Ralph Conway wrote:
Putting my arm from the chairs rest ... is it $ 1900?
The 24-70 is about 1200 averadge. A new version at 1900 is dead before it is available in the shops. For that you get the best zoom ever. The second best for half. IQ of the old one was nice/o.c. could have been better) but not for additional $ 700. Than it really would be easier to offer/sell an IS version for about 2.400.
The updated 70-200/2.8 IS increased in price by about $900. People freaked out... until they saw the image quality. Now it sells like hotcakes and people don't mention the price much anymore.
@ cineski:
I am sure they did. :-)
But it does not matter. like you said: This lense is useless for anybody doing video. And the big sales did not come from people like us, doing a pic. What do you think why 5D - 5D II, 7D where so successful and why Nikon jumped on the train? Selling DSLRs into the video market is a challenge and promises highest sales without any further costs.
24-70 2.8 II without IS is just as stupid than no follow up. There will be a IS-version as soon as in 70-200. Else I think japanese company heads are as stupid as those all over the world. They are not, of course. Tamron just introduced 24-70 IS. Must be a Canon daughter. Do it! Sell as much as possible! Then we bring out the "L".
deepbluejh wrote:
The camera forums are full of arm-chair quarterbacks. Legions of people who love to second guess camera companies and their decisions.
Of course.
Canon want as many as possible to upgrade to a 24-70 2.8 L II without IS first. Simultaneously they show a couple of wide primes with IS, so that we can buy two or three lenses two cover this focal range optimally. Then, after the sales have ceased, they will release a 24-70 2.8 L IS, and we will upgrade once more. 4 lenses sold instead of 1. Easy decision. If it only worked that way
As far I see, it is reverse. But yes, the lenshood is mounted on the front so it will not cover the barrel :-(
That is working fine with 24-105 L. Maybe it just moves about 2 centimeters?
I think the lens will extend and then retract as you go through the zoom range. The Nikon 24-70 does just this but in a slightly different way as it is at it's shortest at 50mm, i.e at 24mm the lens is extended, zooming to 50 retracts the lens completely and it extends once more as you go from 50mm to 70mm.
Hope that makes sense.
I am surprised that the new Canon does not have IS and that it has an 82mm thread however. Time will tell if these details are of course true.
deepbluejh wrote:
The updated 70-200/2.8 IS increased in price by about $900. People freaked out... until they saw the image quality. Now it sells like hotcakes and people don't mention the price much anymore.
As far I remember here in germany the updated price was just 200 € more. Meanwhile it went down to the original version "1" price.
Why not at 1.8? If it is not "sharp" than it is no 1.8 lens. I read here so often the 50mm 1.4 gets sharp about 2.0-2.8 - this is worthless to me. If I can not get sharp images full open, I do not need the lens.
I am sorry. But I am just a photographer. If ISO 12.800 is useless, its not worth to tell "we do ISO 12.800". If AF does not work I do not need a huge number of AF points.
100 L is razorsharp! Best buy. 70-200 4.0 is fantastic, 2.8 II learned from it. An "50-350 IS" does not need an IS if the IQ is less than I need. This is the point!
I purchased a 35-128 IS for about 600€ 10 years ago. It was worthless, because it had a shallow area in the right sided golden cut. Garbadge, nothing else. IS did not make it better. No IS would not have done it worse. It was so worse that it was just wasted money. I know, I am spoiled. I bought a 70-200 4.0 L IS. I bought a 100mm 2.8 L IS USM, too. Why should I ever buy a Canon lens, that is not best? At a price I want to pay? Because I need it? That is my excuse, but never could be Canons.
Sharp enough for any genre of photography this lens is applicable for (portrait, street, landscape).
Ralph Conway wrote:
Why not at 1.8? If it is not "sharp" than it is no 1.8 lens. I read here so often the 50mm 1.4 gets sharp about 2.0-2.8 - this is worthless to me. If I can not get sharp images full open, I do not need the lens.
You've READ that the 50mm 1.4 is not sharp before f2 and conclude that "this is worthless to me". Have you shot with the lens? I also find the 50mm 1.4 to be a nice sharp lens. BTW, all lenses improve their IQ by stepping down, even the 35L.
Chengdu Nanhai wrote:
Sharp enough for any genre of photography this lens is applicable for (portrait, street, landscape).
You've READ that the 50mm 1.4 is not sharp before f2 and conclude that "this is worthless to me". Have you shot with the lens? I also find the 50mm 1.4 to be a nice sharp lens. BTW, all lenses improve their IQ by stepping down, even the 35L.
No. Not like that. I tested 4 50mm 1.2s. And after 7 50mm 1.4s. I purchased the best one of those 7.
I had and used it for two years, before I became nhappy, I could not use it wide open. So I looked around and bought a Sigma that did after calibration (again, I tested fife to find out that they are all same having a FF of 2,5 centimeters). Sigma promised me, they are able to correct it. I purchased 2 lenses with my dealers promise he would take them back, when Sigma failed. They did not. It is that easy.
I realize this looks like a pretty fancy image, but remember there were reports of 'several' iterations of the 24-70/2.8 II being tested. Until Canon releases the info, I wouldn't necessarily take this as gospel, however good the image appears (I acknowledge that it does appear 'real'). Also, as several have mentioned, if image quality is indeed a large step up from the original, it probably will sell like hotcakes, once the word is out, especially if it is so much lighter (the image resembles the build of the 16-35 II in many ways).
My question is this: What is the 'bump' on the top side of the image, above the distance scale (i.e. to the right of the model inscription)? None of my black L lenses have this (granted, I'm not a gear collector), but it sure looks like another switch of some sort. Lastly, the bottom edge of the AF switch that is shown looks PS'd, it just sort of disappears into the bottom of the image.
To explain: The four tested 1.2s where so bad that you could see CA in the unscaled picture. None of them found any focus (with my 5D MKII, a 1D MKiV or a 1Ds MK III.). My dealer told me (thank you) "Ralph, forgett them. I will call you when we get a new production charge." Of course, they where all sold before. And of course they could be fixed (I guess). But that is not what I am looking for. Why purchasing a lense at 2.8 if I can start using it at f: 5.6?
For that I do not need the light wide opened. An 50mm 1.4 that does not make great pictures at 1.4 is just a fraud. Nothing else.
Jeff wrote:
My question is this: What is the 'bump' on the top side of the image, above the distance scale (i.e. to the right of the model inscription)? None of my black L lenses have this (granted, I'm not a gear collector), but it sure looks like another switch of some sort.
Looks like the "LIMIT" switch on the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4 L USM Fisheye.
That is it! It is sharp at 2.8, isnt it?
My 70-200 4.0 L was at 4.0. I scaled it down because I had to or because I wnted to become a larger focus area. Sharp means just sharp, where you focused. 50mm 1.4 did not for me at 1.4.
Jeff wrote:
I realize this looks like a pretty fancy image, but remember there were reports of 'several' iterations of the 24-70/2.8 II being tested. Until Canon releases the info, I wouldn't necessarily take this as gospel, however good the image appears (I acknowledge that it does appear 'real'). Also, as several have mentioned, if image quality is indeed a large step up from the original, it probably will sell like hotcakes, once the word is out, especially if it is so much lighter (the image resembles the build of the 16-35 II in many ways).
My question is this: What is the 'bump' on the top side of the image, above the distance scale (i.e. to the right of the model inscription)? None of my black L lenses have this (granted, I'm not a gear collector), but it sure looks like another switch of some sort. Lastly, the bottom edge of the AF switch that is shown looks PS'd, it just sort of disappears into the bottom of the image.
Focus limiter maybe? And Canon isn't going to make any high resolution press photos for prototypes. I think we can pretty well be assured this is a final lens.
