stanj wrote:
Yes, just as obvious as comparing a cropper zoom lens with a full frame prime that's two stops faster and then proclaiming that one is "better"
So really, what's the big difference from the two aside a simple graphical curve saying it's better on the corners and what not?
I got my 24L almost two months ago and it's picture perfect. If you wanted to move me to upgrade to MK II version, why and why would I change?
______________________
:: Italo ::
www.galaxyimage.com
No one is asking you to change. If you have a good/sharp copy of the 24L that's great. For most of here who don't already own the 24L or do own one but is looking towards the Mk II version which will have better wide-open performance, corner sharpness, less distortion, less flare, better coating and therefore maybe slightly better color, closer focussing, etc, etc, we are here to discuss these differences. This is obviously not a thread that would be of any interest to you whatsoever since you already own a perfect copy and do not believe it could get any better.
Italo Campilii wrote:
So really, what's the big difference from the two aside a simple graphical curve saying it's better on the corners and what not?
I got my 24L almost two months ago and it's picture perfect. If you wanted to move me to upgrade to MK II version, why and why would I change?
______________________
:: Italo ::
www.galaxyimage.com
Italo Campilii wrote: ok. I'm convinced not to upgrade.
Chi va piano, va lontano e rimane sano.
Why not wait until reliable reports are in on the new lens performance ? Then we can all see if it's worth upgrading from the old version. It is not easy to improve in a major way on an already excellent lens.
That brings to mind the 85L.......in my books, not worth going to MkII.
The 16-35L.......the MkII is worth every extra penny.
The 14L.......don't know and don't care either.
bobbytan wrote:
-1. I think most of us here don't want any flare, as flare means lower contrast, muted colors, and reduced sharpness, etc. Just plain bad!
If you want flare either add it in PP or buy lesser quality glass--certainly if one is to spend +1K on a lens it should be as flare resistant as possible.
I don't have a USA release date, but I can say I was at the Australian launch of the 5D Mk II and someone asked about the release date in Australia. The Canon rep (EOS product manager in Australia, I think) said it was likely to be "around" the time of the 5D Mk II, ie. late November (FWIW).
bobbytan wrote:
-1. I think most of us here don't want any flare, as flare means lower contrast, muted colors, and reduced sharpness, etc. Just plain bad!
Sergio is referring to the current trend in the wedding forum of casual portraits with intentional flair. He's very good at it and it does look good, though given the choice I'd prefer a lens that resists it.
ok. I'm convinced not to upgrade.