I never bought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (version 1) because I wasn't that happy with the IQ/sharpness. When version 2 came out, I was all over it.
I did buy the 24-70 f/2.8 however, because I thought the IQ was adequate (although still not outstanding). The version 2 will need to be really great for me to trade up.
Pixel -- I really doubt the Tamron will be in the same league as even the original 24-70L good copies, but we'll have to wait to find out. As someone pointed out, build quality will be favoring the L, even if the IQ is about equal. The big potenial revolves around the VC and AF -- I wasn't happy with the 17-50/2.8 non-VC on Nikon, and it was supposed to be the better IQ, but AF was dodgy and not as fast or smooth as equiv. Nikon zoom lenses. Maybe it's all better now -- we'll see.
Gunzorro wrote:
Pixel -- I really doubt the Tamron will be in the same league as even the original 24-70L good copies, but we'll have to wait to find out. As someone pointed out, build quality will be favoring the L, even if the IQ is about equal. The big potenial revolves around the VC and AF -- I wasn't happy with the 17-50/2.8 non-VC on Nikon, and it was supposed to be the better IQ, but AF was dodgy and not as fast or smooth as equiv. Nikon zoom lenses. Maybe it's all better now -- we'll see.
even the current tamron 28-75 can be as sharp as a nice 24-70L, although IMO a bit worse with the contrast
but I do doubt the new tamron 24-70VC will match the new 24-70L II IQ but I bet it will prove to be popular
brnord wrote:
Bah...I see now, all that typing for nothing. Ill find a way around those 4mm, either stitching or using my 17-40.
Nothing wrong with honing your typing skills. I too never fell in love with the ZE21. I think the 50 macro is very good and has a little mojo. The 100mm macro has the most mojo of the three IMO. You should give the 100ZE a spin if you get the chance.
exactely.
i'll keep my (callibrated) 2470. just controlled some houndred photos and saw the great contrasts and i'll be stupid to sell this excellent lens for an apple and an egg to invest this prime price of $$$$.
whenever the new lens shows that its toooo good, it will be an option 2013 - for 2/3 of the todays price.
PetKal wrote:
$2,300 ?
I had a hard time justifying that kind of a price for 70-200 f/2.8 IS MKII.
Canon can take that plastic miracle zoom and procreate themselves with it.
I'll just continue to use my good old 28-80L.
alundeb wrote:
As good as it seems to be, my EF lens purchases are on pause until Canon release a high resolution camera. The Nikon D800 and D800E sample images are just that good. Not only resolution, but tonality and clean shadows at base ISO, and at that resolution, really smell medium format. I want to see what Canon deliver on the camera side before buying more expensive glass.
+1000, D800 & 14-24 seem brighter and brighter everyday. One cheap but killer mini MF set if add Sigma 50/85f1.4 or Tammy 24-70f2.8 IS
I'm waiting on the release & test of the new Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. Probably won't have IQ of the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L II but if you have to have VC like I do, it will probably have better IQ hand held.
I will wait until Canon announce a Medium Resolution camera, in the 30-50 MP range. High resolution as invented in 8x10" film a century ago is probably not going to happen with 35 mm digital anytime soon. I would anticipate a 100 MP Medium-High resolution 35 mm digital camera withou AA filter in about 5 years time though.
