Holy crap...do you see the crops when shifted at full shift! WOW. That's sharper at the edges wide open (by a SIGNIFICANT margin) than the 24 TS-E Mk I is at full shift and f/13. I knew there would be an improvement, but I didn't realize just how much of an improvement there'd be. Makes my 24 TS-E I feel hurt and beat down. Hehe. Better start saving those pennies. I should be able to afford the new 24 or the 17 TS-E in about 15 years.
Jman13 wrote:
Holy crap...do you see the crops when shifted at full shift! WOW. That's sharper at the edges wide open (by a SIGNIFICANT margin) than the 24 TS-E Mk I is at full shift and f/13. I knew there would be an improvement, but I didn't realize just how much of an improvement there'd be. Makes my 24 TS-E I feel hurt and beat down. Hehe. Better start saving those pennies. I should be able to afford the new 24 or the 17 TS-E in about 15 years.
Just wait for the mk III and the mk II will be down to $1K on the B&S forum
How can you choose ISO 12233, mine only goes to 3200
Heck, lads, it seems that Canon has you by the short and curly.
Checked the prices of 24L II and TS 24L II lately ?
Yup, I am very happy with my 24L MkI. Canon can stick up that incrementally "improved' and majorly overpriced 24L II where the sun doesn't shine.
Thankfully, I ain't into manual lenses, especially not at $2k +.
PetKal, thanks for striking a blow for rationalism. I am a little surprised by the number of people around here saying "Well, why don't you just get the new [17mm,24mm] TS". They are beautiful lenses, but I saw someone recommend the 17 to a poster who was looking for their first UWA lens
If cameras were real estate, it would be 2006 in Phoenix all over again.
joekraft wrote:
PetKal, thanks for striking a blow for rationalism. I am a little surprised by the number of people around here saying "Well, why don't you just get the new [17mm,24mm] TS". They are beautiful lenses, but I saw someone recommend the 17 to a poster who was looking for their first UWA lens
If cameras were real estate, it would be 2006 in Phoenix all over again.
The famous lens collector who owns a pair of 50 f/1.0 among others bringing rationalism.... oh thats just too funny
PetKal wrote:
Yup, I am very happy with my 24L MkI. Canon can stick up that incrementally "improved' and majorly overpriced 24L II where the sun doesn't shine.
Thankfully, I ain't into manual lenses, especially not at $2k +.
I'm also happy with my 24/1.4L Mk I. As you know, it is an excellent copy.
I do, however, fiind that the 17 mm TSE is intriguing. I won't be buying one this year, but I may make a move next year.
Tom_W wrote:
I'm also happy with my 24/1.4L Mk I. As you know, it is an excellent copy.
I do, however, fiind that the 17 mm TSE is intriguing. I won't be buying one this year, but I may make a move next year.
Oh I know that, Tommy. In fact yours is even a bit better than my current copy.
No doubt, the TS-E 17mm could be fun if it could be justified somehow thru frequent use, enjoyment and/or income it generates, etc. After all, the lens is $2,500 or something like that.....very pricey.
It's one thing to make the 24mm 1.4L sharper all 'round compared to the original, but what I haven't seen yet is how the two compare in real world situations. I shoot a lot of portraits in low light with my 24L ver.1 at f/1.4-2.0 or maybe 2.8, and love the out of focusness of background. Has Canon given up any of that quality bokeh with the newer version?
Unfortunately the Nikon 14 - 24mm f2.8 beats all lenses Canon offer at 14mm and 24mm in image quality even when shot wide open. So if the term King is to be used Canon is the King of nothing with in a focal length under 35. Truly, the Canon 35L is the King of 35's though .
xrayvision wrote:
Unfortunately the Nikon 14 - 24mm f2.8 beats both lenses Canon offer at 14mm and 24mm in image quality even when shot wide open. So if the term King is to be used Canon is the King of nothing with in a focal length under 35. Truly, the Canon 35L is the King of 35's though .
Does the 14-24 beat the 24 f/1.4 @ f/2.8, even the mk I version?
Silly Nikon had wonderful 28 f/1.4 that many said was even better than Canon's 35 f/1.4, but stopped making it. It now costs an obscene amount if you can find one. Hopefully they'll resurrect this and add a 24 and 35 f/1.4
I have the 14-24 and I just got my 16-9 adaptor today! The 14-24 is simply stunning .... sharp corner-to-corner with amazing contrast and color. Nikon could sell a ton of this lens if they made an AF-confirm adaptor for Canon, Pentax, Olympus, etc.
bobbytan wrote:
I have the 14-24 and I just got my 16-9 adaptor today! The 14-24 is simply stunning .... sharp corner-to-corner with amazing contrast and color. Nikon could sell a ton of this lens if they made an AF-confirm adaptor for Canon, Pentax, Olympus, etc.
There'll be a black president before that ever happens
Hehe. Better start saving those pennies. I should be able to afford the new 24 or the 17 TS-E in about 15 years.
