Upload & Sell: Off
| p.7 #2 · p.7 #2 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala |
The new 24-70 II lens is a photo-journalist staple.
For 21 years, I worked as a photographer at one of the larger papers in the country. I almost never used the mid-range lens. Once macro was put into it, I stopped carrying the prime macro, but still didn't use the lens very much. When we went digital, the APS-C sensors eliminated the wide end, but made the long end a little more useful. But It's just an iffy, wishy-washy perspective overall. And the Mk I was just too damned fragile to leave on a camera.
When I left the paper, I started using the 24-70 a lot more for events and the like, the kind of pictures I would never have to make as a photojournalist. My copy is exceptionally sharp, right after it's been to CPS. So, the lens always get's returned to a cushy, protected and comfortable spot as soon as I'm finished using it, and it's never left on the camera. Sort or limits it's usefulness, no?. Too delicate and unreliable. So...I've ordered a Mk II. What suckers we are. Shouldn't Canon have made these lenses right, the first time?
A lot of folks try to be nice and only say sweet things about Canon, but let's be realistic. Once film disappeared, so did lens quality. It's only been with the advent of higher resolution sensors that we've been demanding better lenses again. I had 2.8 zooms back in the 80's that were exceptional: Durable and sharp. These lenses were left on my cameras all the time, got knocked around, and held sharp. Granted, there was no IS mechanism inside, and the AF sucked early on, but I wasn't sending them in for service all the time as I am now.
I love the new II series lenses, but I'm not happy about having to buy something that should have been there already. The only real improvement is the AF. There has been a steady improvement there, and the II lenses raise the bar yet again.