I have the original 24-70. It is tack sharp and one of my favorite lenses. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone who owns the original would fork out over two grand for the "upgraded" one. As a matter of fact, if I didn't own the original I would purchase a used one.
Kohala
I had 2 copies of this lens that just wouldn't perform well. Sent in to Canon for calibration and it didn't resolve the issue. I had a 50 f/1.2 that got a little soft and a calibration sorted that out beautifully. I actually got a sharp copy of the Tammy 28-75 and that is one, sharp lens. It's lighter, has good contrast - a real performer. The lens is noisy and hunts in low light. It looks like they've resolved this issue on the just announced upgrade that has IS and a Canon-like ultrasonic motor. Looking forward to testing that lens out.
Would like to hear from others here who get the new Canon 24-70. Hope it's a winner.
The Canon 24-70 II will be a winner because it will be lighter than ver. I, sharper, resolve more detail, better corner sharpness, and better contrast. The two cons about it are no IS and the high price. In my opinion, this lens should have been priced at $1800 USD, which is what the Nikkor 24-70 is priced at.
I would have taken it to my wish list for about 2000 WITH IS. Without? Not this decade.
But preorder? I never would buy any photo gear without having tested it.
So long it is not in the shops, it does not exist for me.
The original 24-70 gets a 9.7 build quality rating in the FM reviews. So, I'm not the only one that considers it a great lens. By the way, I find your patronizing comment about different IQ expectations offensive. Frankly, most people who complain about "bad copies" of Canon lenses need to learn good focusing techniques or switch to Nikon.
By the way. I tested 5 50mm 1.2s and 7 50mm 1.4s. My focusing technic was same. All the lenses offered variing results from horrible CA (has nothing to do with my focus behavior) about Af hits from 20 to 60% one was 90% and okay (not good) wide opened (1.4), I bought it). In case of the 1.2s it was that unbelieveable bad, that my dealer told me: "Forget it! I will give you a call, when we sold that stuff and get a new production charge."
I tested 3 70-200 4.0 L IS USM when it came out. All 3 seemed to be perfect. I bought one.
That lenses are equal is just fantasy.
The original 24-70 gets a 9.7 build quality rating in the FM reviews. So, I'm not the only one that considers it a great lens. By the way, I find your patronizing comment about different IQ expectations offensive. Frankly, most people who complain about "bad copies" of Canon lenses need to learn good focusing techniques or switch to Nikon.
kohala
Beni and others seem to agree with me here, that it's not the best lens for everyone's needs. as for ratings, those are context and time dependent as well. for example, all those great scores for the 70-200 mark I would receive very different scores now, with the release of Mark ii. the IQ is that different, thus the bar has been set higher for scoring evaluation. and if the value remains a 9.7 to you or others, all i'm saying is i guess i want a perfect lens (a perfect 10). is that unrealistic? perhaps, but that's my issue, not yours.
as for my own lens techniques--i don't go on forums to tell others that they have bad technique. i would never assume that if a lens works for me, and if doesn't for others, that those others don't know how to focus or take sharp photos. these forums are negative enough, i try to stay positive. so sorry if i came off wrong. my tone was exactly the opposite - if you've found a copy that meets your needs/expectation, then you're the winner here! it's that simple.
getting back to the lens, and as i mentioned in another post, the 24-70 is the lens I've wanted to love the most, and I wish my copies of it worked out for me. $1200 was a lot of $$ to spend on something that i was never entirely satisfied with. it wasn't a good value to me (obviously it is to you--but value is a very subjective call and i'm sure we have different techniques, needs, styles, etc.). will $2300 provide a better value to me? that's the tough question. probably not but while i think the price is ridiculous, i'm sure in a few months even my view of this lens' value will change and i'll pick up a copy. no, wait, i just pre-ordered one.
Kohala wrote:
I have the original 24-70. It is tack sharp and one of my favorite lenses. Frankly, I don't understand why anyone who owns the original would fork out over two grand for the "upgraded" one. As a matter of fact, if I didn't own the original I would purchase a used one.
Kohala
Tack sharp edge to edge on FF at 24mm? You are lucky I think.
And how can you use " 'upgraded' " when the MTF charts for the new show are more dramatic increase compared to the prior version than has perhaps even been seen before for a new Canon lens compared it's prior version? Sure, of course it remains to see if reality bares it out, but I would hardly write it off already and using " ' ' " around it is just being disingenuous given the chart differences, the only evidence we have for now implies that it has been radically upgraded, even if that later proves not to be the case there is nothing, at this point, in evidence to proclaim it a joke that it has been upgraded.
The original 24-70 gets a 9.7 build quality rating in the FM reviews. So, I'm not the only one that considers it a great lens. By the way, I find your patronizing comment about different IQ expectations offensive. Frankly, most people who complain about "bad copies" of Canon lenses need to learn good focusing techniques or switch to Nikon.
1. The build quality comment is ironic since first who has ever complained about the general out build quality of the lens? Where did that come from. And yet a large scale test by lens rentals has found out that there is a serious build quality issue when it comes to the internals where certain little bits inside are prone to snap over time causing a noticeably loss of sharpness wide open at one end of the range.
2. If you are going to complain about people being patronizing is broad scale questioning all claims with your " 'bad copies' " and suggesting that anyone who doesn't get perfect results from it needs to learn how to focus or switch to Nikon what you are complaining about?
Ralph Conway wrote:
By the way. I tested 5 50mm 1.2s and 7 50mm 1.4s. My focusing technic was same. All the lenses offered variing results from horrible CA (has nothing to do with my focus behavior) about Af hits from 20 to 60% one was 90% and okay (not good) wide opened (1.4), I bought it).
I had similar experiences. At one point I was able to try many copies of 50mm 1.4s on a couple of bodies (20Ds granted not the best focusing camera body) over a period of around 6 months and the AF hit rate at or near wide open were roughly 20%, 30%, 35%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 75-80%. This was in the days before micro-focus adjustment in camera bodies though. Simple target with no distractions. Although the 50mm 1.4 isn't super sharp at 1.4 it's not absolutely horrendous there and I think lots of the unusably soft comments came from the fact that is misses so often and rarely truly hits it as well as you can manually focus it at 1.4.
More recently I found that it's not uncommon for the 50mm 1.4 to need different MFA for different focusing distances. And one copy was still in that same boat even after calibration by Canon. The focusing is so semi-random that it's hard to even settle on the ideal MFA at any range. I believe a focus calibration tool design guy found similar issue.
Now that they have updated the 24 and 28 nonL I think a new 50 1.4 with proper ring USM has got to be coming within 6-18 months.
I'm happy with my current Canon 24-70L. I won't be getting this lens anytime soon or ever. I guess one can never say "never". First of all this new lens is just way too expensive. Secondly, my current lens is plenty sharp.
skibum - would love to see a 50 upgrade. yet a better upgrade to the 1.4 would kill the 1.2L given it's inherent focusing issues. i see them upgrading the 1.2L before the 1.4. same goes for the 35L and 35/2. of course, with a new 24-70 that's as good as its charts show, i'll have the 24-70 glued to my body and there won't be room for a 50... 2012 should be great for photography (and bad for the savings account)
The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is now $2,174.00 at B&H. How is the 24-70 w/o IS more?
the price is fierce, true
i'm sure it will be a bit less than the 2.8 IS II soon though, although that still ain't cheap
maybe kitted with a 5D3 it will be a bit less still
