p.2 #2 · What am I missing, why is new 24-70 almost 2x the first one?
RCicala wrote:
The Tamron seems to be doing OK. We had two where the glued-in second element fell out during shipping. That hasn't been repeated and I've seen no other reports of similar issues, so I think it had more to do with shipping lenses than anything real world.
The new Canon is holding up fine except for a few with the bent zoom ring I spoke of earlier.
But not a lot of experience yet - we only have a couple of dozen Tamrons and while we have a lot of the Mk II Canons they've only had a few months use.
FWIW - at the current price difference I'd probably go Tamron even though the Canon Mk II has amazing resolution. On the other hand, I expect the Mk II price will drop soon enough. ...Show more →
Here's 'The Camera Store's' 24-70 Canon vs Tamron shootout...
p.2 #4 · What am I missing, why is new 24-70 almost 2x the first one?
artsupreme wrote:
Monitor, you are clueless. You were the one that said the 5D3 was selling great at $3500 and the price would not drop....yeah sure buddy, carry on....
Monito makes me look like an upbeat, optimist. I thought I was grumpy!
p.2 #5 · What am I missing, why is new 24-70 almost 2x the first one?
You get prime-like 24mm and much better f/2.8 performance, likely better build quality, better AF on 5D3/1DX, the old one's development has been paid for and it was still on old release pricing scheme, new one is bumped up for inflation and to quickly cover new costs (most canon lenses seem a lot less expensive after ten years). And Canon does seem to have gone to a bit of a higher pricing model these days too, unfortunately, of course.
p.2 #8 · What am I missing, why is new 24-70 almost 2x the first one?
RCicala wrote:
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. ...Show more →
p.2 #9 · What am I missing, why is new 24-70 almost 2x the first one?
The current price for the 24-70 is just crazy. In the UK we are talking £1900. I purchased my 24-70 MKI at £950 a few years ago and there is just no way that the new one is worth twice the price. Even if the price comes down I have no plans to upgrade. If you want 24-70 & 70-200 your now talking nearly 4k which I am sure put these lens well out of most people's range.
p.2 #10 · What am I missing, why is new 24-70 almost 2x the first one?
WilliamFinley wrote:
I'm speaking with my wallet by not buying until the price comes down to a more reasonable price range.
Bill
Totally fine, but mine has paid for any price drop already. Just depends on if you need it now or not. Same thing with many items, early adopters pay extra.
.