matejphoto wrote:
My impression is that Canon chose top optical quality over IS. I imagine that implementing IS in the optimal lens configuration was very difficult and that is why they did not do it. Until a week ago nobody made a 24-70 2.8 IS.
It will be very interesting how good is the new Tamron.
I personally prefer optical quality over inclusion of IS in this range. Although I also would like to have both.
You are both probably right. And I am pretty sure the sharpness of the 24-70 II is as amazing as the 70-200 II. That, coupled with less CA and less distortion plus it's lighter weight makes it worth it's weight in gold.
bobbytan wrote:
You are both probably right. And I am pretty sure the sharpness of the 24-70 II is as amazing as the 70-200 II. That, coupled with less CA and less distortion plus it's lighter weight makes it worth it's weight in gold.
Makes it worth its weight in gold. Hmmm so you are still saying that it is over-priced then?
skibum5 wrote:
Makes it worth its weight in gold. Hmmm so you are still saying that it is over-priced?
It is and it isn't ... depending on whom you ask, as everyone's perception of value is different. As you know, price-to-quality ratio does not move linearly or proportionally, and that is why you pay so much more for Leica lenses. Trouble is, Canonites want "regular" Canon prices for Leica glass and build quality. You are not likely to get that but I guess there is nothing wrong with wishful thinking!
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
I have read more than on review where they said this thing is AMAZINGLY sharp at all lenghts, almost with macro qualities to it. It may be my time to get me one as well.I dont like 2.8 lenses but I could use it for events and unit stills
panos.v wrote:
Not saying the new lens isn't worth it but let's not forget Canon's one and only concern is making money. Anyway...
Isn't that the primary goal of all companies? We have options and if we think that Canon products are overpriced or too expensive we don't have to buy or support them - we can either stick with their Version I or switch to Nikon or Leica or Sony. And that is what the free market and capitalism is all about. Only time will tell if Canon is pricing their new super-products correctly.
Canon is not stupid either. They can see the success or failure of their Mk II lenses like the 70-200 II and other new lenses. I for one could never bring myself to get a 300 II or 400 II ... but the 70-200 II and 24-70 II are workhorse lenses and are still quite affordable to many people, and if it approaches Leica quality in terms of it's IQ, that in my books is quite good value. And I am not a stupid consumer either. If I don't think that the upgrade is worthwhile it's going right back.
pinball_pw wrote:
I'm thinking about it. I am actually considering selling my 24-105 IS, a couple 50mm primes that have been mostly made redudant to fund it.
I am thinking of doing the same thing - sell about 5 lenses and replace them with the 24-70.
Waiting until the new 24-70 is bundled with the new 5DX and buying the whole shebang is also very tempting if outer points on the new 5DX rock.
mco_970 wrote:
Waiting until the new 24-70 is bundled with the new 5DX and buying the whole shebang is also very tempting if outer points on the new 5DX rock.
Yup, can save quite a bit by getting the kit instead.
bobbytan wrote:
It is and it isn't ... depending on whom you ask, as everyone's perception of value is different. As you know, price-to-quality ratio does not move linearly or proportionally, and that is why you pay so much more for Leica lenses. Trouble is, Canonites want "regular" Canon prices for Leica glass and build quality. You are not likely to get that but I guess there is nothing wrong with wishful thinking!
I meant that since it costs more than it's weight in gold hah, saying it is worth it's weight in gold is calling it over-priced.
mco_970 wrote:
I am thinking of doing the same thing - sell about 5 lenses and replace them with the 24-70.
Waiting until the new 24-70 is bundled with the new 5DX and buying the whole shebang is also very tempting if outer points on the new 5DX rock.
Yeah I could potentially see selling my tamron 28-75 2.8 and 24 1.4 II, which might be enough to cover it, if they give it a good price in kit form with a 5D3.
Talking already about a kit of the newly announced 24-70 and a 5D3 which hasn't even been announced? Or have I missed some news of an actual 5DX, not just the unidentified camera being tested in the wild? OK, I'm in, where do I pre-order the kit?
Canon knows from experience how many of these will definitely sell and they are getting what the market will bear. As a business expense, it can be a no-brainer. But for advanced enthusiasts, it separates the camp into the monetarily well off and the not well off.
Savas K wrote:
Canon knows from experience how many of these will definitely sell and they are getting what the market will bear. As a business expense, it can be a no-brainer. But for advanced enthusiasts, it separates the camp into the monetarily well off and the not well off.
Arguably any hobbyist paying $1000 for the old 24-70 may be considered well off.
Not sharp enough wide open, room for improvement in mid contrast, weight, prome to flare are some reasons the mk1 needed an upgrade. My copy wasn't stellar either so I sold it. If the mk 2 shows as much improvement as the 70-200, I'm very keen on trying it out.
The old 70-200L was very good. The 70-200L II takes it to another level in terms of corner-to-corner sharpness even at f2.8 ... matching and in some cases even exceeding the IQ of prime lenses.
The old 24-70L has a lot of copy variation - the IQ ranges from average to very good. If you do a search or if you have been following the 24-70L threads, you will know that many FM'ers are very unimpressed with this lens.
Well, I am pretty certain that the difference in IQ between the 24-70L and the 24-70L II will be even greater than the difference in IQ between the 70-200L and the 70-200L II. That's strictly my guess though.
Gervacio wrote:
the old version is already tack sharp, cant see any changes or adv on mark2, can someone enlighten me?
skibum5 wrote:
Well, it's not tack sharp edge to edge on FF. And the old one has some weak parts inside of it and weighs a bit more.
It's not tack sharp even in the middle when wide open, or even at f4. If you look at all the new lenses since the 24L2, they have a very distinct look: the 24L2, the new TSEs, the 800, the 70-200, the 200/2, the 100L, and the new superteles. I am looking for that look even wide open. It's more than just sharpness.
stanj wrote:
It's not tack sharp even in the middle when wide open, or even at f4. If you look at all the new lenses since the 24L2, they have a very distinct look: the 24L2, the new TSEs, the 800, the 70-200, the 200/2, the 100L, and the new superteles. I am looking for that look even wide open. It's more than just sharpness.
