rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
rscheffler wrote:
I don't see such differences with the 28-70 and 70-200s, though I think the 28-70 is a bit shorter than 70mm when compared to other 70mm lenses.
Another lens with similar rendering is the new 24-105, and I'd say it's somewhat sharper than the 28-70 at some focal lengths.
Toothwalker wrote:
There is no need to speculate, because you can always look up the true focal length. Either through the Canon patent for the lens (if you can find it), or more conveniently by visiting
https://www.photonstophotos.net/GeneralTopics/Lenses/OpticalBench/OpticalBenchHub.htm
It is fairly common among lens manufacturers to exaggerate the zoom range or lens aperture by a few percent. They typically round it to the nearest number that people are familiar with, but always in the direction that makes the specs look a bit better.
With mathematically correct rounding, the two lenses above are 29-68/2.1 and 72-194/2.9, respectively.
A difference of 4 mm at 70 mm is certainly noticeable....Show more →
I first noticed it when I compared directly the 28-70 against the 24-105/2.8 with the camera on a tripod. When both reported 70mm in the EVF, the framing of the 28-70 was noticeably wider.
I am reading mixed reports about that lens, with the overall consensus pointing to a less than fantastic performance.
It might depend on what you want to do with it. I've somewhat purposely ignored reviews and instead borrowed one from Canon for a week-long event where such a lens (like the 28-70) would get a lot of use. I did not have a chance to use it much for landscape type applications, so can't comment on its performance at distances closer to infinity, but for typical people photography I thought it was overall an excellent lens. While it is a long/large lens, I found its balance to be good and the zoom was very fluid and AF was faster than the 28-70. If it is weak (less sharp), it's at 105mm, but even at that focal length I didn't feel it was significantly weaker than a 70-200 zoom. At the wide end I thought it was sharper and higher contrast than the 28-70. But overall I like the 28-70 slightly more than the 24-105 because to my eyes, it has a somewhat gentler rendering/character, which combined with the f/2 look, when desired, I find somewhat more pleasing than the 24-105/2.8 wide open. But both lenses at f/2.8 are more similar than they are different, in respect to bokeh character.
IMO the 24-105Z is a lens you should try in order to form your own conclusions. It definitely is a case of design compromises (such as strong barrel distortion at 24mm) but depending on your expectations and uses for it, might be acceptable.
|
There are a few others here who have it and feel similarly, so I'm unsure where the negative reviews are coming from or what their concerns are (I have not bothered to find them). From my point of view, it's a great lens for people events and does exactly what I need in this kind of lens. The debate for me is whether its broader range outweighs my preference for the 28-70's look. Ideally, I would have both.