Poor samples. They down scaled the 35mm shots and the 24mm of the 24-70, the ones that are most important, perhaps to see at full scale and then they gave full scale 70mm samples but used in cam jpg with sharpening off and NR set to High even though the model was at ISO400! So they look super soft, but it is likely all in the processing.
The color and large scale contrast appear to be pretty solid though at least, 35mm contrast looks very good.
I have trouble seeing how anyone with at least a passing interest in photo gear would buy this lens over the tamron 24-70, it's cheaper, you get f2.8, and it's likely to be as sharp. Unless you have third party lens fright Id say thats the real alternative to the 24-70ii.
RobDickinson wrote:
The canon will autofocus faster and more accuratlly I bet, and is also lighter.
24-70f4l looks a great landscapers light zoom.
And better built. And if it needs fixing, cps will sort it out quickly. Important for pros why are known to have more than a passing interest in photography.
I'm really looking forward to some good test results and evaluations on this 24-70 f/4. I returned the f/2.8 II because it didn't live up to the hype and wasn't worth the cost, IMO. I sure like the focal range, though.
RobDickinson wrote:
The canon will autofocus faster and more accuratlly I bet, and is also lighter.
24-70f4l looks a great landscapers light zoom.
At $800 it'd be a good buy, but stupid price and just too slow for such a small range. Tammy for me in a heartbeat. Tamron USM is plenty fast enough and their VC is easily equal of Canon's IS.
robbymack wrote:
I have trouble seeing how anyone with at least a passing interest in photo gear would buy this lens over the tamron 24-70, it's cheaper, you get f2.8, and it's likely to be as sharp. Unless you have third party lens fright Id say thats the real alternative to the 24-70ii.
Third party manufacturers offer some attractive glass recently: Sigma 35 f/1.4 (probably ~ 600g going by Canikon equivalents) and Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC (825g). But they are too heavy compared to Canon 35 f/2 IS (335g) and Canon 24-70 f/4 IS (600g).
Yes, lens weight is FAR FAR more important to me. I'm not alone in this. Just ask those guys who dumped their Canikon gear and switched to m43... not a small group.
thw2 wrote:
Yes, lens weight is FAR FAR more important to me. I'm not alone in this. Just ask those guys who dumped their Canikon gear and switched to m43... not a small group.
This forum is full of wimps. Suck it up sparky
yes I do own m4/3 BTW and as much as I like it, I'd much rather be lugging a 1D IV + 500 f/4 around any day of the week. m4/3 is nice for city, walkabout, but I'm finding glass is too dear for what it offers, other than one or two exceptions.
When do they usually release MTF charts? Any speculation if this might match the sharpness of the 24-70II? I need a mid range lens for landscape work but I don't want to spend the money for f/2.8 that I wouldn't use much on the lens and I wasn't satisfied with the 24-105L so this might be a good lens for me.
