I wanted to try the 24-70/2.8 to see how it perform... and I was quite surprise to figure out that
@24mm it is NOT a 24mm.

It's more a 28mm.

So I went to look at the spec. and it appears that the angle of view @ 24 is 73... more a 28mm which is 75 than a 24mm which is 84...

Have you ever noticed that or am I missing something here?

Lenses are seldom exactly what they're marked as in terms of focal length. My Olympus and Nikon 24mm lenses are slightly wider than either the Canon 24mm T/S or the 24-70, but only by a millimeter or so. If my Nikkor is 24mm then I'd say the Canon's were maybe 24.5-25mm, but no longer. At 28mm, the Canon 24-70 is very close to my Nikon 28mm f/2. Is it possible that one of your references is measuring diagonal view and the other horizontal?

spec are from Canon, and if I post the images you'll see how big the difference is compare to a 24-85 set @ 24mm

David,

What 24mm lens did you use for comparison?

I really like the look of the wider (assuming prime lens) shot better than the zoom at 24mm. Just more "life" to it.

And completely unrelated: Do you live in a trailer?

The 24-70 is compared to the 24-85/3.5, so far from a prime, both at 24mm.

And I did shoot today with both lens but I will look at the shot tomorrow I prefer let the day settle down before doing any editing so I can't say yet wich one I prefer... but I also think that I prefer the contrast of the 24-85 and I am also surprised by that.
Above 6.1 the 24-85 is really not bad... below forget it.


And yes I live in a trailer, an Airstream... and now almost full time. But when we were living in our house as soon as the weather was better we moved into the trailer which was about 20 feet away, I guess we like that...

One thought that comes to mind is that the front element of the lens on the 24-70mm extends out when set to 24mm. Your pictures just might be showing that the lens is physically closer to the computer monitor with the 24-70 than it is with the 24-85.

Does it exhibit the same relative field of view difference when shot at infinity?

I was told the same about the lengh of the lens at 24mm... but I am not convenced yet... because I can achieve the frame of a 24mm with a 35mm, I am only talking about frame, if I step back.

Also I can match the frame of the 24-70 with the 24-85 set at 28mm, I guess it's a little bit less.

Are you talking about focusing at infinty - like at the distant horizon?

If you are focusing at something three feet away, a step back is a huge difference. If you are focusing at something a mile away, a step back makes no difference.

Compare the field of view of the two zoom lenses using reference points on the distant horizon and you will take out any relative effects of the length of the lens.

There probably is some difference between the two lenses, most every lens deviates slightly from its marked focal length.

The nominal focal length specified for a lens always is valid at infinity only. When focusing at shorter distances, all kinds of things can, and will, happen to the effective focal length---particularly with all zoom lenses and most modern macro lenses. Two lenses that cover the same angle of view at one distance usually will cover different angles of view at another distance, depending on their designs. The only kind of lenses that keep their focal length constant across all distances are those focusing purely by varying their extension (rare today).

So in order to check whether your 24-70 mm zoom lens really is 24 mm at the short end, compare it to a known 24 mm lens at or near infinity. Comparisons at short distances are pointless.



This issue has nothing to do with the physical length of the lens but with the design of the focusing mechanism.

-- Olaf

This is dead true. My Olympus 14-54 is noticeably wider at the long (54) end than my 50-200 at the short (50) end unless the subject is some distance away- like 30 feet or more. The standard that manufacturers use is to quote the focal length at infinity focus. Variations at the wide end of wide zooms are large.

By the way, I had and loved the Canon 24-70/2.8 in my film days and can testify that, at infinity, it was much wider than my Canon 28/2.8 prime.

Don.

But to get back to the original post, is it pretty much agreed that the 24-70 is really pretty much the same as the 28-70 on the wide end?

I think not. Reading through all the above I'd conclude that they may be similar at close distances but not infinity. Wouldn't make sense to call the 28-70 a 28 if it was really a 24-70 and the 24-70 is definitely wider than 28!

For me that extra 4mm was crucial and I miss it terribly now.

Don.

Nikon have a massive incentive to be tricky with the marketing of this product.

I for one have never been interested in a 28-70 whereas a 24 70 has got me thinking about that zoom, because a 24 prime was one of my first proper lenses - I always found the 28 not to ba a 'proper wide'

The concept of integrating a 'proper wide' and a short tele in one package appeals to me for one - it might mean that I can shoot 90% of my nikon work without removing the lense or desiring two bodies

I think two questions needs to be answered

-how does the 24 compare with a nikon 24 prime

- does the 24 on the 24-70 smoothly integrate with the 24 on the 14-24

I would suggest that the latter may be true but not the former

p.s. I for one am not interested in infinity - I'm usually close when using a wide

p.p.s does any one know about the close focus of this lense - often a lillte mentioned drawback of zooms

S

I'm pretty sure this thread is about the Canon 24-70.

While I haven't compared it with a 24mm prime, my experience with the Nikkor 24-70 is tht you don't have to focus it at infinity to get a noticeably wider FOV than the 28-70 AF-S.

OOOPs I thought it was about the new nikon

thanks for the info anyway



S