dtolios Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
ggreene wrote:
I like the original 24-70/2.8 build over the new plastic one. The hoods are miles apart as well. The one on the mk2 is pathetic. I have a feeling the new 16-35 will be the same way. Plastic build, flimsy hood.
I agree that the feel in the hand is different, but I after 1.5y with each lens, I think I prefer the 24-70 II in everything but the hood - which as you say, is meh...
The Mk II lens itself feels very solid after 1.5y (and was bought used).
The Mk I was much heavier and the cold to touch metal was implying a lot, but I don't think the internals of it were superior to that of the Mk II. The contrary, as I believe Roger Cicala's breakdowns have indicated: newer designs are build more solidly and far more accurately inside-out, even if the composite shell doesn't shout it. In fact the latest Ls appear to be not only more rugged, but also more adjustable / serviceable than all-metal Ls from the past, aswell as contemporary Sony/Zeiss & Sigma Art AF lenses in their class.
The heavier Mk I also developed some creep over time that I cannot replicate in the Mk II.
I also don't operate in really harsh climates to care personally, but I think there are handling advantages with the composite shell both for super-hot, as well as super-cold environments.
---------------------------------------------
jcolwell wrote:
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
LoL / LoL / LoL
|