Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       end
  

Archive 2012 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison
  
 
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


Pixel Perfect wrote:
I think it will be quite visible in the corners and edges.


In 100% on-screen, pixel-peeping, side-by-side comparisons, a difference will be visible to those who look closely and post about it in photography forums. In large prints, not so much.

Print large much?

alexdi wrote:
Overlap is not a bad thing.


Absolutely correct. I've often wondered why a few people avoid overlapping focal lengths. When your focal lengths do overlap a bit, there are several advantages: you'll have to change lenses a bit less (the lens on the camera is more likely to have the focal length you need), in certain cases one might cover the "overlap" range better than the other, etc.

(I can understand avoiding overlaps in certain weight-conscious situations - e.g. backpackers who carry only a 17-40 and a 70-200 and forego the 40-70mm range or else fill it with a 50mm prime.)

Dan



Nov 07, 2012 at 04:06 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


alexdi wrote:
Do you actually own a 17-40? There's a reason that one and the 16-35 extend past the ultrawide focals. It makes them useful. Overlap is not a bad thing.


I wish Canon did the same thing on the 24-70 and extend it out to 85.



Nov 07, 2012 at 08:06 PM
AJSJones
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


gdanmitchell wrote:
In 100% on-screen, pixel-peeping, side-by-side comparisons, a difference will be visible to those who look closely and post about it in photography forums. In large prints, not so much.

Print large much?

...

Dan


But I, and some others, also (pixel,droplet,dot) peep in the corners of large prints



Nov 07, 2012 at 08:23 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


gdanmitchell wrote:
In 100% on-screen, pixel-peeping, side-by-side comparisons, a difference will be visible to those who look closely and post about it in photography forums. In large prints, not so much.

Print large much?


Is it your opinion then that there is no situation where two different lens models of the same focal length will ever produce resolution differences which are noticeable in prints?



Nov 07, 2012 at 08:39 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


Pixel Perfect wrote:
I think it will be quite visible in the corners and edges.


I think so too, I easily notice the difference between 24-70 II and the three 24-105 I looked at in the past (all three of those seemed about the same, maybe all were bad, who knows) at 24mm on FF anywhere near the edges (and even in the center too actually, and yes even at f/8).



Nov 11, 2012 at 10:42 PM
Pixel Perfect
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


alexdi wrote:
Do you actually own a 17-40? There's a reason that one and the 16-35 extend past the ultrawide focals. It makes them useful. Overlap is not a bad thing.


Sorry you missed the at the end of the post.

But it seems we have a lot of people quite taken by having FL's line up with no overlap. I frankly don't get it. I hate the 24-70 range as too restrictive and would prefer it was 24-85 for an f/2.8 lens and similarly I'd prefer a lens like a 16-50 than a 14-24. I like overlap as sometimes I only take one lens out and the extra range is welcome. For landscape I especially hate just being stuck having to do UWA scenics.

BTW yes I do own a 17-40



Nov 11, 2012 at 11:34 PM
phuang3
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well if it doesn't have the useless gimmick macro mode and HIS it probably be the same price. Still far more useful to me than the 24-70, which is too small a range for my liking for an f/4.



I love the macro mode, and this is the main reason I'd choose the f4 version over 2.8. The new 24-70/f4 would be an excellent travel lens for everyone.



Nov 12, 2012 at 01:00 AM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


24-70 4.0 IS, 70-200 4.0 IS, 6D or 5D III and I am done for 95% of my shootings.
This is all I wish/need to own. All other lenses could be rented, when needed.

Ralph



Nov 12, 2012 at 12:33 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


alexdi wrote:
Overlap is not a bad thing.

gdanmitchell wrote:
In 100% on-screen, pixel-peeping, side-by-side comparisons, a difference will be visible to those who look closely and post about it in photography forums. In large prints, not so much.

Print large much?
Absolutely correct. I've often wondered why a few people avoid overlapping focal lengths. When your focal lengths do overlap a bit, there are several advantages: you'll have to change lenses a bit less (the lens on the camera is more likely to have the focal length you need), in certain cases one might cover the "overlap" range better than the other, etc.

(I can understand avoiding overlaps in certain weight-conscious situations
...Show more

The problem is that the overlapping range doesn't come for free. In the case of the 24-105 it costs you more distortion in the wide end, and the 70-105 mm range is the range that is better covered by a 70-200 mm lens anyway.



Nov 12, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


alundeb wrote:
The problem is that the overlapping range doesn't come for free. In the case of the 24-105 it costs you more distortion in the wide end, and the 70-105 mm range is the range that is better covered by a 70-200 mm lens anyway.


+100



Nov 12, 2012 at 01:04 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


Great, I own out dated 1 series, and both the 24-70, and 24-105.
If my clients find out, I'm finished!

No seriously though, this shit always happens. Lol.



Nov 12, 2012 at 01:07 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


Ps- I read on page one about the 16-35ii. What's wrong with it? (Assuming something...I own it too).


Nov 12, 2012 at 01:07 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


RobertLynn wrote:
Great, I own out dated 1 series, and both the 24-70, and 24-105.
If my clients find out, I'm finished!

No seriously though, this shit always happens. Lol.


The question imo is no question, if you already own one. Its if you doenīt like me.
If you want to purchase new, imo the question is if you want IS and if you prefere a new designed lens for 300 bucks more with better IQ , less weight, additional (compared to 24-70) IS, better ones than the 24-105 offfers, too - or not.
I guess as soon this lens will be available, it will be bundled with 6D. At around 3000 Ä THIS would be nice and could be a cause (for me) to sign (the cheque), Robert.

Ralph



Nov 12, 2012 at 01:31 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


I was being facetious.
I don't remember the word for joke I think its different when it's a noun and when it's a verb. Witze or something i think.

Maybe saying ich speilen?



Nov 12, 2012 at 02:07 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


Nein. Witze war richtig. Und: "Ich scherze" :-)


Nov 12, 2012 at 02:11 PM
RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


Damn
That's what I get for not using it for 13-14 years.



Nov 12, 2012 at 02:21 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sorry you missed the at the end of the post.

But it seems we have a lot of people quite taken by having FL's line up with no overlap. I frankly don't get it. I hate the 24-70 range as too restrictive and would prefer it was 24-85 for an f/2.8 lens and similarly I'd prefer a lens like a 16-50 than a 14-24. I like overlap as sometimes I only take one lens out and the extra range is welcome. For landscape I especially hate just being stuck having to do UWA scenics.

BTW yes I do own a
...Show more

Yeah but I'd rather have no overlap or even underlap and top quality than a bunch of mediocre overlapping lenses.



Nov 12, 2012 at 08:33 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


RobertLynn wrote:
Great, I own out dated 1 series, and both the 24-70, and 24-105.
If my clients find out, I'm finished!

No seriously though, this shit always happens. Lol.


I've actually had my ear to the gossip mill lately and I did hear that many of your clients were just shocked, SHOCKED, when they realized you were using the 24-70 I and 24-105 and will never even bother so much as returning another call or email ever again and will look the other way should that happen to pass you out and about. Most have already burned and deleted (and by deleted I mean removed the contaminated HDs without even bothering to rescue anything else on them and tossed them into the test fusion reactor in Princeton). I think I even saw a WANTED poster up with your mug on it.





Nov 12, 2012 at 08:39 PM
S Dilworth
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


Going back to the MTF charts for a moment, I disagree with earlier suggestions that the 24-70mm f/4L IS is comparable in performance to the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. The f/2.8 lens has much stronger corner performance according to these charts.

Canonís MTF charts ignore diffraction, and they might assume other unrealistic conditions (Canon doesnít tell us), so they canít be trusted to give a full picture of lens performance. But they might still provide some clues as to how various Canon lenses compare. Unfortunately the charts have far too much information in a tiny space.

To make some of the info more digestible, below Iíve taken the MTF value for the extreme corner of the frame, for three lenses, at full aperture and f/8, for 10 and 30 lines/mm, for sagittal and tangential orientations, at the 24 mm focal length.

So these numbers compare corner performance at the wide-angle setting, which is a common preoccupation.

First, here are the numbers at full aperture, which is one stop faster for the f/2.8 lens. The performance gap between the f/2.8 lens and the f/4 lenses would increase if the f/2.8 lens were stopped down to f/4!

24 mm, full aperture, 10 lines/mm, sagittal
24-105mm f/4L IS: 50 %
24-70mm f/4L IS: 71 %
24-70mm f/2.8L II: 88 %

24 mm, full aperture, 10 lines/mm, tangential
24-105mm f/4L IS: 58 %
24-70mm f/4L IS: 54 % (worse than the 24-105mm)
24-70mm f/2.8L II: 81 %

24 mm, full aperture, 30 lines/mm, sagittal
24-105mm f/4L IS: 17 %
24-70mm f/4L IS: 23 %
24-70mm f/2.8L II: 48 %

24 mm, full aperture, 30 lines/mm, tangential
24-105mm f/4L IS: 10 %
24-70mm f/4L IS: 15 %
24-70mm f/2.8L II: 52 %



And stopped down to f/8:

24 mm, f/8, 10 lines/mm, sagittal
24-105mm f/4L IS: 72 %
24-70mm f/4L IS: 98 %
24-70mm f/2.8L II: 100 %

24 mm, f/8, 10 lines/mm, tangential
24-105mm f/4L IS: 65 %
24-70mm f/4L IS: 61 % (worse than the 24-105mm)
24-70mm f/2.8L II: 82 %

24 mm, f/8, 30 lines/mm, sagittal
24-105mm f/4L IS: 20 %
24-70mm f/4L IS: 88 %
24-70mm f/2.8L II: 98 %

24 mm, f/8, 30 lines/mm, tangential
24-105mm f/4L IS: 14 %
24-70mm f/4L IS: 27 %
24-70mm f/2.8L II: 52 %

Iíve pointed out where the 24-105mm actually does better than the new f/4 lens, but overall the new lens is clearly better. However, the new f/2.8 lens is much better again. Much better (for sharpness in the extreme corners according to these MTF charts).



Nov 13, 2012 at 12:19 AM
mmurph
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS MTF Chart comparison


S Dilworth wrote:
Going back to the MTF charts for a moment


Thanks!

I used to know how to read the charts quite well. I have to admit though that I didn't bother to sort out all of the lines and charts this time!

Looks promising overall on both counts. The 2.8 over the 4.0, and the 4.0 over the 24-105.

Although if I have the 24-70 2.8, the 24-105 might add a little more variety to the kit than both the 2.8 & 4.0 of the 24-70.



Nov 13, 2012 at 12:30 AM
1      
2
       3       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password