If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
New Canon 24-70 f/4
"otter" wrote in message ... On Nov 10, 12:57 am, Robert Coe wrote: So what's the point of the just-announced Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS lens? It's a stop too slow to be a good indoor lens, and as an outdoor lens it doesn't have nearly the range of the 24-105 f/4 that most people like. Is it aimed mainly at compulsive pixel peepers who think the 24-105 isn't sharp enough but can't afford the new 24-70 f/2.8? Is that a big enough market to be worth the trouble? Bob }It is clear that it needs to be superior to the 24-105, or what's the }point? Exactly, it needs to be a fair bit better, only tests will tell. }The 24-105 is a good lens, but it is far from perfect. But still good enough for many people. }I think the 24-70 f/4 will be a great kit lens for the 6D. I imagine in the kit, the price will end up being effectively a few hundred less }than the $1500 they are quoting now for stand-alone price. I'm betting the 24-105 will still probably be the favoured "kit" lens by many for that camera. One thing that seems to be missed so far though is both f4 lenses are IS, while the 24-70 f2.8 is not. Trevor. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
New Canon 24-70 f/4
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:07:41 +1100, "Trevor" wrote:
: : "otter" wrote in message : ... : }It is clear that it needs to be superior to the 24-105, or what's the : }point? : : Exactly, it needs to be a fair bit better, only tests will tell. : : }The 24-105 is a good lens, but it is far from perfect. : : But still good enough for many people. : : : }I think the 24-70 f/4 will be a great kit lens for the 6D. I imagine : }in the kit, the price will end up being effectively a few hundred less : }than the $1500 they are quoting now for stand-alone price. : : I'm betting the 24-105 will still probably be the favoured "kit" lens by : many for that camera. Not if Bruce is right and they're about to discontinue it. To me, the ideal kit lens for a FF camera is a 24-70 f/2.8. It neatly spans what we think of as the "normal" 50mm focal length, and it's useful both indoors and outdoors. But Canon's absurdly expensive entry in that game can hardly be described as a "kit" lens. The 24-105 f/4 is an ideal street photography lens, because you get the additional range essentially for free, since you usually don't need the extra stop outdoors. The 24-70 f/4 lacks that advantage and costs half again as much. : One thing that seems to be missed so far though is both f4 lenses are IS, : while the 24-70 f2.8 is not. I started the thread, and I didn't miss it. But since both f/4's have IS, it doesn't affect the choice between the two. Bob |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
New Canon 24-70 f/4
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:25:25 -0600, Rich wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote in : news : : So what's the point of the just-announced Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS lens? : It's a stop too slow to be a good indoor lens, and as an outdoor lens : it doesn't have nearly the range of the 24-105 f/4 that most people : like. Is it aimed mainly at compulsive pixel peepers who think the : 24-105 isn't sharp enough but can't afford the new 24-70 f/2.8? Is : that a big enough market to be worth the trouble? : : Going 22-70mm would have given them one more step above Nikon. Yeah, I guess; but doing that might have made them miss the price point. Is there really a significant demand for that extra 2mm? Bob |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
New Canon 24-70 f/4
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:51:43 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: On Nov 12, 11:04*am, Robert Coe wrote: : On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:25:25 -0600, Rich wrote: : : : Robert Coe wrote in : :news : : : : So what's the point of the just-announced Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS lens? : : It's a stop too slow to be a good indoor lens, and as an outdoor lens : : it doesn't have nearly the range of the 24-105 f/4 that most people : : like. Is it aimed mainly at compulsive pixel peepers who think the : : 24-105 isn't sharp enough but can't afford the new 24-70 f/2.8? Is : : that a big enough market to be worth the trouble? : : : : Going 22-70mm would have given them one more step above Nikon. : : Yeah, I guess; but doing that might have made them miss the price point. Is : there really a significant demand for that extra 2mm? : : Bob : : The two companies now seem too much to be doing the "me too" thing : instead of trying for oneupmanship. The extra 2mm could be important : to some. I know that on APS, Nikon's 16-85mm seemed to offer a bit of : an edge off the usual 18mm stop point of the kit lenses. I would have thought that the advantage belonged to Canon, with its 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It's a constant-aperture lens, which the Nikon 16-85 (though I don't have time right now to look it up) almost certainly isn't. Bob |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
New Canon 24-70 f/4
On 2012.11.12 10:49 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:07:41 +1100, "Trevor" wrote: : I'm betting the 24-105 will still probably be the favoured "kit" lensby : many for that camera. Not if Bruce is right and they're about to discontinue it. Why? Does it stop letting light in when Nikon discontinue it? -- "There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office." -Sir John A. Macdonald |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
New Canon 24-70 f/4
On 11/12/2012 10:49 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
snip The 24-105 f/4 is an ideal street photography lens, because you get the additional range essentially for free, since you usually don't need the extra stop outdoors. The 24-70 f/4 lacks that advantage and costs half again as much. For use as a walk around lens, I agree. But, for some street, I used to use a W/A at waist level with a remote shutter release. Since I switched to digital, I haven,t tried, however, I might with a FX sensor. -- Peter |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
New Canon 24-70 f/4
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:17:01 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote: : On 2012.11.12 10:49 , Robert Coe wrote: : On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:07:41 +1100, "Trevor" wrote: : : : I'm betting the 24-105 will still probably be the favoured "kit" : : lens by many for that camera. : : Not if Bruce is right and they're about to discontinue it. : : Why? Does it stop letting light in when Nikon discontinue it? Not at all. It stops letting light in when Canon discontinues it. Bob |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
New Canon 24-70 f/4
"Robert Coe" wrote in message ... : }I think the 24-70 f/4 will be a great kit lens for the 6D. I imagine : }in the kit, the price will end up being effectively a few hundred less : }than the $1500 they are quoting now for stand-alone price. : : I'm betting the 24-105 will still probably be the favoured "kit" lens by : many for that camera. Not if Bruce is right and they're about to discontinue it. I bet many people hope not, it's the value lens of the bunch. To me, the ideal kit lens for a FF camera is a 24-70 f/2.8. To *you*, sure, to many others the extra expense and weight of a 2.8 lens is unnecessary in these days of usable high ISO, and photoshopping. It neatly spans what we think of as the "normal" 50mm focal length, and it's useful both indoors and outdoors. But Canon's absurdly expensive entry in that game can hardly be described as a "kit" lens. Exactly, the 24-105 is far better value for many, with extra reach to boot. The 24-105 f/4 is an ideal street photography lens, because you get the additional range essentially for free, since you usually don't need the extra stop outdoors. The 24-70 f/4 lacks that advantage and costs half again as much. Exactly, it would want to be *very* good for the extra money. : One thing that seems to be missed so far though is both f4 lenses are IS, : while the 24-70 f2.8 is not. I started the thread, and I didn't miss it. But since both f/4's have IS, it doesn't affect the choice between the two. It does affect your claim of the f2.8 being the best choice though. Given the extra expense, extra size and weight, and lack of IS, it's not on my list. I use faster primes when needed instead. Trevor. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon should be totally ashamed of this (and some others too) HP got this basic and absolutely essential thing right in their little digicam that's cheap even for a P&S, so why can't Canon?!! Yes, I know, there's more to the Canon 20D, but w | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 58 | December 15th 04 05:21 PM |