Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The 24-70mm f/4 has a ...
... retractable zoom mechanism?

Chief Editor -

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
It has macro capabilities, but even if it had retractable zoom mechanism, so what?
You may notice that the "dot" isn't aligned to the 24mm mark - that points to a retractable design.

About the "so what" - religious people will not mind, of course. The rest of us call that an annoyance. The only excuse for a retractable zoom mechanism is a small size - and that's not a small lens but an averaged-sized one.
Chief Editor -

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Compared to the 24-70/2.8 is IS a smaller lens Big Grin

I find it much more annoying that it's also focus by wire and that happens to be non-linear.

From Nikon rumours:

"Has the size needed to deliver an extremely high standard of optical performance, yet provides outstanding portability; employs a retracting mechanism that can be set on/off without pressing a button and reduces total length for a compact lens that can easily be taken anywhere

Read more:"
Nikkor 24-70mm f/4 S: 77.5 x 88.5 mm
Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS: 83.4x93mm
Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 OSS: 73x94.5mm

Half a cm shorter in transport mode ... well ...
Chief Editor -

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
About this religious thing: You make a big fuzz about that 1/2 cm, as you did with the telescopic tube of the Sigma 24-105. I know it's useless to point out it's still working and no dust or mositure in it. As it is useless to point towards your other religion which is saying if a lens sits in a metal tube, it's equal too "solid construction" - no matter how much plastics and small screws are holding the glass together at the inside. So, everybody has his little "should be that way, otherwise it's worse..." statements. As I already said, the focus by wire is a real issue to me and I don't care much about standard zooms. This one features 0.3 MFD at all focal lengths - how about the other two? Okay, the Canon goes down to 0.2 with it's Macro function, but then how to bring light in between?

Maybe it's not only to make it shorter but also to block the focus elements (14 elements...) from shattering around as you also complaied about in some Fuji tests - or was that Markus? And it's not only shorter, but also 0.5 cm thinner Big Grin than Canon Big Grin which is for DSLR :o
I can't comment on your opinion but looking at all the feedback out there, it all happened as envisioned - Nikon released mirrorless cameras and for the Nikonians it is the best thing ever since sliced bread despite just 3 lenses and a pathetic adapter. That is truly religious. Again, I have no problems with this but, of course, I enjoy joking about it. ;-)
Chief Editor -

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Naaah. Or I'm no Nikonian, that's also a vaild option Big Grin I don't see the adapter as pathetic, nor as bad - it's the same level as the body's bottom, so basically holding the adapter is not a big difference from holding a DSLR, which in general is more chunky. But I can't wait to see Canon coming out with a full and broad choice of all lenses (including tilt-shift if you don't mind), no pathetic or other adapter and rolling over the market while leaving all other manufacturers in a dust cloud.

Honestly, it would not be sooo diificult to fill the gaps the Z-lines still show to me. As a tilt-swivel display, open aperture focusing (what good are the f/1.8 lenses for if not for more precise foucs?), focus point selection with the touchscreen (in EVF mode) and so on... not to mention a spare slot for another card for the elderly persons amongst us with a shorter memory, could not resist, dave.

You don't mind that I keep - or at least get started - joking about Canon's non-exisiting FF mirrorless? Or the fact that all Sony versions of today needed 3 generations while the resale value went below cellar? Or Fuji throws one FW version after the other (they should install it by whatsapp...) All manufacturers have some joke sources Big Grin
I've been using your review of the Olympus 9-18 to show people what a collapsible zoom is, because many were (or wanted to appear) clueless since I pointed that out on the FM forums. Smile Though the size savings are not likely to be as much as in the case of the Olympus ultrawide where the lens collapsed to about half of its length - that was impressive.

Tell me Klaus... what does a collapsible design mean for the possible centering issues?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)