Jim Victory wrote:
Micro contrast is better and it shows.
Jim
Everything is better with the newer Mk II lenses - not just micro-contrast. You get better wide-open corner-to-corner sharpness with less CA, less vignetting, less distortion and probably improved color rendering. As Stan mentioned, they have a very distinct look about them ... perhaps closer to film or 3D look you get with Zeiss and Leica lenses.
Gervacio wrote:
the old version is already tack sharp, cant see any changes or adv on mark2, can someone enlighten me?
My copy of the 24-70/2.8 is a long ways from tack sharp at 24 mm and f2.8. As almost all lenses, the edges show the worst of the CA and distortions. However by f5,6 at 24 mm it is decent, never as good as my Zeiss primes, but decent. It could still use some fine detail resolution and much better micro contrast, but its been a steady performer over the years. It has served me well and has proven to be durable.
I made a lot of money with my 24-70, but in the end, I sold it for two reasons - one was that I really preferred the look of the 24 and 35L lenses and actually used the speed, but more importantly, the 24-70 has what I consider a fatal design flaw in the plastic internal zoom guides that will always fail at some point. I had a very good copy and shot entire campaigns with it, but now, going back over some of those images, I see things I never noticed back then - mostly mediocre edge and corner performance and a lot more color fringing than I remember on the original 11mp 1Ds. That lens, from 28 to about 40mm was absolutely fantastic, but not wide open. It compared favorably to both my Leica 28mmR and Zeiss 35mmPC. I would hope that the internals have been more robustly redesigned. I'm sure that the new design optically will be wonderful, although I always wait to see it first hand before making any decisions.
As far as the price is concerned, for any professional, as a tool, it's all relative. A price difference of a thousand dollars, amortized over the next ten years, combined with the expected improved performance, does not seem all that steep. Although we all want to pay as little as possible for equipment, if it does the job better than anything else, you find a way to afford it and then it pays for itself. And it's not like they just slapped a version II sticker on the old one and raised the price. You are getting more for your money, so why shouldn't you pay more. It's still a bargain compared to many of the medium format lenses.
Canīt wait to get mine. Iīd prefer to pay less too but i like that Canon decided to go for better optical quality instead of IS. I just hope that the fantastic MTFs show in real life.
bobbytan wrote:
Everything is better with the newer Mk II lenses - not just micro-contrast. You get better wide-open corner-to-corner sharpness with less CA, less vignetting, less distortion and probably improved color rendering. As Stan mentioned, they have a very distinct look about them ... perhaps closer to film or 3D look you get with Zeiss and Leica lenses.
I can definitely see a difference in the rendering with the newer lenses as Stan mentioned. It is like there has been a shift in lens design at Canon.
Canon says the 24-70L II lens "enables users to capture images with greater presence and three-dimensionality."!
This year I'm planning only two purchases: 5D mkIII (?) and 24-70 II
I will wait for the full review before ordering, but it looks no brainer - recent Canon lenses are fantastic, even when the price is less impressive
PetKal wrote:
No doubt, the 3D virus is spreading.
I will extend it further, into the realm of papers!
Print on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl or Fine Art Pearl and the micro-contrast bite makes your prints look almost 3D compared say printing on Epson Exhibition Paper.
(it's true though, not kidding, so you will have to do some more head-banging )
lexvo wrote:
I remember I was criticized for suggesting IS on a 50mm lens a few years ago. Now we have it on 24mm. The times they are changing
One of the first "consumer" lenses to get IS was the "lowly" 28-135 (ca 1997), and of course the 24-105 L has been a workhorse for years now. Still, I was criticized for asking for a fast 50 with IS, and some even questioned the need for it on an 85. I'm sure the "issue" will never be settled, but Canon seems to be convinced that IS is useful even for wide angles. Now watch, as soon as they've sold enough of these new WAs to justify development and tooling, they'll introduce IBIS that eliminates the need except for long teles. But by then, there will hardly be any Canon lenses without IS, just the TS-E series and the 85/1.2! Then what will we do, because the new bodies with IBIS are sure to have other refinements that we "must" have?
Photon wrote:
One of the first "consumer" lenses to get IS was the "lowly" 28-135 (ca 1997), and of course the 24-105 L has been a workhorse for years now. Still, I was criticized for asking for a fast 50 with IS, and some even questioned the need for it on an 85. I'm sure the "issue" will never be settled, but Canon seems to be convinced that IS is useful even for wide angles. Now watch, as soon as they've sold enough of these new WAs to justify development and tooling, they'll introduce IBIS that eliminates the need except for long teles. But by then, there will hardly be any Canon lenses without IS, just the TS-E series and the 85/1.2! Then what will we do, because the new bodies with IBIS are sure to have other refinements that we "must" have? ...Show more →
RRP $2899AU = $3085US. Interesting to see the "real" price.
RRP $3095= $3289US 70-200 f2.8 vii from Canon authorized dealer.
Not for me at this price. $2000-2300 possibly as I paid about $1500 for my 24-70. Twice as good I doubt.
