There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ? - FM Forums

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'...

StarNut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

jctriguy wrote:
StarNut wrote:
Like many, I also can't begin to figure out why one would buy the 24-70 f/4L IS, at this price.

If IQ (assuming this lens has better IQ) is so important (my 24-105 has very good optics; IMO only a pro who sells large prints or an absurdly compulsive--or rich--amateur would want to pay that much more for less focal length choice), why would one buy this lens over paying a bit more for the 24-70 f/2.8L II?

Yes, the size makes it a better walking-around lens, but we already have the much less expensive 24-105 for that.

I'm sure Canon has done their market research, and this lens will sell. I just don't see a big market for it.

Is $800 or 50% more a 'bit more'?? I'd call that a huge jump. Retail on the 24-105 is $1100, so $400 less than the 24-70 f4. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter than the 24-105, 7 years newer design and new hyrbid IS. Almost certainly the IQ will be improved over the 24-105. I know my copy of the 24-105 is not a great one, I would happily sell it and pick up a new 24-70 instead of hunting around for a good copy of a 7 year old lens.

Also, if they do actually bundle this as a kit with the 6D we will see similar influx of 24-70 f4 on the used market as people get the lens for maybe $1200 in a kit. That is the main reason why the 24-105 is so easy to get for around $800 even in new condition, kit pricing has made it very popular.

As I said, I'm sure Canon has done their homework, so I'm sure there's a market. If I were in the market for a 24-70, and willing to pay $1500, I'd find a way to cobble together the extra for the (apparently) very fine 24-70 f/2.8L II. That's just me. Just like it may be that I'm the only one with a good copy of the 24-70, but the optics of the 24-70 f/4 would have to be out of this world for me even to consider spending close to twice as much for the 24-70 f/4 than the real-world price of the 24-105.

JMO; obviously other have theirs.

Nov 08, 2012 at 07:25 PM

jctriguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

StarNut wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
StarNut wrote:
Like many, I also can't begin to figure out why one would buy the 24-70 f/4L IS, at this price.

If IQ (assuming this lens has better IQ) is so important (my 24-105 has very good optics; IMO only a pro who sells large prints or an absurdly compulsive--or rich--amateur would want to pay that much more for less focal length choice), why would one buy this lens over paying a bit more for the 24-70 f/2.8L II?

Yes, the size makes it a better walking-around lens, but we already have the much less expensive 24-105 for that.

I'm sure Canon has done their market research, and this lens will sell. I just don't see a big market for it.

Is $800 or 50% more a 'bit more'?? I'd call that a huge jump. Retail on the 24-105 is $1100, so $400 less than the 24-70 f4. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter than the 24-105, 7 years newer design and new hyrbid IS. Almost certainly the IQ will be improved over the 24-105. I know my copy of the 24-105 is not a great one, I would happily sell it and pick up a new 24-70 instead of hunting around for a good copy of a 7 year old lens.

Also, if they do actually bundle this as a kit with the 6D we will see similar influx of 24-70 f4 on the used market as people get the lens for maybe $1200 in a kit. That is the main reason why the 24-105 is so easy to get for around $800 even in new condition, kit pricing has made it very popular.

As I said, I'm sure Canon has done their homework, so I'm sure there's a market. If I were in the market for a 24-70, and willing to pay $1500, I'd find a way to cobble together the extra for the (apparently) very fine 24-70 f/2.8L II. That's just me. Just like it may be that I'm the only one with a good copy of the 24-70, but the optics of the 24-70 f/4 would have to be out of this world for me even to consider spending close to twice as much for the 24-70 f/4 than the real-world price of the 24-105.

JMO; obviously other have theirs.

You are very selectively adjusting the prices to suit your opinion. $800 increase from f4 to f2.8 version is easy to just 'cobble' together, in your opinion. I'd call that the cost of another lens. Then you compare the price of a used 24-105 to the new MSRP of the 24-70. You are comparing apples to oranges here. You can't get a new 24-105 for less than $1000 or $1100 from a legitimate retailer.

Nov 08, 2012 at 08:33 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

RobertLynn wrote:
jerrykur wrote:
I find the 24-105 has issues at the wide end withe distortion (when compared to a prime). Also it is not the sharpest lens around.
1 click in LR and distortion is solved.
Sharpness, I think it's pretty good.

Sharpness is a lot better than some would lead you to believe. Sure it's not prime sharp, but it's still good. Corners and edges could be better but mostly some improvement in barrel distortion would be great. Don't try to eliminate but it's nearly double the 24-70 II's distortion @ 24mm and is large enough to see in the VF. I'd also like to see a improvement in max magnification similar to what the 24-70 mk I could do. Maybe a new rear floating element.

Nov 08, 2012 at 09:30 PM

gabimaster
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

Good thinking,RobertLynn. I'm very happy with my 24-105L.

Nov 08, 2012 at 09:44 PM

StarNut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

jctriguy wrote:
StarNut wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
StarNut wrote:
Like many, I also can't begin to figure out why one would buy the 24-70 f/4L IS, at this price.

If IQ (assuming this lens has better IQ) is so important (my 24-105 has very good optics; IMO only a pro who sells large prints or an absurdly compulsive--or rich--amateur would want to pay that much more for less focal length choice), why would one buy this lens over paying a bit more for the 24-70 f/2.8L II?

Yes, the size makes it a better walking-around lens, but we already have the much less expensive 24-105 for that.

I'm sure Canon has done their market research, and this lens will sell. I just don't see a big market for it.

Is $800 or 50% more a 'bit more'?? I'd call that a huge jump. Retail on the 24-105 is $1100, so $400 less than the 24-70 f4. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter than the 24-105, 7 years newer design and new hyrbid IS. Almost certainly the IQ will be improved over the 24-105. I know my copy of the 24-105 is not a great one, I would happily sell it and pick up a new 24-70 instead of hunting around for a good copy of a 7 year old lens.

Also, if they do actually bundle this as a kit with the 6D we will see similar influx of 24-70 f4 on the used market as people get the lens for maybe $1200 in a kit. That is the main reason why the 24-105 is so easy to get for around $800 even in new condition, kit pricing has made it very popular.

As I said, I'm sure Canon has done their homework, so I'm sure there's a market. If I were in the market for a 24-70, and willing to pay $1500, I'd find a way to cobble together the extra for the (apparently) very fine 24-70 f/2.8L II. That's just me. Just like it may be that I'm the only one with a good copy of the 24-70, but the optics of the 24-70 f/4 would have to be out of this world for me even to consider spending close to twice as much for the 24-70 f/4 than the real-world price of the 24-105.

JMO; obviously other have theirs.

You are very selectively adjusting the prices to suit your opinion. $800 increase from f4 to f2.8 version is easy to just 'cobble' together, in your opinion. I'd call that the cost of another lens. Then you compare the price of a used 24-105 to the new MSRP of the 24-70. You are comparing apples to oranges here. You can't get a new 24-105 for less than $1000 or $1100 from a legitimate retailer.

Gawd, who cares? I can buy a brand new, unused 24-105 from someone who bought a kit, for $800. Any day of the week, on my local Craigslist. And I never said it would be "easy" to cobble the money together; the very use of the term "cobble together" implies it's difficult. And then I ended by saying it's just my opinion.

Apparently your opinion is different. Fine.

Gawd.....

Nov 08, 2012 at 10:28 PM

BCPete
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

Maybe so when the 200-400mm finally comes out, you can make the numbers of your kit look real nice!

24-70mm f/4L IS USM
70-200mm f/4L IS USM
200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x

That 24-105mm f/4L IS USM just screws up the neatness of that list!

Nov 08, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

gabimaster wrote:
Good thinking,RobertLynn. I'm very happy with my 24-105L.

Me, too (means I was, I sold mine). But the main cause was, that there was no other offer.
When I shot weddings with my 24-105 and 70-200 4.0 IS combo I could detect easily wich pic in the range of 70-100mm was done with wich lense. There is a huge quality difference between those two lenses. I expect that the new 24-70 4.0 hits 70-200s IQ much better. Hopefully over its whole range, what no copy of 24-105 I shot ever did. Only this would make the upgrade welcome to me. The rest (weight, size, built, better IS) is welcome too, of course.

Ralph

Nov 08, 2012 at 10:47 PM

Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

I like the new 24-70 IS lens a lot

Nov 08, 2012 at 11:12 PM

jctriguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

StarNut wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
StarNut wrote:
jctriguy wrote:
StarNut wrote:
Like many, I also can't begin to figure out why one would buy the 24-70 f/4L IS, at this price.

If IQ (assuming this lens has better IQ) is so important (my 24-105 has very good optics; IMO only a pro who sells large prints or an absurdly compulsive--or rich--amateur would want to pay that much more for less focal length choice), why would one buy this lens over paying a bit more for the 24-70 f/2.8L II?

Yes, the size makes it a better walking-around lens, but we already have the much less expensive 24-105 for that.

I'm sure Canon has done their market research, and this lens will sell. I just don't see a big market for it.

Is $800 or 50% more a 'bit more'?? I'd call that a huge jump. Retail on the 24-105 is $1100, so $400 less than the 24-70 f4. The 24-70 is smaller and lighter than the 24-105, 7 years newer design and new hyrbid IS. Almost certainly the IQ will be improved over the 24-105. I know my copy of the 24-105 is not a great one, I would happily sell it and pick up a new 24-70 instead of hunting around for a good copy of a 7 year old lens.

Also, if they do actually bundle this as a kit with the 6D we will see similar influx of 24-70 f4 on the used market as people get the lens for maybe $1200 in a kit. That is the main reason why the 24-105 is so easy to get for around $800 even in new condition, kit pricing has made it very popular.

As I said, I'm sure Canon has done their homework, so I'm sure there's a market. If I were in the market for a 24-70, and willing to pay $1500, I'd find a way to cobble together the extra for the (apparently) very fine 24-70 f/2.8L II. That's just me. Just like it may be that I'm the only one with a good copy of the 24-70, but the optics of the 24-70 f/4 would have to be out of this world for me even to consider spending close to twice as much for the 24-70 f/4 than the real-world price of the 24-105.

JMO; obviously other have theirs.

You are very selectively adjusting the prices to suit your opinion. $800 increase from f4 to f2.8 version is easy to just 'cobble' together, in your opinion. I'd call that the cost of another lens. Then you compare the price of a used 24-105 to the new MSRP of the 24-70. You are comparing apples to oranges here. You can't get a new 24-105 for less than $1000 or $1100 from a legitimate retailer.

Gawd, who cares? I can buy a brand new, unused 24-105 from someone who bought a kit, for $800. Any day of the week, on my local Craigslist. And I never said it would be "easy" to cobble the money together; the very use of the term "cobble together" implies it's difficult. And then I ended by saying it's just my opinion.

Apparently your opinion is different. Fine.

Gawd.....

Chill out eh.

Nov 08, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Suresh T
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

The reason for the new 24-70 f/4 L IS given the 24-105 f/4 L IS and 24-70 f/2.8 L II is the different target audiences, similar to those for the lens options in the 70-300 range IMO. I think the following lenses are going after similar audiences:

24-105 f/4 L IS & 70-300 L IS : greater range and flexibility with slight "quality" compromises (barrel distortion on the 24-105, var max aperture on the 70-300)

24-70 f/2.8 L II & 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II : "no compromise" zooms for their range, giving up slightly on "convenience" (price on the 24-70 and weight/price on the 70-200)

24-70 f/4 L IS & 70-200 f/4 L IS : middle ground in quality and convenience compared to the above

I have the 24-105 and was tempted by the "bag of primes" 24-70 II, but balked at the price. If the new 24-70 f/4 is nearly as sharp as the 24-70 II, I will very likely switch to it from the 24-105 (to avoid barrel distortion, softness away from center at f/4, and generally to get closer to prime lens quality).

Nov 09, 2012 at 06:11 AM

jctriguy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

Suresh T wrote:
The reason for the new 24-70 f/4 L IS given the 24-105 f/4 L IS and 24-70 f/2.8 L II is the different target audiences, similar to those for the lens options in the 70-300 range IMO. I think the following lenses are going after similar audiences:

24-105 f/4 L IS & 70-300 L IS : greater range and flexibility with slight "quality" compromises (barrel distortion on the 24-105, var max aperture on the 70-300)

24-70 f/2.8 L II & 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II : "no compromise" zooms for their range, giving up slightly on "convenience" (price on the 24-70 and weight/price on the 70-200)

24-70 f/4 L IS & 70-200 f/4 L IS : middle ground in quality and convenience compared to the above

I have the 24-105 and was tempted by the "bag of primes" 24-70 II, but balked at the price. If the new 24-70 f/4 is nearly as sharp as the 24-70 II, I will very likely switch to it from the 24-105 (to avoid barrel distortion, softness away from center at f/4, and generally to get closer to prime lens quality).

+1 well said.

Nov 09, 2012 at 06:50 AM

jonorees
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

Suresh T wrote:
The reason for the new 24-70 f/4 L IS given the 24-105 f/4 L IS and 24-70 f/2.8 L II is the different target audiences, similar to those for the lens options in the 70-300 range IMO. I think the following lenses are going after similar audiences:

24-105 f/4 L IS & 70-300 L IS : greater range and flexibility with slight "quality" compromises (barrel distortion on the 24-105, var max aperture on the 70-300)

24-70 f/2.8 L II & 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II : "no compromise" zooms for their range, giving up slightly on "convenience" (price on the 24-70 and weight/price on the 70-200)

24-70 f/4 L IS & 70-200 f/4 L IS : middle ground in quality and convenience compared to the above

I have the 24-105 and was tempted by the "bag of primes" 24-70 II, but balked at the price. If the new 24-70 f/4 is nearly as sharp as the 24-70 II, I will very likely switch to it from the 24-105 (to avoid barrel distortion, softness away from center at f/4, and generally to get closer to prime lens quality).

+2

I had the 24-105 after moving from the Tamron 28-75. The AF wire broke (common) and cost $315 AUD to repair which really disappointed me as you wouldn't expect that from an L series lens. Picked up a 70-200 2.8 IS cheap and moved to the Tokina 16-28 and bought a 50mm 1.2 L.

My photography interests have changed hence the change in glass and the 24-105 nor the 24-70 would meet those needs.

The 24-105 is a good all purpose lens and I think will continue on in the canon lineup for those don't want the kit lens but don't want to spend the $$$ on the 24-70 + a second lens to get past the 100mm mark.

Nov 09, 2012 at 07:57 AM

PhilDrinkwater
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

Suresh T wrote:
The reason for the new 24-70 f/4 L IS given the 24-105 f/4 L IS and 24-70 f/2.8 L II is the different target audiences, similar to those for the lens options in the 70-300 range IMO. I think the following lenses are going after similar audiences:

24-105 f/4 L IS & 70-300 L IS : greater range and flexibility with slight "quality" compromises (barrel distortion on the 24-105, var max aperture on the 70-300)

24-70 f/2.8 L II & 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II : "no compromise" zooms for their range, giving up slightly on "convenience" (price on the 24-70 and weight/price on the 70-200)

24-70 f/4 L IS & 70-200 f/4 L IS : middle ground in quality and convenience compared to the above

I have the 24-105 and was tempted by the "bag of primes" 24-70 II, but balked at the price. If the new 24-70 f/4 is nearly as sharp as the 24-70 II, I will very likely switch to it from the 24-105 (to avoid barrel distortion, softness away from center at f/4, and generally to get closer to prime lens quality).

Yes - this would be my take on it too..
...although the 70-200 f4 L IS isn't much of a compromise on quality. It's amazing! Not quite as good at f4, but even then it's pretty close. Wow that's an amazing piece of engineering..

But yes the 24-70 f4 to me makes total sense in the lineup. I'd still like the option of a 24-70 f2.8 IS, but I don't know if that's coming at all now

Nov 09, 2012 at 09:15 AM

howard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

It is not unusual to have "overlapping" of lenses. Canon have a bunch of 24/28-85/105/135 lenses and too many 70/75-300 to count (with or without USM, with or without IS, different apertures, etc.) -- admittedly they are non-L "consumer" grade lenses, but in the L-lineup zooms are more sparse to begin with, and what we are seeing is probably the beginning of a plethora of different choices in the "general purpose" range.

The way I see is:

24-70 f/2.8 (and hopefully eventually with IS) -- high-quality, top-of-the-line, large aperture (and expensive!) zoom for pros and people who need f/2.8

24-70 f/4 IS with macro -- smaller aperture, high optical quality and compact zoom with macro capability for general purpose use

24-105 f/4 IS (and eventually the "II") -- smaller aperture, longest focal range for people who need the focal range for general purpose use

The 24-105, being a lens with a longer zoom range, will always compromise somewhat on optical quality, but for people who want the longer range, it is a compromise they will be willing to make.

Also, with these offerings, you can mix-and-match to build your lens kit, depending on your taste in photography, for example:

3 f/4 lens combo for people who need super wide-angle:

17-40 f/4, 24-70 f/4 IS, 70-200 f/4 IS

2 lens combo for those who lean more toward telephoto:

24-105 f/4 IS, 100-400 IS (hopefully this will get updated soon too)

3 lens combo for those who want maximum focal length coverage:

17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4 IS, 100-400 IS

etc, etc.

More choices are always a good thing!

Nov 09, 2012 at 02:01 PM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

I agree with Howard and Suresh T, and I really don't understand the confusion with this lens. Canon prides itself on providing an abundance of lens choices. A 24-70 + 70-200 is a popular combo; so is the 24-105 + 100-400 which I chose. If I were being critical, I'd say I don't understand the 70-300 L, it has nearly the weight of the 100-400 without the reach and doesn't offset that with faster aperture

But fine, that doesn't diminish the 100-400.

Nov 09, 2012 at 07:10 PM

Suresh T
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

Jeff Nolten wrote:
If I were being critical, I'd say I don't understand the 70-300 L, it has nearly the weight of the 100-400 without the reach and doesn't offset that with faster aperture

But fine, that doesn't diminish the 100-400.

Speaking as an owner of the 70-300L, I needed more than 200mm, but didn't want the slight additional "inconvenience" of the 100-400L: 330g extra in weight, 1.8 inches extra in length (won't fit in my bag on the 5D2 with hood on).

Also, I didn't compare this myself, but the IQ of the 70-300L is supposedly about as good as the 70-200 f/4 L IS (slightly better at 70-100mm, slightly worse at 135-200mm), whereas the IQ of the older 100-400L is a bit below those two. The more modern IS of the 70-300L is also supposedly better than the 100-400L.

Nov 10, 2012 at 12:54 AM

saneproduction
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

I would not sacrifice IQ for IS with my 24-70II. It doesn't need IS as much as perfect sharpness. If they could do IS w/o sacrificing quality, they would have. Look at the Tamron 17-50 VC vs the sharper Non-VC the VC version is less sharp because of some sacrifice in design they made to add VC.

Nov 10, 2012 at 01:08 AM

Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

Suresh T wrote:
Jeff Nolten wrote:
If I were being critical, I'd say I don't understand the 70-300 L, it has nearly the weight of the 100-400 without the reach and doesn't offset that with faster aperture

But fine, that doesn't diminish the 100-400.

Speaking as an owner of the 70-300L, I needed more than 200mm, but didn't want the slight additional "inconvenience" of the 100-400L: 330g extra in weight, 1.8 inches extra in length (won't fit in my bag on the 5D2 with hood on).

Also, I didn't compare this myself, but the IQ of the 70-300L is supposedly about as good as the 70-200 f/4 L IS (slightly better at 70-100mm, slightly worse at 135-200mm), whereas the IQ of the older 100-400L is a bit below those two. The more modern IS of the 70-300L is also supposedly better than the 100-400L.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. My comment was not to dis the lens,but to highlight its overlapping position in the Canon lineup. My preference would have been for a 100-400 II with the modern design of the 70-300 L, but others have different preferences.

Nov 10, 2012 at 01:47 AM

Suresh T
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

Jeff Nolten wrote:
I don't disagree with anything you've said. My comment was not to dis the lens,but to highlight its overlapping position in the Canon lineup. My preference would have been for a 100-400 II with the modern design of the 70-300 L, but others have different preferences.

I agree, a 100-400 II would have made it a harder choice versus the 70-300L for me. :-)

Nov 10, 2012 at 02:22 AM

Dudewithoutape
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · There is 24-105 f/4.0 L IS and now 24-70 f/4.0 L IS ? I'm confused, don't you ?

All the new Canon lenses are getting better performance than their replacements and peers. People LOVE the new 45mm 2.8, 70-200mm IS II, etc. I heard the new 24 and 28 are great too, but IMHO, overpriced. Now this 24-70 f/4 may seem overpriced too, but I'm willing to put money that it will perform real well in tests and pixelpeeping. The 70-200mm f4 was sharper than the 2.8 when it came out, perhaps this will be sharper than the 24-70mm 2.8 (at least the I hopefully)?

Nov 10, 2012 at 02:33 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end