Gyrine wrote:
I wish no one would pre-order this lens. Maybe then we would drive the cost down and send Canon a message that such price increases are excessive.
as much I think this lens may be amazing and doesn't deserve all the hate.... I like the way you think.
good call.
(although use his link once the price has collapsed)
Yep i also went thru a couple of the ver 1's before getting a super sharp copy. Yep heard all the same nonn-sense about user error from the peanut gallery. I just won't pay $2300 for this lens without IS, it's not worth it to me.
sivrajbm wrote:
Yep i also went thru a couple of the ver 1's before getting a super sharp copy. Yep heard all the same nonn-sense about user error from the peanut gallery. I just won't pay $2300 for this lens without IS, it's not worth it to me.
I agree but even if this lens had is still way over priced
I too shall be waiting. Whatever the qualities & opinions of the 24-70 are, it commands a place in many a professionals gear. If the new lens produces better results then I shall consider it & no doubt will many others.
Cost is to some extent immaterial when purchasing & writing down as a business asset as the client ultimately pays for it. If one is a hobbyist professional then obviously cost becomes more of a factor. I endeavour to balance wants v needs but occasionally fail miserably. This may be one such an occasion as the 24-70 is my most used lens.
To be honest, has Canon really made any "lesser quality" mark II lens? I am sure this lens will be worth the risk to pre-order. If it was not the price it was, I would pre-order. You KNOW it will be awesome...
Tom K. wrote:
If the lens is as great as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II then I'm in. The 70-200 is insane. If Canon does the new 24-70 that well then it will the ultimate combo.
If they produce a 16-35 with IQ as great as the 70-200 that will complete the dream.
Invertalon wrote:
To be honest, has Canon really made any "lesser quality" mark II lens?
I do not think there is a clear cut answer to that question. Sometimes a successor lens would involve a compromise WRT the provious version, although the MkII would bring something new to the table. Examples:
(1) According to some folks, myself included, 28-70L was sharper than 24-70L. Therefore, adding 4mm to the wide end might have involved some IQ compromise.
(2) Many of us believe that 300 f/4 non-IS was sharper than the IS version.
(3) The Pipe had a better IQ than 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.
(4) 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS had better IQ than 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkI.
(5) 200 f/2.0 IS lost 1/3 of a stop w.r.t. 200 f/1.8.
(6) 50 f/1.8 MkII build is inferior to the original 50 f/1.8.
(7) 20-35L had better IQ than 17-35L
(8) 15mm FE is one stop faster than 8-15L.
(9) 500 f/4 is almost a kilogram heavier than 500 f/4.5L.
(10) I believe that 100 f/2.8 USM Macro had a better build than 100L macro.
rsg_1 wrote:
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 got bitten by paying $2500 for the 70-200 mk II when it first came out. No way I fall for this one. Make it $1800 or lower and it will be in my bag.
PetKal wrote:
I do not think there is a clear cut answer to that question. Sometimes a successor lens would involve a compromise WRT the provious version, although the MkII would bring something new to the table. Examples:
(1) According to some folks, myself included, 28-70L was sharper than 24-70L. Therefore, adding 4mm to the wide end might have involved some IQ compromise.
(2) Many of us believe that 300 f/4 non-IS was sharper than the IS version.
(3) The Pipe had a better IQ than 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.
(4) 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS had better IQ than 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkI.
(5) 200 f/2.0 IS lost 1/3 of a stop w.r.t. 200 f/1.8.
(6) 50 f/1.8 MkII build is inferior to the original 50 f/1.8.
(7) 20-35L had better IQ than 17-35L
(8) 15mm FE is one stop faster than 8-15L.
(9) 500 f/4 is almost a kilogram heavier than 500 f/4.5L.
(10) I believe that 100 f/2.8 USM Macro had a better build than 100L macro....Show more →
I'm gonna wait a couple years for the price to drop and rebates to come up but will try to remember your links. Happy to support a great site like this.
Even if the new 24-70 had IS, I wouldn't upgrade my 24-70 vers I. I like the rigidness of the vers I lens and its built-style, the IQ is totally fine for me. As mentioned above by others, the lens is not reviewed yet, but personally I believe that the new Tamron 24-70 VC with a much lower price tag will sell a lot better in the Canon camp.
I will possibly buy this lens, but first will check for results.