I am sure the new lens will be superb in all aspects. Just as the 70-200 II was a worthwhile upgrade to the MK I.
I will probably pick one up about a year from now. Hopefully when the price has come down a bit or catch a rebate. Until then, my Mk I will continue to perform excellently.
Make another Poll in May or June, by then we should see the true color (pun intended) of the 24-70L MK2, it's a bit premature to vote for the poll now.
i'll wait to see some testing of the tamron and the canon lenses. If improvement is significant, then I may give the mk I to my step son and get one of the new lenses.
With this thing Canon can now claim best (or at the very least equal) IQ across zoom range from 24-200mm/2.8 while carrying two lenses on two bodies. Nikon can make a similar claim for 14-70mm/2.8. Horses for courses I guess.
As a landscape shooter who recently parted with some beloved ZE primes to add flexibility to my kit, I was delighted with the new 24-70 announcement and its superb MTF's. If the 24-70 can do the job of my old ZE21 and ZE50, then Im money ahead and STILL have a very flexible lens in my "bread and butter" focal lengths. So, I went ahead and put in a pre-order on the new Canon merely as a placeholder.
However, Ill be watching the Tamron closely in the meantime. Although Id love to have prime like IQ in a zoom, Im not about to throw away my hard earned cash on an incremental difference if the Tamron turns out to be very good. Hopefully it hits the streets first so I can see reviews of it and cancel my pre-order if it makes sense.
eosfun wrote:
The 24-70 mk II intro makes clear what I already told you with the introduction of the 1Dx: Canon management is poisened by its succes the last decade and is trapped into the tunnelvision of being the marketleader that can dominate the market with gradual upgrades rather than manage more radical change that the market demands at the moment. As good as the new mk II standard will be, expect almost (sic!) 70-200/2.8L IS mk II quality, it's not what the new pro standard should have been.
When the 24-70 was introduced, the mainstream pro camera was a 1.3x 1D series body. Full frame was for the enthusiast, the wedding pro and studio shooter. Now that the 1Dx has become full frame I predict the market wants more length above the 70mm. Also the neglect for the demand of IS in the fast pro standard zoom for just marketing reasons and a price tag almost twice as high as the current one works revolting on a great part of the market.
The 28 IS and 24 IS lenses are even stranger. What motivated Canon marketing to fill in these niche gaps in the product line? Do we need a non-L quality lens just in between the 35/1.4 and the 24/1.4L mkII? Are their masses of APS -C shooter interested in a prime alternative to the 17-55/2.8 IS? Admitted, the addition of IS makes it a perfect fit in between these two and the price fits as well, but I don't think the market for this lens is great. The 24/2.8 is even more beyond me. I liked the classic version for it's price performance ratio, but it wasn't a top secret that this was one of the least sold EF lenses because of all of the overlap with other 24 lenses in the bag of the enthusiast photographers. Here again IS could be a buying decision, but my bet is Canon did it wrong with their marketing. Just like they did it wrong more often lately. I made my point clear enough with my comments at the introduction of the 1Dx already. The next disappointment for a lot of EOS adapts is around the corner. Most of you know what I am hinting at.
I do not doubt that any of these lately introduced products is great by itself. I am sure most of these photographic tools will give lots of EOSfun But they are just not shots in the bull's eye. And we know that these are a result of wrong marketing tactics. Lately Canon makes me feel like my eldest son, always good for A's in his classroom, coming home with his schoolreport with B's and C's because he had the wrong focus for a while. I know he can do better. He knows himself he can do better, so I helped him with some micro adjust .
We know Canon can do better. They are one of the greatests patentholders worldwide. As customers we want a share of that! We want faster (2.0) zooms, no matter if they are bigger and more expensive. We want IS in our favorite focal lenghts (50, 85, some zooms). Now that all pro models got full frame, we want pro grade fast 2.8/28-105L range zooms. We want cheaper glass instead of more expensive mkII. It's crisis time in great parts of the world, people want to spend less, not more! We want cameras with built in GPS. We want social media connectors in the camera. We want better software as an extension of our cameras and other photographic instruments. We want new ergonomics, radical redesigns. We want full frame compacts. We want more compact D-SLRs, it can be done without losing grip and ergonomics (Olympus did it in the 70-ies to bulky film SLRs). There is so much to be done. There is enough for a white paper on the next decade. We want more creativity in camera and lens design.
But we don't want no gradual upgrades like the 24-70L mkII anymore
Leap frog Canon! Or else the money machine will start to stutter. The money machine that did so well because Canon listened better to the market than any other company in the photomarket the last decade.
brnord wrote:
As a landscape shooter who recently parted with some beloved ZE primes to add flexibility to my kit, I was delighted with the new 24-70 announcement and its superb MTF's. If the 24-70 can do the job of my old ZE21 and ZE50, then Im money ahead and STILL have a very flexible lens in my "bread and butter" focal lengths. So, I went ahead and put in a pre-order on the new Canon merely as a placeholder.
However, Ill be watching the Tamron closely in the meantime. Although Id love to have prime like IQ in a zoom, Im not about to throw away my hard earned cash on an incremental difference if the Tamron turns out to be very good. Hopefully it hits the streets first so I can see reviews of it and cancel my pre-order if it makes sense....Show more →
As much as I like the prospects of the new zoom, I doubt it will do the job of your 21ZE.
Wow, this survey is pretty telling, about 3/4 of the people have no interest in this lens.
This is really one of the biggest flop in recent memory for Canon. If it had IS, I'd seriously consider upgrading my 24-105 for it. As is, there is no incentive for me.
jdben622 wrote:
As much as I like the prospects of the new zoom, I doubt it will do the job of your 21ZE.
Meh, after having shot with the ZE21 and ZE50 Makro Planar for over a year (with fantastic results) I can honestly say there is no "magic" with either one of those lenses. They have their strengths, but compared side by side with 17-40 images at 20x30 the differences arent as stark as I originally thought. There's an abundance of fantastic images made with the lens, but much of that is due to the fact that more experienced photographers are drawn to it. When you see samples from new owners/photographers, the results are just as poor as they would be with a 17-40.
Yes, the ZE21 smokes the 17-40 in the very extreme corners but its tough to tell the difference 5% into the frame. Yes, the colors are different than Canon glass but color adjustments are about the norm for landscape post processing so it doesn't really matter how they come out of camera - I'm going to manipulate them anyway. As for contrast, particularly micro contrast, again the Zeiss wins but its not night and day - especially after post processing.
One might argue that I would process the ZE21 image as well, however there comes a limit where there is too much micro-contrast and it looks HDR'ish. Its not like you can continue to increase micro-contrast indefinitely and the ZE ends up looking better because it started with more. There is a subjective point where too much is just too much and both the ZE21 and 17-40 can reach this point so its really moot.
Having said that, Ill own the ZE21 again one day but for now my camera budget is limited and the need for flexibility trumps what the ZE offers. If the new 24-70 gets me close plus has the flexibility of the zoom, Im happy and money ahead.
But they are just not shots in the bull's eye. And we know that these are a result of wrong marketing tactics. Lately Canon makes me feel like my eldest son, always good for A's in his classroom, coming home with his schoolreport with B's and C's because he had the wrong focus 
. 
