New Canon 24-70 f/4

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

On 2012.11.10 01:54 , 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?

With the low noise performance of most DSLR's it's not that big of a
deal - bump up the ISO one more stop. Indeed, even cropping to get the
equivalent of the last 35mm of zoom will work in many cases.


--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

On 11/10/2012 5:07 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012.11.10 01:54 , 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?

With the low noise performance of most DSLR's it's not that big of a
deal - bump up the ISO one more stop. Indeed, even cropping to get the
equivalent of the last 35mm of zoom will work in many cases.



I too don't think it's that big a deal. But progress, or the perceived
necessity for progress, is a business and a users driver.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:07:39 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012.11.10 01:54 , 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?
:
: With the low noise performance of most DSLR's it's not that big of a
: deal - bump up the ISO one more stop. Indeed, even cropping to get the
: equivalent of the last 35mm of zoom will work in many cases.

That idea is a pretty hard sell. For indoor events, the combination of shutter
speed, noise level, and depth of field is always a compromise, and a smaller
maximum aperture makes autofocus less effective. The last thing you want is to
give up a full stop of lens speed.

Outdoors, of course, it's a whole different game. But if you do a lot of
indoor work, there's little incentive to buy lenses you can use only outdoors.

Bob

On 2012.11.11 00:04 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:07:39 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012.11.10 01:54 , 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?
:
: With the low noise performance of most DSLR's it's not that big of a
: deal - bump up the ISO one more stop. Indeed, even cropping to get the
: equivalent of the last 35mm of zoom will work in many cases.

That idea is a pretty hard sell. For indoor events, the combination of shutter
speed, noise level, and depth of field is always a compromise, and a smaller
maximum aperture makes autofocus less effective. The last thing you want is to
give up a full stop of lens speed.

In the film era I would agree. In the digital era it's really no big
deal - shoot faster ISO - and DOF difference is not that much @ 24-70mm
from f/2.8 to f/4. Indeed for shooting sports the additional DOF would
be most welcome most of the time.

For someone with the money, sure, go fast. For someone on a tighter
budget compromise is appropriate.

So no, it's not at all hard to sell to the one with less cash.

Outdoors, of course, it's a whole different game. But if you do a lot of
indoor work, there's little incentive to buy lenses you can use only outdoors.

A 1 stop bump in ISO and, exposure wise (speed) it's the same as the
faster lens.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
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?



I'd have to know the price and the weight to make a guess.

--
Frank ess

On 11/11/2012 8:23 a.m., Frank S wrote:

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
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?



I'd have to know the price and the weight to make a guess.

$1400 and 600g (24-70 f4 L)
$2300 and 805g (24-70 f2.8 L II)
Street price got down to $1500 and 905g (24-70 f2.8 L)
According to Ken Rockwell, list price for the 24-70L was JPY 220,000
when it was released = US$2770 at present exchange rate.

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? The 24-105 is a good lens, but it is far from perfect.

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.

"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.

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