Here is a direct comparison of the specs of the old Canon 24-70 vs the new 24-70.
Old: Focal Length 24 - 70 mm
Aperture Maximum: f/2.8
Minimum: f/22
Camera Mount Type Canon EF
Format Compatibility 35mm Film / Full-Frame Digital Sensor
Canon (APS-C)
Angle of View 84° - 34°
Minimum Focus Distance 1.25' (38 cm)
Magnification 0.29x
Maximum Reproduction Ratio 1:3.44
Groups/Elements 13/16
Diaphragm Blades 8
Features
Image Stabilization No
Autofocus Yes
Tripod Collar No
Physical
Filter Thread 77 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.3 x 4.8" (8.38 x 12.19 cm)
Weight 2.1 lb (953 g)
New: Focal Length 24 - 70 mm
Aperture Maximum: f/2.8
Minimum: f/22
Camera Mount Type Canon EF
Format Compatibility 35mm Film / Full-Frame Digital Sensor
Canon (APS-C)
Angle of View 84° - 34°
Minimum Focus Distance 1.25' (38 cm)
Groups/Elements 13/18
Diaphragm Blades 9
Features
Image Stabilization No
Autofocus Yes
Tripod Collar No
Physical
Filter Thread 82 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.5 x 4.4" (8.89 x 11.18 cm)
Weight 1.77 lb (803 g)
elicious, what's so great about 9 aperture blades instead of 8 ? Do you like having 18 points instead of 8 on the stars produced by small highlights ?
I wish this lens had IS. I have found with my Nikon 24-70 (also considered to be a reasonably good lens) that VR (IS) is often needed in poor light. Why should I have to forgo using my sharper lens just because some clever lens designer (or marketer) reckons I don't need image stabilization ? Fact is that when I am shooting landscapes hand-held and darkness approaches, these nice f/2.8 lenses lose their advantage because they do not have IS. Then I can get better results from a lesser quality f/5.6 lens with a 4-stop IS in terms of handling camera movement and in terms of getting more DOF at the same time. So it seems to me to be a wasted opportunity to not provide IS in the new 24-70. Oh well.
skibum5 wrote:
yeah 82mm filters is nasty BUT 82mm filters may be how it manages to get a better MTF plot at the edges than the 24 1.4 II prime so....
Yeah...I'm looking at my substantial investment in 77mm Singh-Ray specialty filters and need to factor their 82mm replacements into any upgrade cost... All of my Canon L zooms take the 77mm filters...unless the 24-70 II is substantially and noticeably better than my late model 24-70L, I'll probably skip it and keep what I have.
Mike Ganz wrote:
Only if one is a sucker for the "UV protection" scam...
I am, if you shoot by the ocean or blowing sand or embers, it's particularly a good thing IMO. I actually shot a post NCAA championship street celebration and the bonfire embers ended up permanently damaging the protective filter, seared blobby dots across it. Nothing that cleans off.
skibum5 wrote:
I am, if you shoot by the ocean or blowing sand or embers, it's particularly a good thing IMO. I actually shot a post NCAA championship street celebration and the bonfire embers ended up permanently damaging the protective filter, seared blobby dots across it. Nothing that cleans off.
I was referring to the "UV filter 100% of the time" crowd. Of course, its much like sex...use protection only when absolutely necessary.
