OFFICIAL: 24-70L II, 24 2.8 IS, 28 2.8 IS

Double Negative wrote in post #13844878
You can't. "Bokeh" is subjective and unquantifiable.

KenjiS wrote in post #13844920
We should invent a way to quantify bokeh by measuring how not sharp the out of focus areas are! We'll be rich!

As much as it is subjective, which i agree with 100%. It is also not a coincidence that the lenses we believe to have the most pleasing bokeh also share similar MTF charts. I didnt believe this either until i started to study the charts. Obviously in the end your own opinion will out weigh it but give it a run. Look at the charts for your lenses in which you believe you have great bokeh. I know i detest the bokeh of the Canon 50 1.4 and after looking at the charts for it i can see it agrees with me vs the other competitors.

TheBurningCrown wrote in post #13845991
Very disappointed with this, overall. No IS, no reverse-zoom

people even complain about that now!?

Hyper: People live to complain

HyperYagami wrote in post #13846332
people even complain about that now!?

What, an intelligent design that protects from flare at all focal lengths? Yeah, stupid people complaining...

K6AZ wrote in post #13845740
Then you have a very low estimation of what a L lens should feel like. The non-L 100mm macro was better built. It just feels cheap compared to every other L lens I own and even some third party lenses.

Sadly I have to agree, its not like i doubt the thing will hold up or anything, but it does feel a bit less "nice" than other L glass I've owned

Also my copy's IS unit rattles a bit...

vipergts831 wrote in post #13846361
Hyper: People live to complain

I remember all the complaining when Canon changed the shade of white/grey on the new telephoto L's....

HyperYagami wrote in post #13846332
people even complain about that now!?

I've never used the 24-70L MkI, but I must say when I first read about the reverse zoom design (lens retracting as you zoom towards the tele end) and how that makes a fixed-dimension hood work better, I thought it was an ingenious design and wished more zoom lenses were designed like that.....

Anyway, I do share you overall sentiment -- there was a lot of whining in this thread.

Sure, I get it that people were disappointed by the news (and shocked by the prices) -- I was too.

However, the whining quickly got old after 25 pages. (Yes, I usually read the entire thread before responding.)


The only truly informative post in this thread (page 11), explaining why Canon picked the 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 as the lenses to upgrade, even though there are many more we may feel need updating more:
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=13840643#po​st13840643

(The MTF comparison was good as well, although I've already seen the MTF on CanonRumors.)


:p

Cararan wrote in post #13839536
$2300 for the 24-70L II... WOW

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

$900 24mm IS

$800 28mm IS

there are wide angles with IS?!

Man.. Those primes.. Why can't they take a hint from Nikon and start offering some good lenses for the low budget amateur? I hope they don't go this direction with their camera bodies..

Michael Cheddar wrote in post #13845723
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but according to B&H the corresponding lens hood is "Lens Hood EW-88C". Isn't that the same lens hood as the 16-35's?

This link below also states the EW-88C to be the lens hood for this new lens. I cannot find any other pictures of the hood, so I assume it's a new one too...

the 16-35II uses the EW-88 (non "c") by the way.


http://www.usa.canon.c​om …/ef_24_70mm_f_2​_8l_ii_usm

Where are the prices on the primes? I see them quoted above, but I am looking for a source.

My reading of the MTF charts threw me off - I thought I was seeing the lines a good 10% or even 20% lower than they were! Over 90% MTF at 10 lp/mm in frame center, that's very nice.

I'd say hopefully this is a light at the end of the tunnel for a new 50mm f/1.4 but Canon doesn't seem to be releasing many lenses faster than f/2 lately (and the extra light gathering ability not transferring to a brighter image won't help there). Still, a 50mm isn't a terribly big lens, so hopefully they'll roll it out - with IS.

Interesting differences in MTF between the 24 and 28mm lenses, but pretty minor.

On both lenses (with very similar MTF curve patterns), I would read that chart to predict bokeh should be okay on the 24mm, getting fussy near the edges, and possibly more so when you stop down (the saggital and meridional lines appear diverging more at f/8). It'll be interesting to see how close I am with that prediction.

Electrical wrote in post #13847151
This link below also states the EW-88C to be the lens hood for this new lens. I cannot find any other pictures of the hood, so I assume it's a new one too...

the 16-35II uses the EW-88 (non "c") by the way.


http://www.usa.canon.c​om …/ef_24_70mm_f_2​_8l_ii_usm

There's a picture of the hood (EW-88C) here:

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …sm#SuppliesAndA​ccessories

BTW guys if you're curious on the hood

E (W for wide lenses, T for telephoto) - Diameter of the hood itself - letter to designate if theres mutliples of the same diameter

dont know if anyones mentioned this (no time to read 25 pages)....

But would IS in lens be needed if Canon jumped on the IS In Camera?

KenjiS wrote in post #13846382
Sadly I have to agree, its not like i doubt the thing will hold up or anything, but it does feel a bit less "nice" than other L glass I've owned

Also my copy's IS unit rattles a bit...

That IS rattle is common in a number of IS lenses and nothing to worry about. Most of my use of the 100L is on a copystand with the IS switched off but it doubles as a nice portrait lens when I need it to do that. Optically it is an outstanding lens but the build quality for a L lens is just inferior.