Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS Macro Review - Dissapointing || |
Why the heck didn't they make the lens a f/2.8 lens? STUPID CANON!!
Because then it would be bigger, heavier, more expensive and would leave no reason for the 24-70mm 2.8 L II to exist
They should have made the 24-70 f/2.8L II an I.S. lens in the first place!!
I wonder though. Maybe the IQ quality would be zero better than the Tamron 24-70 VC and it would more uneven compared to the 24-105. I guess they do have one planned now. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Maybe really, REALLY $ and better than the Tamron? Or identical to the Tamron for 50% more?
As it is, it seems there is definitely some copy variation with the 24-70 II. Wide open it seems to range anywhere from equal to the best 24-70 C (certainly not bad, but then again it costs way more so.... although you are still getting better edges and better AF than the best 24-70 C so even then it is still better than the best 24-70 C) to much better than the 24-70 C. And they seem prone to placing the DOF in various corners and edges at different depths so it sounds like lots of slight tilting of some element making center of DOF move forward or backwards for certain edges corners vs the center and others. All that said, it has such a super high maximum performance point that almost of all them are pretty good lenses at worst though and even the worst other than a true utter dog would still probably be the best standard FF zoom you've used. But for $2300 you do sorta feel like wanting 100% everything uber ultra super shazzam! I