I agree that overall the MkII looks much better, and I don't mean to nitpick...
...but on that linked [d-t-p.com] chart above, when both lenses (MkII and MkI) are put to the 8.0 aperture setting, does the top (center crop) chart for the MkI look sharper than the MkII?
In fact, I'm not so sure about that center section when both lenses are at 5.6 or 11, either. Am I mistaken? (Am viewing on a laptop.)
I know that corners are where the 24 has always been most lacking, but I hope there's not a tradeoff wrt center sharpness.
RalphJ wrote:
I agree that overall the MkII looks much better, and I don't mean to nitpick...
...but on that linked [d-t-p.com] chart above, when both lenses (MkII and MkI) are put to the 8.0 aperture setting, does the top (center crop) chart for the MkI look sharper than the MkII?
In fact, I'm not so sure about that center section when both lenses are at 5.6 or 11, either. Am I mistaken? (Am viewing on a laptop.)
I know that corners are where the 24 has always been most lacking, but I hope there's not a tradeoff wrt center sharpness.
Looks similar to me. The center crop from the 24L TS-E I is just magnified by a small bit. Also has a bunch of CA in the far edges at F8, where the new version doesn't. At F8 and beyond, diffraction kicks in. I'd definitely use the 24L wide open or at 5.6 most of the time so I can handhold it and still get insanely sharp pictures. The 24L TS-E I doesn't allow me to do this.
Canon's done something significant with their ultra-wide lenses of late. They've done great at reducing or almost eliminating CA on several lenses in the last couple of years.
Canon is getting their act together on wide angle lenses, for sure.
Still, the Nikon 14-24 probably shocked them a bit. I expect Canon to
keep upgrading already good lenses in the short term. Maybe a new 35L,
for example. Time will tell.
I know Leslie at Pictureline had one and I was going to order but found another yesterday. You can tell him Mark found one and I am sending whoever wants one to him. Good place to deal with
The mark II looks good, but I don't see it as a real "WOW" difference...
As people have pointed out, at 5.6 on, there isn't a significant difference that can't be easily resolved in PS (higher contrast and some fringing). Will these be as noticeable in a landscape or even architecture? I don't think so.
In short, I guess it comes down to what your specific uses are for the new lens, but those of us that have the Mark I version can take our time for the upgrade. I'm not seeing a huge bang for the buck here and the Mark I should appreciate....
jamesf99 wrote:
The mark II looks good, but I don't see it as a real "WOW" difference...
As people have pointed out, at 5.6 on, there isn't a significant difference that can't be easily resolved in PS (higher contrast and some fringing). Will these be as noticeable in a landscape or even architecture? I don't think so.
In short, I guess it comes down to what your specific uses are for the new lens, but those of us that have the Mark I version can take our time for the upgrade. I'm not seeing a huge bang for the buck here and the Mark I should appreciate.......Show more →
as a landscaper i think the difference is particularly striking between the two actually.....
jamesf99 wrote:
The mark II looks good, but I don't see it as a real "WOW" difference...
As people have pointed out, at 5.6 on, there isn't a significant difference that can't be easily resolved in PS (higher contrast and some fringing). Will these be as noticeable in a landscape or even architecture? I don't think so.
In short, I guess it comes down to what your specific uses are for the new lens, but those of us that have the Mark I version can take our time for the upgrade. I'm not seeing a huge bang for the buck here and the Mark I should appreciate.......Show more →
The lack of CA is huge and considering how much of a pain it is to remove in shifted images from the TS-E 24 mkI... Plus, if the new 24 is as free of distortion as the 17 appears to be, that's another bonus over the slightly barrel prone 24 mkI. That would be two WOWs for me then... Oh, and how about no vignetting at full shift on a FF camera?
jamesf99 wrote:
CA is not a big problem in my experience so I don't think it's the first lens I'll replace...
I'm sure there is some sample variation and yours may be better than others (sounds like it's better than mine!).
CA-wise, my own versions of both the II and the I perform pretty much like the center and bottom portions of the chart here (mouse over for version I):
FWIW, the 17mm has equally impressive IQ.