This should be expected, since the Nikon 28/1.4 is an old lens. I would be interested to see how much better it would be if Nikon updates this lens or brings out a 24/1.4 version with their nano-crystal coating, etc. If the 14-24/2.8 is any indication, it may possibly trump both the zoom and the Canon 24/1.4L Mk II.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
We don't know yet Some shops have the 35L mkII on their website
I would not be surprised at all to see a 35MKII--if anything it would share identical upgrades (new lens coatings etc) the 24L just received. Why not do it at the same time?
As pure speculation, I expect the "character" change between the old 24L and the new one to be comparable to that between the old and new 85L. That is to say: improved focus speed and flare handling, and slightly less CA.
Looking at the MTFs, I also agree that the extreme corners will be a little sharper wide open - but seriously question the value of this in real-world shots given that the high-precision AF point of the 5DMkII is central.
The new minimum focus distance is impressive though (this is the biggest single benefit at can see at this time), and the weather sealing will pay dividends to a minority of shooters.
I thoroughly expect the 24/1.4L MkII to be welcomed by PJs using 1 series focus systems and shooting in inclement weather. Pretty much everyone else will probably be perfectly happy buying a discounted MkI version.
Sure we should wait for the reviews, but that's my best guess at this time.
And as I said on the first page, the landscape guys should wait for the ZE 21/2.8.
musclepics wrote:
The 16-35 looks better than the old 24.
I really enjoy the Digital picture reviews but their tests often show LoCA with the fast aperture primes. Which indicates that the point of focus is slighly out. The magenta hues are the tell-tale give away. Lens tests are a very specialised and highly delicate operation and very far removed from real world shooting. So far I haven't found a lens test site that is completely trust worthy. Photozone.de is a complete joke and completely out of date.
I have a 17-40L and a 16-35 II L and I also use a Mk I on occasion. There's is little between these three lenes. Sure the 16-35 II is a wee bit better in the corners but not by much.
Sorry for my english, it's not my native (birth) language.
First, I think that closes focussing distance is defined from sensor (or film) plane. So these 3 in (or 77 mm) is nonsense.
Second, the optical layout (scheme) of both versions looks very similar, so IMHO it is not possible so drammaticaly reduce the minimum focussing distance...
Any idea why Cannon will not make 20mm (or 21mm) L USM f/2.8 or faster.
Canon has in it L-serie: 14mm, 16-35mm, 17-35, 24mm mkI and II, 24-70mm and so on ...
I know there is 20mm but its not L-serie.
Why I asked?
I would like to have Canon 20 or 21mm L USM f/2.8 or faster
I think many of us here are real pleased that Zeiss is offering a ZE line for us Canon shooters, and absolutely thrilled to hear about the announcement of the ZE 21/2.8 Distagon - as the earlier version was the mother of all wide-angle lenses.
ArtRider wrote:
Any idea why Cannon will not make 20mm (or 21mm) L USM f/2.8 or faster.
Canon has in it L-serie: 14mm, 16-35mm, 17-35, 24mm mkI and II, 24-70mm and so on ...
I know there is 20mm but its not L-serie.
Why I asked?
I would like to have Canon 20 or 21mm L USM f/2.8 or faster
Sep 24, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
ArtRider wrote:
Any idea why Cannon will not make 20mm (or 21mm) L USM f/2.8 or faster.
Canon has in it L-serie: 14mm, 16-35mm, 17-35, 24mm mkI and II, 24-70mm and so on ...
I know there is 20mm but its not L-serie.
Why I asked?
I would like to have Canon 20 or 21mm L USM f/2.8 or faster
Probably the same reason they don't have a 16,17, 18mm lens. Or 22, 23 mm lens. Canon or any other brand can't cover every mm with a new fast prime lens
Ovi Ivoda wrote:
First, I think that closes focussing distance is defined from sensor (or film) plane. So these 3 in (or 77 mm) is nonsense.
I was wondering about this myself. I did measure the minimum focusing distance of one or two of my lenses one day, and as you say, the close focusing distance was defined from the sensor/film plane.
Now, in that case, since the distance from the sensor to the front element must be over 77mm, I do not think that can be the case, and I would expect the Mfd to be measured from the front element. By the way, such an Mfd would not be bad at all.
Sep 24, 2008 at 01:25 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Xavier Rival wrote:
I was wondering about this myself. I did measure the minimum focusing distance of one or two of my lenses one day, and as you say, the close focusing distance was defined from the sensor/film plane.
Now, in that case, since the distance from the sensor to the front element must be over 77mm, I do not think that can be the case, and I would expect the Mfd to be measured from the front element. By the way, such an Mfd would not be bad at all.
Normal they call it minimum focus distance from the sensor (film plane). And minimum working distance from the front element.
Ovi Ivoda wrote:
Sorry for my english, it's not my native (birth) language.
First, I think that closes focussing distance is defined from sensor (or film) plane. So these 3 in (or 77 mm) is nonsense.
Second, the optical layout (scheme) of both versions looks very similar, so IMHO it is not possible so drammaticaly reduce the minimum focussing distance...
Claro, te entendí. Supongo que la distancia minima de enfocar es de la vidrio principal de la lente, y no del sensor. Tal ves canon hizo un error en la manera que describieron la distancia. Sino, obviamente podemos deducir que la distancia es del vidrio.
Obviamente estuviste correcto cuando nos dijiste que no es possible tener la distancia minima del sesor ser 77mm o menos.
Disculpe mi castillano, no es mi lengua materna, sino estoy aprendiendo
¡Saludos!
P.D. Tú país me encantó y estoy esperando volver esta invierno (tuyo verano)
I have just checked again the specs on DPreview, and I read Minimum focus 0.25m (9.9 in).
Where does this 3" minimum focusing (or working, maybe ?) distance come from ?
It seems to me that 0.25m minimum focusing distance makes sense for such a lens (that is comparable to what the 17-40L or 24-105 do for instance). But then that would not correspond to a 3" minimum working distance either (Thank you, Lars; I had not noticed this minimum working distance term was used for that ): the lens is about 80mm long, and the distance from the sensor plane to the lens mount is around 40mm, so 40+80+77=197mm, which is much less than 25cm.
I was on the bridge in Rome (where the sample picture was taken) and it looks nothing like it does to the naked eye. Waaayyy too yellow, not sure if that's really helping canon's case.
Some shops have the 35L mkII on their website