This might be a stupid question but all the burst of activity on this subject has left me really confused as to the reliability of the stuff that's bouncing around. I'm planning on buying a 24-70mm on wednesday, is this new one ACTUALLY coming out soon or is it still possibly another year til I can get my hands on one?
Langran wrote:
This might be a stupid question but all the burst of activity on this subject has left me really confused as to the reliability of the stuff that's bouncing around. I'm planning on buying a 24-70mm on wednesday, is this new one ACTUALLY coming out soon or is it still possibly another year til I can get my hands on one?
If these leaked images and specs are true, there is a fair chance of an announcement tomorow.
@ lagran:
Who should be able to answer that question? I would wait for tests and the price announcment anyway. If the old one is cheaper and better, go. If the new is cheaper and better, go for that. If the new one one is cheaper only ( ) think about, how big the difference is. If itīs more expensive and better, wait till the IS version comes out.
What really cracks me up is how some of you complain about 82mm filters that they're expensive...
Jesus...I never understood the logic behind purchasing L lenses and then moaning about some filters...
If I pay 1500-2000 $ on a lens, it won't kill me to buy a 100$ decent filter...I'd rather get the 100$ filter scratched/bumped rather than the front glass element of the lens.
I don't want to argue with somebody ,but perhaps I'm missing the bigger pictures, and some of you (those who acquire L lenses) are working for 300 $ /month and then....obviously.....the filters would seem expensive.. C MON PEOPLEEEE......
I also never understood the moaning of lenses being heavy...
You get good glass for its optic quality, not its size,weight,colour, etc...
Or do you expect to get a 20-200 f2.0L weighing 500 grams?
ON TOPIC: My concern is how much better is the new 24-70 compared to the old one in terms of overall IQ and focus. (you can split IQ into several categories,depending on whatever matters: sharpness,contrast,color reproduction, etc)
But basically it comes down to 'generic' IQ and AF speed/accuracy.
PS: what is that knob on the top of the lens (or it looks like the end/start of a collar)?
Btw. MK1 might not be sharpest, but it has personality, which is quite unusuall for Canon lens. Tamron might match it in pure optical performance, but photo isnt made just by LP/mm.
Considering what ISO values can today or tommorow Canon reach, I think IS isnt exactly needed for anything except really long lens.
And for serious landscapes I would go with Zeiss or TS-E lens. So only use of stabilised primes is video, which I guess is why they made them (as far as I remember they released some video camera recently with EOS mount). Tho as movie lens, they might have something "special" in rendering, definitely curious about performance and "look".
You are both right. :-)
I never thought about filter costs when I purchased a lens. Compared to the lens they are all much to expensive - like additional tripod collars. It does not matter what size they have. Same with weight, adrianb. If I do not like to carry around a 1.5 kilo 70-200 2.8 there is a fantastic alternative at half the weight and same IQ. Just one stop less. If I need this one stop I have to carry. Sometimes even camear/lens producers may do magic things. They can not do wonders.
And Mescalamba is right, to. In Times when manufacturers establish "clean" ISO 25k a 1 stop difference is nothing and IS becomes less important at the low zoom range. I remember a couple of weeks ago: there is no need for IS in a 24-70.
But of course: When they overwork two old designs in 24 and 28 mm at 2.8 and implement IS, I ask myself why they did not do it at 24-70. I am sure an IS version will follow soon.
Will Patterson wrote:
Other plate ontop looks like a good candidate for an IS on/off switch location.
Except the design isn't typical, both in placement and shape, for an IS switch, which is mounted right next to the AF/M switch on every other IS lens I can think of. As others have pointed out, it appears to be a locking switch.
I reckon the photo has purposely been taken at an angle to be ambiguos. The actual name of the lens can't be seen, as the angle is quite awkward. Wouldn't someone sharing the first photos of the lens show this.
Perhaps this is to create more discussion / buzz, or maybe I'm a cynic.
on the pic of the 24-70 Canon lens what exactly is the protrusion near the 24-70 utrasonic label? an "IS" switch? perhaps...since this isnt on my 24-70 verI.
digitalbug30d wrote:
on the pic of the 24-70 Canon lens what exactly is the protrusion near the 24-70 utrasonic label? an "IS" switch? perhaps...since this isnt on my 24-70 verI.
M Vers wrote:
Except the design isn't typical, both in placement and shape, for an IS switch, which is mounted right next to the AF/M switch on every other IS lens I can think of. As others have pointed out, it appears to be a locking switch.
maybe the design doesnt allow for typical "IS" switch placement...why a "Lock" now..just sayin
I heard a while back that canon had tested a few different prototypes of this lens, one with IS, one without, how do we know the leaked picture is really of the final product?
Also, from those of your who have owned tamron lenses (which I have not) should I expect their new stabilized 24-70 to feature IQ comparable to canon L zooms??
) think about, how big the difference is. If itīs more expensive and better, wait till the IS version comes out.