Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #15 · What am I missing, why is new 24-70 almost 2x the first one? |
I would be interested to know why the new lens version is more durable than the old one. Lighter just means more plastic, the old version had at least some metal body parts (even plastics can be very durable, but I made better experience with more metal-parts based in lens bodies here)
The old lens had centering, tilt, and distance adjustments on the very large front element. Whenever it was dropped there was a high risk of the front element losing adjustment which affected resolution, particularly at 70mm more than at 24mm. The new lens has a nonadjustable front element, less affected by drops.
The helicoid collars in the old lens were prone to wear out over time. When one broke off the barrel became slightly off center, again affecting resolution. The new barrel has far less weight than the old one, hopefully reducing wear and tear. The helicoid collars are larger and made of a stiffer material than the soft nylon used before.
I agree (somewhat) that metal survives better than plastic - the old lens was would have no obvious signs of damage because it was built like a tank, but the internal problems made poor resolution, particularly at 70mm, rather common with that lens.
Interestingly, the major problem we're having with the new version is one of the metal pieces: the zoom ring is very thin metal and has a tendency to get out of round if it's banged around, making the zoom stiff.
Thanks for sharing those insights! So far I am fortunate that my 24-70 vers. I lens does not give me any trouble. I consider it very sharp at both zoom ends even my 70-200/4 IS is a tiny bit sharper at 70 mm but I need to look very closely to see this marginal difference.