Gunzorro Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II?? | |
I haven't "moved on", so I might be a little more objective than people telling you why it was a good idea that they did buy the new lens!
I used the new lens during at least one loaner period from CPS (on a loaner 5D3). It is a fantastic lens, and definitely superior to the first version in design and imaging.
But. . . like you, I have other prime lenses that can match or beat the new lens, and I have a very good (I feel it is outstanding) copy of the first version, model year UT (2005), which I bought new and has earned me more money than any other lens in doing events and a few twilight calendar shots.
Recently I picked up a used 24-105L (UY 2010), which is as good or better at imaging than my original 24-70L, with the addition of IS, and it is now my "go-to" lens for general photography. I'm happy with it through out its range -- kind of surprised, and sorry I waited so long to try it.
So, for me, with the multiple overlaps, including the 24TSE, 45TSE, 50/2.5 macro, 50/1.2L and Leica R 60 macro, I don't really feel that the new lens, at an additional $1k is worth it to me right now. Instead, I'd rather update my 24/2.8 and 35/2 to the new IS models for that money.
This is basically the same conclusion I came to about the 5D3 -- great camera, but a interim step for me and the type of shooting I do. I am still hunkered down with the 5D2 and 1Ds3 waiting for the next big thing to break. If I were starting out, I agree the 5D3 (or your new 1DX) and the new 24-70L II would be a great foundation. No qualms about saying that, having used all those gears.
|