Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 24-105 f4 L IS  (Read 6936 times)
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2005, 12:07:08 PM »
ReplyReply

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).
Logged

jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2005, 04:47:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged

Jan
Andrew Teakle
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2005, 10:43:11 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Wim van Velzen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355



WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2005, 06:27:33 AM »
ReplyReply

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!
Logged

I don't have a signature.
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2005, 04:18:41 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566



WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2005, 08:34:51 AM »
ReplyReply

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?Huh

-N.
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2005, 02:15:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
Logged

Jan
lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2005, 04:02:15 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2005, 06:10:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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

As you can see, I didn't recall correctly, the weight is 670g.

That's light enough for you, isn't it?
Logged

Jan
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2005, 12:30:50 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2005, 02:08:33 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2005, 10:24:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BUT has anyone seen a (purported) spec sheet listing its physical mass and dimensions?Huh
The specifications were listed on Canon Australia's web page for the EF 24-105 f/4L, 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.)
Logged

Jan
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad