I've been considering whether the new primes are really aimed more at video users. They don't seem to make a ton of sense for most photographers. APS-C shooters already have a bevy of similarly priced quality 2.8 zooms. Full-frame shooters most likely already have the range covered and many or most will also want faster primes. I don't mind the release at all -- bring them on -- but I hate to think they were delaying the development of more exciting products for those two.
While I am sure the new 24-70 will be excellent, I have to say it's a disappointment already. People were hoping for IS, more range, or lighter. They got lighter and vastly more expensive. Count me as one enthusiast who won't be touching it.
I've got too much invested in Canon to switch, and frankly haven't come close to maximizing what my current gear can do, but it does seem that Canon's advantages have been eroding considerably over the past few years.
GC5 wrote:
I've been considering whether the new primes are really aimed more at video users. They don't seem to make a ton of sense for most photographers. APS-C shooters already have a bevy of similarly priced quality 2.8 zooms. Full-frame shooters most likely already have the range covered and many or most will also want faster primes. I don't mind the release at all -- bring them on -- but I hate to think they were delaying the development of more exciting products for those two.
While I am sure the new 24-70 will be excellent, I have to say it's a disappointment already. People were hoping for IS, more range, or lighter. They got lighter and vastly more expensive. Count me as one enthusiast who won't be touching it.
I've got too much invested in Canon to switch, and frankly haven't come close to maximizing what my current gear can do, but it does seem that Canon's advantages have been eroding considerably over the past few years. ...Show more →
I was hoping for better IQ and likely will have it. Don't care about IS...I generally like to shoot with a decent shutter speed for moving objects. Don't care much about the size/weight, but lighter is an added bonus.
With one more generation of ISO improvements, the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses can be relegated to when the razor-thin DoF is sought, or when the drawing style of a particular lens is desired. With the ability to shoot a clean ISO 6400 the 24-70 MKII has the potential to replace the 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, and 50/1.2L in most low-light settings. Similar to people using the 70-200 MKII to replace their 85/1.2 or 1.8s, 135/2L, and 200/2.8L. The primes still offer some advantages over the zooms even at equal sharpness, but a premium zoom certainly narrows the gap. So why all the hee-haw about the price?
Ralph Conway wrote:
First results and pricing. 70-200 L II price came down to its predecessors one within a year. If This 24-70 will reach the old price it could become interesting. Else I go back to the 24-105. The range is more usefull and IS is a big help for me. IQ will not be comparable, but it served me fine.
What prices are you talking about here? If you are saying that the lowest price of the new lens came down to the highest price of the old lens, then maybe...
I have held off for a number of years on a mid range zoom.. found the 24-70 just that little bit too big/heavy and have been debating the options for a 50 mm lens also to fill the gap.
I tried the 50 1.2L but it disappointed me in comparison to my 85L. Now I use the 50 1.8 II when I have to and while it's an okay little lens it just isn't as good the L stuff. Not sure if the new 24-70 will significantly beat my 16-35 2.8L in the 24-35 range but I would expect it to be better. Let's see the test when they come.
If this 24-70 lives up to expectations I may be tempted as I have missed having the all round mid range performer from time to time. I like the looks of it. I looks solid reminding me of the new TSE lenses in design.
Often there are advantages to not being a professional, and this is one of those times.
I have long had a very nice copy of the 28-70 f/2.8L. It rarely gets used. The 24-105 f/4L lives on my 5d2; it's lighter and has significantly more reach. If I need speed, I have a 50/1.4 that'll fill the bill just fine.
No way do I have $2300 worth of use for this new lens, regardless of how nice it is; to me, it's a specialty lens, for which I have no need.
Agreed - I think around $1800 would be more realistic. However, to make it even worth considering an upgrade, it would have to literally blow my current 24-70L out of the water from an IQ standpoint.
Steep price ^^ I will try to pick one of the first used ones up as soon as they become available ... The 17-40 was good enough for me while holding out for the 24-70 update. But I will definitely checkout the new Tamron 24-70 with VC too before making a decision.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Regardless of this unscientific poll options, there is no much excitement, especially considering the price...
It seems so Fred.... I guess the mkII mostly appeals to heavy mkI users that are unsatisfied with it's IQ. Other than that, the mkII is without IS and a huge price ticket. I am not surprised.
