Scott Stoness Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
v1 of 24-105 is a really good lens except at 24mm to 30mm where the barrel distortion and weaker edges show up.
Its hard to believe that canon would put out a new 24-105 that is not better or as good as than v1. No one would buy it. And people would not upgrade. Expecially hard to believe given 100-400, 24-70, 70-200 v2's were significantly better. Perhaps they improved the short end at the expense of the long end but I am hopeful that its better in most spots.
Sometimes lens do well up close and not as well at infinity. And sometimes its the opposite. The problem is that tests are done at different focus spots necessarily and people then generalize e.g. 24-105 is weak optically cas opposed to weak at the short end focussed close - and then it gets picked up and repeated as a truism.
In addition, some lens have a flat field curvature at infinity, some concave and some convex. This shows up as soft corners with a flat close close in target and focussed in centre but may not be a problem at infinity depending on the scene.
In addition - lens rentals tests at infinity, the digital pictures tests close in, photo zone tests close in. And they give different conclusions. e.g. the canon 11-24 in photo zone at 11mm does not do well but at photo zone but it does really well on lens rentals tests because one is focussed close in and the other at near infinity. uwa's don't test well focussed close.
Anyway my point is that we need to wait for more testing in order to know that the v2 is not worth upgrading. And a good lens for you (shooting architecture close) might not be a good lens for me (shooting landscape at infinity)
|