Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #13 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II sample variation tested |
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
You have to feel for the person who shelled out $2300 for the new version and got only a little better performance for twice the price. Ouch.
Not really. First of all this is just at 70mm so it's not the full picture. Second, I've seen a Mark I at 70mm f/2.8 and I thought it was pretty good, so although the numbers aren't mind-blowingly good, in real life having 700 lppm as a bare minimum for your Mark II lottery sounds like great odds of getting a great lens to me.
Third, which is the takeaway for all of us, this same phenomenon affects all lenses to varying degrees. Let's not get too smug about our own lenses since the law of averages suggest that anybody with multiple lenses is likely to have experienced a bad or at least sub-par copy at least once. It's a shame that with these ever-rising prices they've still left it up to the consumer to figure out if theirs is a bad copy and put the burden on consumers to either microadjust it or send it in for repairs.
Fourth, in normal shooting, especially handheld, you'll rarely if ever achieve the kind of IQ/sharpness that can be obtained in a well-controlled series of tripod/LiveView tests that Roger described. You'll probably also see more variation in "real world" results for multiple shots from the same photographer with the same lens, and between many photographers all using the same lens, than are evident in Roger's test results.