

Yeah I think the 35 f/2 IS will be good as a light walk around solution or when hiking too plus the bonus of being able to use it in low light. Can't wait for the reviews!


----------



## spinworkxroy (Nov 19, 2012)

I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..
The distortion looks bad…even at 70mm, the model's face looks really weird..


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 19, 2012)

I'm waiting somewhat impatiently for the Sigma 35 vs Canon 35 IS threads. With an initial $50 difference and the differences mainly being about stop action vs low light hand hold ability, this should be a good showdown. I'm wondering just how far either will need to be stopped down for max sharpness. If the Canon is sharp wide open then 4 stops of IS will be amazing. Unless your beautiful model is moving lol.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 19, 2012)

I'm impressed with the photos taken with the 35mm f/2 IS USM, the first seems to demonstrate IS work very well. It also demonstrates the expected motion blur, which makes IS irrelevant for my (current personal, not everybody's ever) needs.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 19, 2012)

Quite unimpressive in my book. Not interested one bit.


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 19, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..
> The distortion looks bad…even at 70mm, the model's face looks really weird..


There is something kind of strange about her face...
however, those 35mm pictures look pretty nice. I'm not sure if i'd pay 900 for this lens, especially given it's an f2, but the pictures were nice.
Anyone know where those 35mm pictures were taken? I think I really just liked the location.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 19, 2012)

I am really interested in the 35mm f/2 IS lens (I seriously doubt the 24-70mm is going to budge my 24-105L, 100L Macro, and/or Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC). I have had a strange love for the 35mm f/2 on full frame anyway, despite it's limitations (and it certainly has them). Despite the eye-browing raising price of the new non-L IS primes, the reviews have been overwhelmingly favorable for them. I have held off on replacing my 35mm f/2 with a 35L until the reviews are in on this new lens.

If it as sharp as the other new primes wide open, improves the transition to OOF area, and has color rendering that somewhat rivals the 35L, it is going to be a hit even at that price. The IS is only a bonus. I really like the 35mm focal length on FF, and this lens looks to address all of the issues of the first generation lens - just at a price that is about $200 higher than what I would have liked it to be. I would expect the prices to drop by a $100 or so within six months, and I will probably snap it up then.

I would love to see them give this treatment to a 20mm prime that is sharp into the corners. I would gladly let my 17-40L go for something like that.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 19, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..
> ...



I think her face is just at a bit of an odd angle, I don't think you can blame that one on the lens, unless we're expecting a 24-70 to also do spot-tilt-shifts? I've also never heard of a lens that comes with an uglify filter, so, yeah I'm going to blame that one on the photographer's direction or lack thereof.


----------



## Matej N (Nov 19, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..
> ...



Looks to me like marakkech, not 100% sure but if u like this location you will love Marakkech


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 19, 2012)

24-70 is not equal to 24-70 ... it will be interesting to see how long and wide the f4 lens goes in comparison to the mk2 f2.8.

That's because the f2.8 mk2 is noticeably more limited in zoom range than the mk1 - so in all fairness you have to compare the mk2 distortion and edge sharpness to the mk1 @26mm or @66mm (numbers are rough guesses) ... same might be true for the new f4 lens.



spinworkxroy said:


> I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..



The imho most unimpressive shot is the "macro" one because of very mediocre sharpness @f4, though the bokeh is nice. And the lens has a very short working distance, so the object is lit from the side and back.


----------



## lastcoyote (Nov 19, 2012)

something not right about those 24-70 sample images. no way there is that much distortion. the images have been squashed or something surely? ???


----------



## caMARYnon (Nov 19, 2012)

lastcoyote said:


> something not right about those 24-70 sample images. no way there is that much distortion. the images have been squashed or something surely? ???


Look at jpg, it's all right. Thumbnails are wrong scaled.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Nov 19, 2012)

caMARYnon said:


> lastcoyote said:
> 
> 
> > something not right about those 24-70 sample images. no way there is that much distortion. the images have been squashed or something surely? ???
> ...



I did 
I downloaded the FULL res image of the model…
Kinda made it worse actually because, i ended up pixel peeping hehe..and well, that image impressed me even less after looking at it close up..Yes, it'e better than what a 24-105 can do BUT the 24-105 is donkey years older than this…and this is supposed to be somewhat on par with the 2.8 version..all i can say is..i won't be even considering this lens…
The 35mm however, is a different story..download the full res image and it was beautiful!

I could blame a bad photograher for the 24-70 sample BUT the very fact it was taken off a Canon website, surely someone would've agreed to allow it to be posted? So maybe that IS the actual image quality of the lens… not very impressive at all


----------



## Jesse (Nov 19, 2012)

lol they couldn't find a better model or a better photographer?


----------



## Zv (Nov 19, 2012)

Amateur hour :


----------



## tron (Nov 19, 2012)

Zv said:


> Amateur hour :


Hmm, "amateur" lens, pro price :


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 19, 2012)

caMARYnon said:


> lastcoyote said:
> 
> 
> > something not right about those 24-70 sample images. no way there is that much distortion. the images have been squashed or something surely? ???
> ...


Yep, if you look at the large images, the dimensions are completely different and the distortion at 24mm is exceptionally good for a wide to short tele zoom, there certainly appears to be much less barrel distortion than the 24-105.


----------



## lastcoyote (Nov 19, 2012)

yeah i was looking at the full rez of the photos.
still seems strangely distorted to me. particularly on the model one.
oh well :


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 19, 2012)

The 24-70 F/4L is more DOA than previously imagined.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 19, 2012)

It seems strange to me apparently no one remembers that the Canon sample images have nothing to do with reality. The editing and smearing is crazy.

Please find the 1d X sample pictures of that model in the blue dress or whatever and TELL ME that has anything to do with what the 1d X is capable of producing, I think not.

Those sample images from Canon is only to be looked at for their subject, they might as well be shot with a Ixus V2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Those sample images from Canon is only to be looked at for their subject, they might as well be shot with a Ixus V2.



The sample images do definitively show that the lens actually exists (if you believe the EXIF). Beyond that.....


----------



## Hill Benson (Nov 19, 2012)

That Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 is looking better and better imo!


----------



## Albi86 (Nov 19, 2012)

Surely doesn't look that sharp @f/5.6 - which is impressive (in the most negative way).


----------



## tron (Nov 19, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The 24-70 F/4L is more DOA than previously imagined.


 ;D Very true.


----------



## well_dunno (Nov 19, 2012)

: I cannot really see something that justifies the price for an f/4 lens but then... Canon... ;D

On a separate note, I have been looking at Canon lenses vs da Nikons on photozone. Seems like noinks have significantly more CA. Klaus seem to disregard it suggesting it can be corrected in post-process or da cams can correct it but still, their lenses cost more than canon's corresponding lenses (at least they used to to this year I think  ) without anything superior but decently placed CA? 

Cheers!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 19, 2012)

Darn the one I really wanted to see at full size, the 24mm shot, is the only one they decided to only post at a major downscale.... Same for the 35mm, both are extreme down samples, so you can tell nothing at all about sharpness. Colors look rich at least.

They sure went insane with the NR settings on those 70mm samples, jeez, total wax works. I don't know what is up with Canon and their love for nasty NR. Those, certainly the girl, bright daylight shots with tons of light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Darn the one I really wanted to see at full size, the 24mm shot, is the only one they decided to only post at a major downscale....



Downscale...or crop? If the latter, it would minimize barrel distortion at the wide end. Would Canon deceive us like that? :-X


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 19, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Surely doesn't look that sharp @f/5.6 - which is impressive (in the most negative way).



Looks like they set sharpness at 0 and NR on High even though the model looks to have been shot at low ISO!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Darn the one I really wanted to see at full size, the 24mm shot, is the only one they decided to only post at a major downscale....
> ...



Downscale. Way too sharp for that be a 100% crop and if that actually was just a crop the distortion would be the horror story of the century hah. ;D 

Seems bizarre to me that they turn sharpening way off, use in cam jpg and set NR to high for an ISO400 shot.... to demonstrate a lens! People want to see sharpness and contrast and color what good just showing they wax-look processed model shot?


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 19, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> People want to see sharpness and contrast and color what good just showing they wax-look processed model shot?



Which people - you did a survey? And international tastes might be different, the Canon (a Japanese company) shots remind me of the Japanese 6d amateur samples that are on flickr - way too much noise reduction and "wax look", but maybe more Japanese people like it this way?

And not all lens buyers are gearheads, they see a "nice" picture and think "I want to have this lens so I can take such a nice picture, too" no matter how the corner sharpness is.


----------



## zim (Nov 19, 2012)

Seriously, you DEEP FRY your turkeys?


----------



## brad-man (Nov 20, 2012)

zim said:


> Seriously, you DEEP FRY your turkeys?



They are awesome deep fried. This year will be a frozen one. I just can't decide whether to shoot it straight or use an ND filter for that "artsy" look


----------



## Freshprince08 (Nov 20, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..
> ...



Pretty sure that's the main square (Jemaa el-Fna) and the surrounding souks in Marrakech, Morocco. Crazy place!! Second half of this post if you're interested: http://double-take-photography.com/2011/03/20/something-a-lil-bit-different/


----------



## zrz2005101 (Nov 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Surely doesn't look that sharp @f/5.6 - which is impressive (in the most negative way).
> ...



The sharpness was set to +2, says in DPP if you download the file. Very impressive...


----------



## nikkito (Nov 20, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> spinworkxroy said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not impressed with the 24-70 images at all..
> ...



that's marrakesh in Morocco.

i have an album on my page. If you wanna check it: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.438233737923.227376.118519977923&type=3


----------



## PVS (Nov 20, 2012)

Sigma 35/1.4 seems definitely worth checking out:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-DG-HSMFirst-Impression
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-Sample-Images


----------



## adhocphotographer (Nov 21, 2012)

PVS said:


> Sigma 35/1.4 seems definitely worth checking out:



Off-topic a bit, but is the new sigma meant to be weather sealed?


----------



## Zv (Nov 21, 2012)

PVS said:


> Sigma 35/1.4 seems definitely worth checking out:
> 
> http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-DG-HSMFirst-Impression
> http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-Sample-Images



Impressive! Thanks for the link.


----------



## Patros (Nov 21, 2012)

Could someone explain how come the third "macro" image shot with the new EF 24-70mm 4 L IS USM shows "80mm" as the actual focal length in EXIF data...? (Shot with an EOS 5D Mark III) ... Maybe the "Macro" Mode on the lens is achieved by such an internal change in the optical construction of the lens...

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2012)

Patros said:


> Could someone explain how come the third "macro" image shot with the new EF 24-70mm 4 L IS USM shows "80mm" as the actual focal length in EXIF data...?



That's really strange, but the most likely explanation is that it's a beta lens that reported the wrong focal length ... or they were using a tc to get more working distance: 57mm * 1.4 = 80mm ... the bad iq of the macro shot would certainly allow for the latter possibility.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 21, 2012)

That sigmas sharpness wide-open looks very impressive. I also like the color rendering a lot. Not so sure about the bokeh on it, however. It's just something about it that I don't like. The transition is just not as smooth as what I like, but, to be fair, a lot of the shots were under similar conditions. I really, really like that there are a lot of shots taken wide-open. I'm not crazy about seeing a lot of stopped down shots on reviews or tests of large aperture primes. The reality is is that the majority of shots taken with those lens will be taken with a larger aperture. I'm very anxiously awaiting the actual reviews of both the Sigma and the Canon 35.


----------



## kubelik (Nov 21, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> PVS said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma 35/1.4 seems definitely worth checking out:
> ...



I don't think it is (definitely could be wrong on this one). Sigma puts the new 35 f/1.4 under the "art" category, not the "sport". I think I saw somewhere that only the sport lenses will receive weathersealing.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 21, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> PVS said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma 35/1.4 seems definitely worth checking out:
> ...



No, only the S (Sports) series lenses will be weather sealed.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 21, 2012)

Let me preface my next comment with this: I have not been a huge fan of Sigma. I've owned a couple of their lens, but I'm not personally a fan of the "crinkle finish" look. That being said, from a purely aesthetic point of view I have to say that this new 35mm Sig is a beauty. I love the very clean, almost Zeiss-like design. I am very intrigued in reviews of both it and the new 35mm f/2 IS. The winner in image quality is going to end up in my bag. I recently sold my 35mm f/2 that I was very fond of despite its flaws in anticipation of one of these lens (or a 35L if neither of them is amazing).


----------

