Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Stealthfixr on August 19, 2005, 08:09:19 pm
-
I would be tempted to replace my 17-40L with this lens since I also own the EF-S 10-22. I have no plans to buy the 5D or any other FF DSLR, so staying with a 1.6x sensor platform is not a concern. My 17-40L is a great lens, but limited as a general walk-around. Plus, having the IS would be nice.
If the optical quality is there, I know I'll stand in line for one.
-
One GOOD thing is that Canon is finally offering a decent wide angle zoom that goes to 24mm. 28mm just doesn't cut it, no matter how many "professionals" work within that 28-100 range as someone else has stated..
The reference to 28-100 is a statistical fact, nothing else. It has nothing to do with status (pro or amateur), but is just a fact, not opinion.
The current 24-70 goes to 24mm, and is certainly more than decent, so I don't really know what you mean by the "one GOOD thing" statement.
Whatever, I think it's a potentially useful addition to the lineup. More choices in the L lineup is great. Not every lens is going to appeal to everyone.
Now why they don't make a 400/5.6 L with IS, only god knows. Or decent superwide primes?
-
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082207canonlenses.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082207canonlenses.asp)
As you can see, I didn't recall correctly, the weight is 670g.
That's light enough for you, isn't it?
That is not too bad. I regulary walk around with the 600g 100mm f2.8 macro, the new lens is slightly heavier but a bit shorter which helps.
I find the 200mm f2.8 at 765g and 136mm long a little chunky, but then I don't temd to walk about with it except perhaps at the zoo.
Just seen the MTF charts on the USA web. Slightly disapointing although I need to look at it more carefully. The stopped down edge performance looks worse than the 24-70, I was hoping it would be at least as good considering the f4 vs f2.8 speed difference.
Now to get an early start for the Aug 06 rumour mill - the 70-200mm f4 is now looking a bit left out in the IS stakes.
Any bets on the chances of an update!
Lester
-
Theoretically, yes (and often so in reality). But there's something special about those Leitz Summicrons, Summiluxes, etc...
Oh, absolutely.
I'm not claiming that it's possible to achieve superior results by hand-crafting a lens design. Similar achievements have clearly been possible in similar fields before, too.
I also sincerely doubt that good lens designs will happen without the involvement of someone competent in lens design, regardless of the tools used.
-
Canon has announced (or pre-announced) their new L series lens - check out the LL front page.
Although I find new Canon lenses a novelty, and anxiously await new releases, this one leaves me a bit perplexed. Who is it for? Is it worth it? Will it satisfy my need for new lenses?
How much will it cost? (I'll take a stab at it and say between 800 and 1000USD at B&H).
Personally I think this lens is a step in the wrong direction. For full-frame maniacs, the f4 will prove limiting, especially if this is to be used as a portrait lens. At the wide setting, the 45cm minimum focus is not quite close enough in my opinion, though a 24mm wide lens should be standard, not the 28mm that the industry widely supports in the consumer lenses... Let's call it a half hearted attempt at placating the pro's who were hoping for an IS version of the 24-70 f2.8.. Very half hearted in my opinion!
For the 1.6x crop factor people this lens becomes a 38mm-170mm +/-. Nice for portraits, but again the f4 limits it's use by not separating the subject from the background enough (that's why you pay top dollar for luminous lenses!).
On the wide side.. wait, WHAT wide side???.. a 38mm is nowhere near wide.! Ok...let's call it a general walkaround lens, but a very sacrificed one indeed.
So who is it for? Well, I think this is aimed at people who WANT an L lens, but don't want to pay the price of true L specialised optics, and will probably buy this lens and maybe the 17-40. This is a "2nd tier" product, and perhaps a testing ground for IS in wide angle L zooms, which means that a 24-85 f2.8 IS is probably waiting in the wings...
Heresy? Madness. Well, tell me what you all think about it, and whether you would buy it and why (what type of photography).
While I'm at it I'll make a list of lenses that Canon SHOULD be manufacturing, but aren't as yet:
85 f1.4 L lens at under $1000
50 f1.2 L lens at under $1000
200-400 f4 IS DO lens at under $4000 (this one was sort of announced more than a year ago... and then retracted!)
24-135 f2.8 L IS (or at least a 24-85 f2.8 L IS!)
-
Here's an insight from the dark side (Nikon), as well as past experience with Canon.
When using the D30 and D60 in days of yore, I found the 28-135mm to be an immensely useful lens, whether for circumstances when the action was dynamic or especially when dust was bad and I was reluctant to change lenses. The zoom range suited my needs about 80% of the time. The problems were image quality and durability. It wasn't the sharpest of lenses, the variable apertures was troublesome when critically managing DOF, and it was a little fragile for rough use.
I've since gone back to Nikon, and bought their 24-120VR to provide a comparable zoom range. While it's possible that my individual 28-135 was a sub-par performer, each of the four 24-120VR's we own beats the pants off the Canon model. The 24-120VR isn't as robust as I would like, but the zoom range, image quality and focus speed suit us very well.
Could it be that the Canon 24-105 is simply a step to "get back into the game" with folks that find this zoom range meets their needs, an attempt to improve image quality with newer Canon DSLR's while providing L glass for better build and performance? If that general zoom range is useful to as many photographers as I suspect, then this is a smart move by Canon.
I haven't bothered to delve further into the specs or reviews of the new lens, but if I was still shooting in Canon I would be standing in line for improved performance and build over the 28-135. Just as I'm hoping that Nikon brings out a more robust "pro" version of the 24-120VR.
-
One thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of photos taken by pros (and amateurs) are in the 28-100 mm range, so this really is a great dynamic zoom range. I think most of the fuss about this being only an f/4 is a variant of measurebation syndrome. Yes, the f/4 is a bit limiting--but, the tradeoff is probably improved performance optical performance throughout the range. With the performance of the 1dsmk2 and 20D at higher ISO (and better likely to come), f/4 isn't that much of a problem for low light. If you're serious about "available darkness" photography you aren't using an f/2.8 lens anyway--you're using a f/2 or f/1.2. And if one is really concentrating on using limited DOF, f/2.8 doesn't help that much anyway. Again, if you're serious about a wide open DOF affect in your image, you'll be using a fast prime. I know that may sound heretical, but it's a plain and simple fact. I don't think I've shot a landscape photo in the past year that used anything less than f/4, and the only lens I own slower than f2.8 is my 400/5.6. Correction--just added the Leica 15mm/3.5 to the wide end....When I've needed a shallow DOF affect or a "fast" lens, then (sad but true) I have to carry along a real honest to goodness prime lens to get what I need.
If this lens performs well at f/4 through the corners on FF cameras, it will be a welcome addition to my stable of lenses.
-
Ok, ok.. So many of you are actually happy with this lens! Fine.
My point was that it wasn't THAT useful for a 1.6 crop, but seeing as the 5D is an almost certainty - check these sites out:
http://www.p5freak.de/images/cps.gif (http://www.p5freak.de/images/cps.gif)
http://news.techwhack.com/1878/canon-5d-is-finally-unveiled/ (http://news.techwhack.com/1878/canon-5d-is-finally-unveiled/)
http://www.cameratown.com/news/news.cfm/hurl/id%7C1564 (http://www.cameratown.com/news/news.cfm/hurl/id%7C1564)
..then it may actually be useful. However, that it is a second tier product, even though it is an L lens, there can be no doubt. At f4, it is significantly darker than an f2.8 lens. Many sensors on digital cameras are optimised for f2.8 and lower... F2.8 (And lower) give you more limited depth of field, faster autofocus and a brighter viewfinder. These are significant quality issues. That this lens may actually take spectacular photos, I sincerily hope. I have the 17-40f4 which is a great lens and takes some stunning photos.. but is simply sacrificed at f4 and in useability terms, takes extra work to produce good results with.
One GOOD thing is that Canon is finally offering a decent wide angle zoom that goes to 24mm. 28mm just doesn't cut it, no matter how many "professionals" work within that 28-100 range as someone else has stated..
As for buying this lens.. I just won't be in line for one... I have to save for the 5D!
-
Hello Braindeadmac
One thing to keep in mind is that the vast majority of photos taken by pros (and amateurs) are in the 28-100 mm range,
The reference to 28-100 is a statistical fact, nothing else. It has nothing to do with status (pro or amateur), but is just a fact, not opinion.
I once read an on-line article that talked about lenses that produced aword winning photos.. this was in the days of meccanical cameras, and the lens that picked up more than half of photo awards was... wait for it.... the venerable 50mm!
Obviously that article ( http://medfmt.8k.com/bronlensenvy.html (http://medfmt.8k.com/bronlensenvy.html) ) is a bit dated, and today we may find that the majority of shooters use zooms with a range of between 28 and 100mm.
I would however like to have access to your source on this statistic of yours.
In the case of my own photography, I have always felt "hemmed in" by a 28mm, and only felt "free" with a 24mm lens. Conversely, besides portrait shots which I do with either a 50 or 85mm lens, I have always wanted to go further wioth 200, 400 or even 600mm to have the extra reach for far-off subjects or image compression. I expect "Pro's" tend to use the big guns more often than not to get closer to the action, and creative photography can be seen often done with super-wide angles.. The venerable 50mm is also around there somewhere.. However, a 28 to 100mm range seems quite restricted. So, please do enlighten me...
-
Yes, Canon's recommended retail prices in Australia are silly. Presumably Canon Australia doesn't like selling equipment (all that import paperwork, you know) and prefer customers to buy via international online retailers. :laugh:
Yes. I sometimes think it would be more economical to hop on a plane to Kuala Lumpur and buy a camera bag full of lenses. The savings would pay for the airfare and hotel accommodatiuon.
Most good camera shops will offer lenses at a slightly lower price than Canon's RRP, but the prices are still too high. My policy is, if you are paying a premium and buying from a local store, take full advantage of the opportunity to test the lens thoroughly in the shop before buying. Compare it with other lenses you own at the same FL.
The 24-105 f4 IS is interesting. However, speaking personally, since this range is already amply covered by other lenses I own, I'll be closely scrutinising the quality of this lens before buying. Any increase in quality over what I already have will need to be greater than marginal before I part with my cash.
-
(From what I recall, though, the weight was 770 grams, and dimensions were comparable to the EF 24-70 f/2.8L.)
That is disapointing, I would have been interested in a lighter f4 version of the 24-70 (perhaps 24-85) as a walkaround for full frame.
That's exactly what this lens is, except that it also has IS and a 105mm long end.
-
Optics have undergone a few revolutions lately, and modern CAD/CAM should yield significant benefits towards actually making noticeably better lenses, versus old hat design methods.
Theoretically, yes (and often so in reality). But there's something special about those Leitz Summicrons, Summiluxes, etc...
-
I don't think this lens is aimed at the "1.6 crop" market. rather, it is the perfect walk aorund lens for the new full frame 5D which is almost certain to be announced next week.
As for it only being f/4 - well, that hasn't stopped the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4 lenses selling extremely well to the "prosumer" market - which is also where the 5D is squarely aimed at. With the extremely low noise at high ISOs of recent Canon DSLRS, f/4 is quite enough for many people.
And if Canon to ever make your dream 24-135 f/2.8 lens, you are welcome to it....it would weigh something like 1.5kg. I'll probably buy the 24-105 f/4, to use on my 1DS....it sounds lighter more versatile than my 28-70 f/2.8 for most situations
Julian
-
More choices the better. But where is the killer wide angle that Canon has needed for years? (Sharp not fast for a change)
-
Personally, I wish that Canon would make an IS version of the 400 F5.6L.
Same here!
-
I just hope it has a 77mm filter ring like the other two, to keep it a lean and lightweight system.
it has a 77 mm filter ring
http://www.canon.com.au/images/big_product...105%20angle.jpg (http://www.canon.com.au/images/big_products/ef%2024-105%20angle.jpg)
-
The premise that this is a step in the wrong direction is an interesting one. I think this lens tells us that Canon is committed to FF for it's professional level cameras. I think this is a good thing, it's definitely good for me. If it's not good for you, well then you can switch to Nikon as they've developed some very nice cropped frame lenses and seems to be committed to 1.5x crop.
-
Of interest to the conspiracy theorists: Canon's Australian web site has been updated and the 24-105mm lens is not there as of Sunday morning local time. Betcha it's back by Tuesday. :-)
No rumours of any new EF-S lenses ... hmm.
Giles
P.S. Yes, Canon's recommended retail prices in Australia are silly. Presumably Canon Australia doesn't like selling equipment (all that import paperwork, you know) and prefer customers to buy via international online retailers. :laugh:
-
Chuck Westfall is quoted as saying that the optics are as good if not better than the 24-70L. Can't see it somehow, but if they've managed that then it would be a serious first...
-
(From what I recall, though, the weight was 770 grams, and dimensions were comparable to the EF 24-70 f/2.8L.)
That is disapointing, I would have been interested in a lighter f4 version of the 24-70 (perhaps 24-85) as a walkaround for full frame.
-
Personally, I wish that Canon would make an IS version of the 400 F5.6L. The F4 L IS version is out of my price range and I was not thrilled with the alternatives (100-400 and 300 with TC). For US$1500 I'd buy one in an instant.
Back on topic, I agree the 24-105 is best with a FF DSLR, but still not bad for those of us with 1.3X FOV (31-136).
-
If Michael says that it's as sharp as the 24-70L then screw the aperture I'll buy a 85mm 1.8 to go with it. IS in an L lens with this focal length would make it worth it.
Even if the three stops of advertised advantage from the IS is hype, and we only get two or two point five stops worth, that's still pushing it to the equivalent of f/2 or better. If it's sharp and contrasty at f/4, it's nearly ideal for many situations I take pictures in.
Count me in, tentatively.
-
Count me in (I hope!). A 24-105 f/4 IS will slot in really nicely between my 10-22 and 100-400 IS. This will give me (in 35mm terms with my 20D) 16-640mm in three lenses and to almost 900mm with a 1.4x tele. I just hope it has a 77mm filter ring like the other two, to keep it a lean and lightweight system. It would also make a nice lens for aerial photography.
-
If Canon brings a lens you wouldn't buy, then why is it a wrong direction of Canon? Are the stopping to produce 2.8 L lenses?
Together with the 5D camera, this could be my first digital setup!
-
I rarely shoot wider than f4 with my wedding work, my clientele are not 'into' modern arty stuff. I use f2.8 for portraiture. IS would be a much welcomed addition for my wedding work, FF makes you realise how bad your handholding really is!
If the lens is as good as the 24-70L at f4 (give or take) then I'll buy it and buy an 85mm prime for the faster stuff. However, I do shoot landscape as well, mainly at f22 and the lens will have to hold up.
-
About a year ago, I mused aloud, while casting my eyes downwards, that I would grant at lease a long-term lease on my mortal soul for a *LIGHTER* 24-XX "L" zoom.
My solicitors are now busy reviewing the memorandum of understanding....
BUT has anyone seen a (purported) spec sheet listing its physical mass and dimensions????
-N.
-
Chuck Westfall is quoted as saying that the optics are as good if not better than the 24-70L. Can't see it somehow, but if they've managed that then it would be a serious first...
Well, I'm actually surprised that Canon hasn't released more noticeably improved lenses in the past few years than we've seen. Okay, the 24-70 and 16-35 may be said to be such design wins over the 28-70 and 17-35 respectively, but still ...
Optics have undergone a few revolutions lately, and modern CAD/CAM should yield significant benefits towards actually making noticeably better lenses, versus old hat design methods.
The 24-105 has two things going for it:
1) It's slower. That makes it easier to achieve higher quality optics, right?
2) It's far, far newer in a rapid-moving technological world.
Whether this is enough to actually make it better optically than the 24-70 f/2.8 remains to be seen, but I'd be surprised if it at least wasn't close.
-
If anyone is interested I have added some comparitive interpolated MTF plots for the new 24-105mm lens on my web page here 24-105 f4L vs other zooms and Primes (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection.htm#Update%20for%20New%2024-105mm%20f4L)
-
That is disapointing, I would have been interested in a lighter f4 version of the 24-70 (perhaps 24-85) as a walkaround for full frame.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082207canonlenses.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082207canonlenses.asp)
As you can see, I didn't recall correctly, the weight is 670g.
That's light enough for you, isn't it?
-
If Michael says that it's as sharp as the 24-70L then screw the aperture I'll buy a 85mm 1.8 to go with it. IS in an L lens with this focal length would make it worth it.
-
In my experience, 28-105 is a very popular range. Nearly every profesional photographer I know (low-mid range of the "pro spectrum") owns a Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM.
I personally don't like the lens but the zoom range is popular non the less. Many people who own the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 wish they could get that zoom range in an L lens without having too buy both the 24-70mm f/2.8 and either of the 70-200mm L lenses and having to switch between them.
This new 28-105mm f/4L is just what the doctor ordered. IS is just icing on the cake.
-
BUT has anyone seen a (purported) spec sheet listing its physical mass and dimensions????
The specifications were listed on Canon Australia's web page for the EF 24-105 f/4L (http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/standard_zoom_lenses/ef24-105mm_f4l_usm.html), but this link is currently dead.
Hold your breath until Monday.
(From what I recall, though, the weight was 770 grams, and dimensions were comparable to the EF 24-70 f/2.8L.)