the internal design is actually a touch closer to that of the 24-105, although still a good deal different (not surprising it might be a bit more similar since it's not a reverse zoom and neither is the 24-105 while the original 24-70 is): http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-105-f4l/spec.html
note also how the sharpness of the 24-105 on FF just utterly dies on FF edges compared to the new 24-70 II (or 24 1.4 II or 24 2.8 IS)
(of course do take the MTF charts with a grain of salt, they are just weird Canon computer simulations of their designs)
The new 24-70 II isn't like the Nikon 24-70 design either, not remotely close, although they both use 3 aspherical and 3 UD (well, some sites say the canon uses 2UD and 1 SUD), the Nikon design is a touch closer to the old Canon design but quite different from that as well: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_zoom24-70mmf_28g/
Note that the new IS 24mm could barely fit the IS unit in and it's the tiny 1 element found in the 18-55 IS kit lens.
Also note that IS could now way fit inside the 24 1.4 II unless they somehow radically redid the design, not even the mini IS unit type.
and see that the 28 2.8 IS has the identical front and rear design to the 24 2.8 IS which probably is why they came as a pair instead of 24 2.8 IS and new 50 1.4 at this time: http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/wide/ef28-f28-is/spec.html
Can't say the MTF charts on the primes are overly inspiring. But the zoom does look impressive, certainly a huge improvement if it lives up to what the charts suggest.
When they introduced the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II I'll have to admit I was first in line bitching about why did they upgrade an already great lens and make it so much more expensive. Until I shot with the II, then I shut my mouth. I won't say anything negative this time until the lens is out. If it lives up to those MTF charts it will be worth the price.
RCicala wrote:
Can't say the MTF charts on the primes are overly inspiring. But the zoom does look impressive, certainly a huge improvement if it lives up to what the charts suggest.
When they introduced the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II I'll have to admit I was first in line bitching about why did they upgrade an already great lens and make it so much more expensive. Until I shot with the II, then I shut my mouth. I won't say anything negative this time until the lens is out. If it lives up to those MTF charts it will be worth the price. ...Show more →
Well said! If Canon really pulls this off, all the Zeiss and Nikkor trolls can go eat crow!
RCicala wrote:
Can't say the MTF charts on the primes are overly inspiring. But the zoom does look impressive, certainly a huge improvement if it lives up to what the charts suggest.
When they introduced the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II I'll have to admit I was first in line bitching about why did they upgrade an already great lens and make it so much more expensive. Until I shot with the II, then I shut my mouth. I won't say anything negative this time until the lens is out. If it lives up to those MTF charts it will be worth the price. ...Show more →
I was right behind you complaining all of the way...I own the Version II 70-200 now, and not the version one, if that says anything.
p.1 #10 · 24-70 II innards (and 24 2.8 IS innards)
RCicala wrote:
Can't say the MTF charts on the primes are overly inspiring. But the zoom does look impressive, certainly a huge improvement if it lives up to what the charts suggest.
Yeah hard to say. I do wonder why for $850 the 24 2.8 IS has no UD elements. You'd think it should show a better MTF curve than for the new 24-70 zoom and it does not (to be fair it looks similar to the 24 1.4 II chart, but all the same, for $850 and a slow prime, why should it not beat the zoom and fast prime, which are tricky to build?)
I guess it looks like it will do pretty well, and nothing to really complain about and yet for $850 it seems for a couple bucks more spent on elements it might have been blowing zeiss and all out of the water and for that price maybe it should.
p.1 #12 · 24-70 II innards (and 24 2.8 IS innards)
For reference, the difference between the MTF charts for the 24-70 I vs 24-70 II is much, MUCH bigger than the difference between the ones for the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS II. So if they bare out in the real world....
p.1 #13 · 24-70 II innards (and 24 2.8 IS innards)
Another interesting comparison is between the new Canon and the Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8. The Sigma has the same headline specifications and basic design. The Canon is more elaborate and undoubtedly more accomplished. Of course, you can get two-and-a-half Sigmas for the price of the Canon. Think of the photos you could make with two-and-a-half lenses!
For a better view, zoom in on the vector graphic of the Sigma on page nine of this PDF brochure.
