Chris Beaumont wrote:
I genuinely don't understand so many people on this board.
So it's a little sharper? Is that REALLY worth >$1000 (ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS!) to some people.
Just to remind you...the range is the same, the amount of light it gathers is the same.
Are you seriously prepared to drop close to a month's salary on something that will not in anyway whatsoever allow you more creativity, or improve your photography in any way, shape or form, purely so that when you zoom in 100% on a monitor you can say (presumably in a nasal tone) "mmm....yes, I would have got 4.62% less detail if I'd stuck with my Mark One" ...Show more →
anyway, people pay $1000 more for wide primes so why not to also get many other focal lengths added in?
akin_t wrote:
How you are justifying this outrageous price with "Oh look at the MTF!" is beyond me.
Photographers have been using the v1 24-70mm to take amazing pictures for years, sharpness doesn't even do much for photography compared to the more subtle elements like lighting and subject matter.
Because you used to have use a wide prime to get crisp details edge to edge on FF and now you probably won't.
And if you don't care about that then just go buy the current version, problem solved.
skibum5 wrote:
yes but some people say the current Nikon version is barely better than teh current canon and the new canon shows promise that it may be radically better....
Maybe, but some might also say the Canon 24-70 had a LOT more catching up to do..I read a lot more accolades of the Nikon 24-70 than the Canon, and that's from both Canon *and* Nikon shooters.
(FWIW, I use a Tamron 28-75, so no horse in this race).
Chris Beaumont wrote:
And that what? Allows you take a photo you couldn't before?
Why are you always incapable of debating a point without resulting to personal attacks on anyone who dares differ to you?
pot kettle black - Chris Beaumont wrote: "Are you seriously prepared to drop close to a month's salary on something that will not in anyway whatsoever allow you more creativity, or improve your photography in any way, shape or form, purely so that when you zoom in 100% on a monitor you can say (presumably in a nasal tone) "mmm....yes, I would have got 4.62% less detail if I'd stuck with my Mark One"
Chris Beaumont wrote:
is a personal attack? I'm sure you're a perfectly nice guy IRL, but you always come across as a bullying jackass in everything of yours I read.
you should look at some of your own posts though before singling him out....
The 5DII was innovative ONLY in video terms, which is great for video guys, but this is a photography forum and in terms of photo features the D700 kicked its ass every which way, instead of taking the 5D and adding a bit in every direction, the D700 was genuinely innovative, and Canon was criticised, quite rightly, for being more conservative than its main rival.
Canon is, by a decent margin, the largest D-SLR company, and it got there by being innovative, it introduced a new lens mount when playing it safe would have been easier.
Canon in the last 4 years has been the OPPOSITE of innovative, they've played it incredibly safe at a time when Nikon has been very clever and innovative, and Canon are, again quite rightly, being criticised by the users of their products for not offering products as good.
I do agree with a fair amount of this though (although mostly when it comes to bodies, not lenses) and have been saying as much for years (although we do differ on the 24-70 II, an dyes, of course I'd prefer it to be priced a bit lower, but it was to be expected and the performance hinted at appears to much better than expected).
tmk00 wrote:
F the MTF chart and f the IS, even if it had one. For the price of a 35mm f/1.4L & a 135mm f/2L, what can this lens do that those two can't?
So that $2100 in 2002 dollars is roughly equivalent to $2625 in 2012 dollars. The MSRP of $2299 is then a price decrease over the 2002 MSRP for version 1 of this lens
and there you go, although back then actual store price did tend to drop below MSRP more quickly and often right at the start I believe, but even so, the new one is only a trace more at worst then
but yes of course it would be nice if it cost less and the new ones may not drop lower as quickly
more of concern to me, when it comes to lens pricing, is that they charged a lot for 70-300L and were too cheap to include a tripod collar and much more of a concern is the new super-tele pricing, one huge advantage Canon used to have over Nikon, is that an amateur shoot, had at least some degree of entry to the mix without being truly 1%, in the 300 2.8 IS unlike in the Nikon camp, but now, yikes, really hard entry point even to the smallest super-tele and zero advantage Canon price-wise
RobertLynn wrote:
No one pays MSRP, it'll drop on this one too.
Look at the 70-200 variants?
Currently, Nikon's 24-70 is like 1800-1900 dollars. I expect Canon to street at about the same.
Look at the 800L and how fast did that drop? How much has the 70-200 f/2L IS mk II dropped (barring rebates and sales)?
I'm sure it'll drop, but I'm certain I'll be getting the Tamron. My 28-75 was better than the 24-70L I tested and now they've addressed the lack of USM, made it 24mm, added VC, etc and most likely will be 60% of the price within 6 months.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Look at the 800L and how fast did that drop? How much has the 70-200 f/2L IS mk II dropped (barring rebates and sales)?
I'm sure it'll drop, but I'm certain I'll be getting the Tamron. My 28-75 was better than the 24-70L I tested and now they've addressed the lack of USM, made it 24mm, added VC, etc and most likely will be 60% of the price within 6 months.
You an i are both anxious about the new tamron. id love to check it out.
I really hope the Tamron comes out a great lens too.
In 2010, I was helping a friend to buy the 800 f5.6 and it was $10,500, the MSRP was $12999 when it first announced. The current price is $13899 from Amazon.
skibum5 wrote:
I used a 50 1.8 for a few years and then a third party 24 2.8 in addition and nothing more. And then got a new system, EOS, and used nothing but a 35-70 for years until well now things have gotten a bit out of control .
Shot my first paying job with a 28-135 and a 10D. I felt blessed. Kept buying, swaping, and trading...taking jacked up looking gear that nobody else wanted.
Now I have a 1D Mark III, and the trinity of L glass (plus some). But I sure didn't start that way. I'll have one of these new 24-70's when it becomes a couple of models outdated.
lens looks to be much sharper, but I'm disapointed in two things. First no IS. Second, I would have prefererred internal zoom. I know both would make the lens bigger/heavier, but from regular trips to the southewest canyons, my old 24-70L and 28-70L both ended up with a lot of sand getting in and you could hear it grinding.
Would have been nice to have a lens in that range truly sealed, like the 16-35L II and 70-200 f2.8L IS II are.
skibum5 wrote:
yes but according to MTF charts the new 24-70 II should utterly demolish the old one in terms of performance and it appears it will, at 24mm, even beat out the 24 1.4 II prime and the new 24 2.8 mm prime (of course the new 24 prime costing $850 and not using a single UD and then getting beat by the new zoom does seems to be a shame and cheap out on Canon's part)
The MTF makes that lens worth the price to me, and I have two of the old 24-70s.
khurram1 wrote:
I'd like to see some MTF comparasions of the the new 24-70L II at 24mm with the TSE 24L II.
Looks like they will be similar in the center and near edges with the TSE a tiny bit better at the far edges and much better in the far corners, for sharpness, TSE a little bit better for contrast at the edges and with less lateral CA. Of course that is just computer simulations talking.
skibum5 wrote:
1. If they shoot APS-C they have tons of fantastic options all the way along the price range.
2. If they shoot FF, well, was the 24-70 really that much of a step up other than AF? And they can buy one used or hopefully the new Tamron will have at least reasonably fast AF.
1) those ef-s lense maybe a fantastic option, but it's a dead-end if they'll upgrade their body down the road. When i started out with ef-s 10-22mm lense.. I was mad once i realized that and ef-s becomes no-touch.
2) there isnt any normal-range zoom lense available in low light condition beside 24-70. correct me if there is alternative zoom @2.8 but still a canon.
kaycephoto wrote:
What's a grand extra in expenses spread out over 5-10 yrs for most working pros or even passionate hobbyists? Inflation is a bigger deal.
Speaking personally, a grand is a great deal of money. We aren't all blessed with lawyer/accountant salaries or the ability to offset costs against tax...
The price tag was always going to be high, and anyone who expected otherwise after the 70-200mm mk2 was being unrealistic. And frankly, despite all the whining and complaining it will sell like hot cakes, just like the 70-200mm does.
The disappointment for me is that the mk1 will inevitably get dropped off the product line and the used proce will probably go up. It would be nice for folk like me if Canon kept the mk1 lenses going in parallel with the mk2's. At half the price they shouldn't really interfere with sales of the newer models.
The primes are also disappointingly expensive given their non-L status. Still its good that Canon have chosen to continue with the non-L primes. I was one of those of the opinion that they were dropping them.
