Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

ziggy53

While the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and EF 35mm f/2 IS USM are being introduced with the Canon 6D, they will certainly work with other bodies, both FF and crop.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024806f2095

From the above site:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM

---

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

cmason

Canon head scratcher: 24-70 f4 IS
Yep, Canon just announced the 24-70 f4 IS. Hmmmm.

For those of us desperately holding out for a 24-70 f2.8 IS, this is a bit of a blow. While Canon does add IS to this lens, it does it on an f4 model. Note that this is the new kit lens for the Canon 6D.

I suppose this is an attempt to provide a lower cost 24-70 lens, but given the 24-105 f4 IS already exists, this one has me baffled. I don' t get why this lens exists. For one thing, it can't be as big a piece of glass as the 24-70 f2.8, and perhaps won't be as good as the pixel peepers want. But they have a 70-200 f2.8 IS, and yes its $2Big, but I don't see why a 24-70 f2.8 IS would not be in a similar price range as the 70-200 f2.8 IS, meaning not significantly over priced. Perhaps I am missing something that adding IS to this lens would just make it $5000 or something.

ziggy53

Adorama and B&H have the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM listed for $1500USD.

ziggy53

cmason wrote: »

Yep, Canon just announced the 24-70 f4 IS. Hmmmm.

For those of us desperately holding out for a 24-70 f2.8 IS, this is a bit of a blow. While Canon does add IS to this lens, it does it on an f4 model. Note that this is the new kit lens for the Canon 6D.

I suppose this is an attempt to provide a lower cost 24-70 lens, but given the 24-105 f4 IS already exists, this one has me baffled. I don' t get why this lens exists. For one thing, it can't be as big a piece of glass as the 24-70 f2.8, and perhaps won't be as good as the pixel peepers want. But they have a 70-200 f2.8 IS, and yes its $2Big, but I don't see why a 24-70 f2.8 IS would not be in a similar price range as the 70-200 f2.8 IS, meaning not significantly over priced. Perhaps I am missing something that adding IS to this lens would just make it $5000 or something.

I suspect that the newer 24-70mm, f4L IS lens will have better distortion correction than the 24-105mm, f4L IS, plus it has the newer "hybrid" IS, meaning supposedly better close focus IS performance.

Yes, I too would have like to have seen a stabilized 24-70mm, f2.8L instead.

divamum

cmason wrote: »

given the 24-105 f4 IS already exists, this one has me baffled.

That's the part that confuses me. Are they maybe going to discontinue the 24-105? That would seem odd, to say the least, but....?

This new 24-70 is pretty pricy for an F4, as well (although not as crazy expensive as the 2.8).

I think I'm holding on to my 24-70 mkI for a while longer (or trading it in for a Tamron with IS)!

cmason

Funny, to read DPReview mention the macro capability:

This all looks great in paper, but in practice things are a little more complicated, because the working distance in macro mode ends up being only about 3cm / 1.2" from the front of the lens to the subject. At this point, you're shooting an image area of about 51mm x 34mm (2" x 1.3") using a lens with a front diameter of 83mm (3.3"), which might make lighting your subject relatively difficult.

Seems, uh, mildly impractical. Headscratching continues.

My guess is Canon wanted a smaller, lighter L lens for the 6D, and the 24-105 was too big a hunk of glass, and perhaps too old?

pathfinder

I own the 24-70 f2.8 L and the 24-105 f4 IS L, and find that out of doors I strongly prefer the 24-105, but indoors, the shorter length and wider aperture is a much better choice since the long end will be covered by the 70-200 f2.8 IS L.

So I kind of wonder who the 24-70 F4 IS L is directed at also. It will be smaller and lighter, I never liked the 24-70 f2.8 L on a crop body due to its size and weight.

The 24-70 f4 IS L lens will cost less, and as ISOs rise, the tendency is for manufacturers to provide slower lenses for folks - they are cheaper, smaller, lighter, and sometimes even better optically, but do not help with AF in the dark.

ziggy53

cmason wrote: »

Funny, to read DPReview mention the macro capability:



Seems, uh, mildly impractical. Headscratching continues. ...

There seems to be conflicting information at DPReview. From the Canon site, "... includes a macro feature at the telephoto end with a 0.2m/7.9-inch minimum focusing distance ...". [strike]Perhaps they (DPReview) mean MFD at the 24mm (widest) setting?[/strike]* Backlit subjects might work in that instance.

7.9 inches MFD @ 70mm is probably sufficient for many near macro applications and getting light on the subject.

---

*(I misspoke. The "Macro" mode only works at the longest end of the zoom range.)

ziggy53

Just to really confuse things (but posted in a single space), DPReview says:

"... the working distance in macro mode ends up being only about 3cm / 1.2" from the front of the lens to the subject."

Canon USA says, "... a macro feature at the telephoto end with a 0.2m/7.9-inch minimum focusing distance ..."

Canon Europe (UK) says, "Closest focussing distance (m) 0.38 (Macro)". (Ziggy note: .38 meters is approximately 15 inches.)

---

I am asking Canon USA Marketing for clarification.

ziggy53

ziggy53 wrote: »

Just to really confuse things (but posted in a single space), DPReview says:

"... the working distance in macro mode ends up being only about 3cm / 1.2" from the front of the lens to the subject."

Canon USA says, "... a macro feature at the telephoto end with a 0.2m/7.9-inch minimum focusing distance ..."

Canon Europe (UK) says, "Closest focussing distance (m) 0.38 (Macro)". (Ziggy note: .38 meters is approximately 15 inches.)

---

I am asking Canon USA Marketing for clarification.

Crud. Once again I forgot that MFD is measured from the focal plane to the subject. DPReview is taking into account the length of the lens at 70mm. Duh.

NagoC50

ziggy53 wrote: »

Adorama and B&H have the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM listed for $1500USD.

That seems awfully expensive to be a kit lens, especially with the 6D.

jmphotocraft

24-70: Umm, yeah I guess more choice is a good thing but I don't get it. If I'm going to give up a whole stop of light, I want to be paid back in reach or width. This lens had better absolutely demolish the 24-105 for IQ to justify its existence! Maybe if it was 20-70 or 17-70 or 24-85 I could see the point. Man if it was 17-70 it would become the new lust object for APS-C. But no that would make too much sense.

35/2: Tempting... f/2 is still "fast", and this lens is 24mm shorter and 245g lighter than the L. The size and weight of the L are its least favorable qualities, imo. If this 35/2 had existed when I bought my 35L I wouldn't have thought twice. But now I've had the 35L for a couple years and I love it and the sticker shock is gone, but it looks like I could sell it and pocket a few bucks... dang, what to do...

cmason

jmphotocraft wrote: »

If I'm going to give up a whole stop of light, I want to be paid back in reach or width. This lens had better absolutely demolish the 24-105 for IQ to justify its existence!

+1 on that!

nak

I've been pondering this one as well.

It looks smaller than the 2.8, which could mean lighter. Those of us who own a Mark I 24-70 f/2.8L never forget how heavy that beast is. So we could gain lightness and smaller size.

Maybe it rocks in terms of image quality. Canon increased the sharpness on the new 2.8 by a very great deal. Perhaps this new lens beats the mk I 2.8 in all or many of the areas that the mk I 2.8 has flaws. If it is the near equal in image quality to the new mk II f/2.8, the lower price could be very compelling. If it surpasses the mk II f/2.8, it will scream "this is what the extra stop costs you." What I know of physics says that lens making at f/4 is easier than lens making at f/2.8. What I know of engineering says that quality in execution costs money.

In short, if the IQ rocks, those of us asking "what's the point of this lens?" will be saying "that's the point of this lens!"

The 70-200 comes in f/2.8 and in f/4. If we are lucky there will be two really good 24-70 to pick from.

As a low-light, no-flash, bokeh addict who loves shooting candids, I'll pass on this one. People with other styles and needs might decide otherwise.

ziggy53

ziggy53 wrote: »

... I am asking Canon USA Marketing for clarification.

I will get a comprehensive answer sometime next week.

David_S85

Concerning the 24-70, I don't wonder at all why there isn't an IS 2.8 version. If there was, it would weigh two pounds or more and be even larger and might run closer to $3K. The IS on the f/4 keeps it manageable and cheaper. With low light focusing systems becoming more sensitive coupled with clean high ISO's, it becomes a non-issue not having 2.8 in an IS lens.

I was clearly wishing for an update on the 24-105 before I purchased mine a few months back, but oh well. The thing vignettes and distorts badly full open and at 24. Thankfully, firmware and software pulls it all back in line and I feel comfortable shooting at those settings. Still, I think it is ripe for a mark II version, but I don't think we'll see one. More likely, there might be a 24-120 f/4 IS or somesuch in about a year.

Matthew Saville

I think we need to consider the future in order for these types of zooms to make sense, especially at their price. The older mk1 etc. lenses were designed back in the days of film, or of 6-12 megapixel DSLR's. Within another generation or so we'll be past ~40 megapixels. The 24-105 f/4 may deliver acceptable results now, but I'm betting that a ~40 megapixel full-frame sensor would completely destroy it.

I do post-production for a living so I look at thousands of images every day, captured from all types of cameras and lenses, at all resolutions and in all sorts of shooting conditions. Lenses like the old 24-70 2.8 L are starting to show their age, especially wide open and especially in sub-optimal lighting conditions such as heavy flare or higher ISO's. Whereas newer lenses like the mk2 70-200's from Canon and Nikon, or the Nikon 14-24, ...they just seem to keep going and going even on high-res bodies like the D800.

Basically, my bet is that the new Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS has "future-proof" resolution. In another generation or two of full-frame DSLR bodies, it will make a lot more sense compared to the likes of the 24-105.

But, that's just a guess.

=Matt=

jmphotocraft

I'm very tempted by the 35/2 IS for the reduced size and weight. Handling my camera with the 35L on it is not that much different than with the 24-70L. I loved the handling with my old 35/2, but I went to the L for the autofocus and IQ. Now that the new 35/2 has USM and better MTF, I think I'll switch back and pocket a few bucks. ISO 1600 and f/2 gets you into some very dim scenes, and it's clean on FF. Also, my 35L is a pure luxury, a $1400 toy. That lens doesn't really make me any money, and I have 35mm covered by two other lenses.

Manfr3d

Did you know that the new fullframe Sigma 35mm f/1.4 EX HSM is nearly the same price as the new Canon 35mm f/2.0 IS ?

Ed911

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Lenses like the old 24-70 2.8 L are starting to show their age, especially wide open and especially in sub-optimal lighting conditions such as heavy flare or higher ISO's. Whereas newer lenses like the mk2 70-200's from Canon and Nikon, or the Nikon 14-24, ...they just seem to keep going and going even on high-res bodies like the D800. =Matt=

You didn't mention the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8...same category as the 14-24 and 70-200 VR2....

Matthew Saville

Manfr3d wrote: »

Did you know that the new fullframe Sigma 35mm f/1.4 EX HSM is nearly the same price as the new Canon 35mm f/2.0 IS ?

Yep. Loving the options here! As a Nikon shoter, I hope a Nikon 35 f/2 VR is on the way also. :-)

=Matt=

Matthew Saville

Ed911 wrote: »

You didn't mention the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8...same category as the 14-24 and 70-200 VR2....

You're right! I forgot that new Nikon 24-70's are actually not that cheap, since I bought mine for $1500 used. Really, the Nikon 24-70 and 14-24 and 70-200 mk2 are within a few hundred bucks of each other.

So, I'm betting that the Canon 24-70 mk2 will drop down to about $1800-$1900 within a year or two.

Either way, you get my point. If you want to consider the upcoming 30-40+ megapixel DSLR's, you're gonna hafta pony up for more expensive lenses...