~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 70mm/f2.8 105mm/f4
DoF @ 4 ft distance-->.16 feet :: .1 feet
DoF @ 6 ft distance-->.37 feet :: .23 feet
DoF @ 8 ft distance-->.66 feet :: .41 feet
DoF @ 10 ft distance-->1.03 feet :: .64 feet
So if one is interested in the ability to "isolate" subjects in/out of focus this new zoom should perform just as good [and probably better] than the 24-70/f2.8 at the long end. [Correction see below post]
While you can talk about IS 'effectively reducing' your handheld exposure, it's really only useful on the telephoto end when camera shake (or a tripod) really does affect a decent shot. If you're going to be shooting people, f/4 is simply too small for low light situations where you would want to use it - your background may be in focus, but your subjects will be blurry. And if you're not shooting people, you may as well bring a tripod, because the scenery isn't likely going anywhere, in light or darkness. There are some exceptions where IS is useful, of course.. where tripods aren't allowed or inconvienent, or when you're on a boat or bumpy ride. f/4 IS is still too slow for a lot of low light conditions. Still, this lens is obviously meant to be the new standard for a 5D camera body.
I agree that the Canon lineup needs a ridiculously expensive but supremely high quality wide angle (35mm) prime. Something like a 35 f/2, around 3000$ US. But apparently all the money for expensive lenses is in telephoto primes.
Like that lens be great for 1.6 1.3 or FF IMO. Also an F4 lens is fine with me with improved ISO performance I can shoot all day long at 400 so F4 isn't an issue. When it is an issue F 2.8 isn't that much of a help. Now for the important part price if it comes out under $ 800 I'll have to start saving.
mjemirzian wrote:
I agree that the Canon lineup needs a ridiculously expensive but supremely high quality wide angle (35mm) prime. Something like a 35 f/2, around 3000$ US. But apparently all the money for expensive lenses is in telephoto primes.
I think you'll find the 35 f 1.4 to be an exceptional lens and cheaper than your high price point. Read the reviews it's a great lens.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 70mm/f2.8 105mm/f4
DoF @ 4 ft distance-->.16 feet :: .1 feet
DoF @ 6 ft distance-->.52 feet :: .23 feet
DoF @ 8 ft distance-->.93 feet :: .41 feet
DoF @ 10 ft distance-->1.47 feet :: .64 feet
So if one is interested in the ability to "isolate" subjects in/out of focus this new zoom should perform just as good [and probably better] than the 24-70/f2.8 at the long end.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Assuming you're still trying to "isolate" the same subject (and not just the subject's nose), you have to step further back if you switch from a 70mm to a 105mm lens. Insted of comparing the 6 foot DOF for the 70 and 105mm lens you'd need to compare the 6 foot DOF of the 70mm lens to the 9 foot DOF of the 105mm lens. When you look at it that way, the 70mm f/2.8 has shallower DOF.
Eric, good point. 70mm/2.8 wins assuming identical composition.
70mm/2.8 [.37 feet] at 6 ft dist
105mm/4 [.52 feet] at 9 ft dist.
or said another way:
70mm/2.8 [.37 feet] at 6 ft dist
70mm/4 [.52 feet] at 6 ft dist
In practice would be a bit more complicated for me at least:.
1. What if >70mm gives an equal to or better composition? Would I carry an equvialent 100/2.8 also?
2. Comfortable approaching a subject close enough for optimal 70mm composition?
3. Sharpness issues at 2.8?
I'd like to see an example of 105mm/4 ...anybody have any 70-200 shots
i am pretty sure that the price of this lens will be above the price of the 24-70L by around 100-200 bucks at least.
Why?
Not because we photographer deam that the lens is worth that much, but rather Canon knows there are people who are willing to put down that much cash for the lens.
Look at the 70-200 IS lens, it is around 500 bucks more expensive then the non IS version. The 75-300 IS or 28-135 IS is even worth that much. Yes, the IS is the newer version but i doubt the mechanism and cost of installing it is worth that much. In a nutshell, the reason for the price premium is that Canon knows that there are people out there who are willing to buy this lens.
As for the 24-105 IS lens, i think it is going to very expensive too. The fact that it is f4 lens is not going to make it that much cheaper considering the fact that it has to cover a big zoom range and has IS. Canon knows that to a lot of people out there, people will pay 100, 200 bucks more for the f4 IS version. I suspect that people will overlook the fact that it is a 2.8 lens and just stare at the IS and the fact that it is a L lens....
Anyway I would like to be proven wrong because I am interested in it myself.... but for know, better not keep hopes too high and start saving
So does anyone have a mint and sharp 24-70 2.8L for sale to me at a cheap price before it falls lower? Good way of getting the money required for this 24-105 F4L IS.
giulioz wrote:
Yes, the 20D will be discontinued and the 1D MkII N will accept EF-S lenses.
Giulio
I'm not sure if you were serious or joking, but there is no way this would happen.
Do you really think the 1DII-N would be a 1.6 crop sensor? No, I can assure you it isn't.
The scoop seems to be that it's either a 1.3 crop (with a few "enhancements" to the current model), or that it's based on the new FF 12.8MP sensor in the 5D. In either case, there's no way it could take EF-S lenses.
in principles I was joking, but it would make sense to me. Too many cameras at the moment. They should keep one entry level 1.6 body, one prosumer body accepting also EF-S lenses and one professional FF body.
Mike Hatam wrote:
I'm not sure if you were serious or joking, but there is no way this would happen.
Do you really think the 1DII-N would be a 1.6 crop sensor? No, I can assure you it isn't.
The scoop seems to be that it's either a 1.3 crop (with a few "enhancements" to the current model), or that it's based on the new FF 12.8MP sensor in the 5D. In either case, there's no way it could take EF-S lenses.
Sorry, I can't see ANY possible way that the 1dIIN would be FF -- an 8fps 13mp camera in same body as the 1dsII but presumably selling for $3K less than the not-as-fast 16mp 1dsII? No way anyone would pay that upcharge for only 4mp more but with a slower frame rate.
discreet wrote:
i am pretty sure that the price of this lens will be above the price of the 24-70L by around 100-200 bucks at least.
Why?
Not because we photographer deam that the lens is worth that much, but rather Canon knows there are people who are willing to put down that much cash for the lens.
Look at the 70-200 IS lens, it is around 500 bucks more expensive then the non IS version. The 75-300 IS or 28-135 IS is even worth that much. Yes, the IS is the newer version but i doubt the mechanism and cost of installing it is worth that much. In a nutshell, the reason for the price premium is that Canon knows that there are people out there who are willing to buy this lens.
As for the 24-105 IS lens, i think it is going to very expensive too. The fact that it is f4 lens is not going to make it that much cheaper considering the fact that it has to cover a big zoom range and has IS. Canon knows that to a lot of people out there, people will pay 100, 200 bucks more for the f4 IS version. I suspect that people will overlook the fact that it is a 2.8 lens and just stare at the IS and the fact that it is a L lens....
Anyway I would like to be proven wrong because I am interested in it myself.... but for know, better not keep hopes too high and start saving...Show more →
I think you could be right. OTOH, the 17-40/4 is cheaper than the 16-35/2.8 but the 17-40 has about the same reach and no IS of course.
If this 28-105/4 (presuming it is real) is sharp wide open then it surely is a very interesting lens. I think I will replace my 28-135 then.
I am a member of CPS here in Norway, and I get regular news letters with links that point to the new articles, there is extensive info, technical article etc etc etc, tons of good stuff.
highly recomended even to those outside of europe...
