p.4 #3 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
ggreene wrote:
Agreed. There are a lot more people clamoring for IS on that zoom then an increase in resolving power. Which feature opens up more possibilities on a general use zoom?
This is a fast zoom, the Canon general use zoom is the 24-105 which does have IS. I certainly don't have any use for IS in a fast 24-70 for the subjects I shoot (very rarely anything that is static). Canon probably want you to buy both!...
p.4 #4 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
The price shocked my a bit initially, enough so to take it out of my plans for my standard zoom.
Currently I use the 24-105, but have always disliked the excessive distortion at 24mm and for landscape the overall sharpness doesn't knock my socks off. And I tried a couple 24-70s before, but never thought it was great.
But now with this first review, I'm re-evaluating whether or not it would be worth an upgrade.
It could replace my 24-105, Zeiss 35f2, Contax 35-70, Contax N 24-85 and Contax 28f2.8.
If I look at what it replaces it actually seems like a good value!?!?
I'm definitely waiting for the dust to settle and see more reviews, but so far it seems promising.
Hopefully in the meantime, it will come down a bit in price, but I'm not expecting miracles.
The 70-200f2.8v2 was a lens that I never though I'd upgrade to either, but there it is sitting in my bag.
I waited for that one and finally gave in at $1974.
I'm wondering, are all the FMers that are considering one, will you wait?
p.4 #5 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
I ordered a 24-70L II this morning. I'll keep my 24-105L for general purpose handheld shooting. I'll sell my Distagon T* 28/2.8 MMJ, Vario-Sonnar T* 35-70/3.4 MM, and probably a few short telephotos.
p.4 #8 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
AGeoJO wrote:
How about a 3-lens kit then? The dream team of 24-70mm Mark II, 70-200mm Mark II and 200-400mm (with built-in TC) ?
Wasn't there a rumor about a 14-24 in development as well? If it's anywhere near the new 24-70 in sharpness that would be one hell of a 4 lens set covering you from 14mm to 560mm.
p.4 #10 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
PetKal wrote:
Traditionally, Canon had their L grade mid range zoom (e.g. 28-70L) and WA zoom (e.g. 17-35L) priced in the same range. However, currently 16-35L II is $1,700 while the new zoom is $600 more, in fact it is introduced in the price bracket of 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. That in itself is a departure from the the traditional price relativity. Now, one could assume the 24-70L II price will soon start to slide down to the 16-35L II price, so things will be back to "normal", however, I am not so sure of that.
Don't worry, Canon will release a new UWA zoom asap, priced in the same range, to fix this unfortunate situation
p.4 #14 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
AGeoJO wrote:
While the resolving power of that lens is nothing short but amazing, I still believe that incorporation of IS would make it a really superb lens, a slam-dunk lens, if you will. Maybe Canon thought that the IS would increase the price too much? At this point, what's an additional 10% more or something like, $300 or so for including an IS system. I know it is a moot point now but still why stopped short of making an incredible, and really superb lens, Canon? Why?
p.4 #15 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
R. Eisenberg wrote:
+1
Although Canon isn't talking, my guess their reasons for not going with IS are 1) maximum durability and reliability, 2) minimum weight, and most importantly 3) maximum resolution.
p.4 #16 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
svassh wrote:
So a 2 lens kit that covers pretty much anything is now a reality? 24-70 II and 70-200 II
Even a 3 lens kit of the 16-35 II, the 24-70 II, and the 70-200 II
I'm still debating if I prefer the 17-40 or the 16-35. So far both are nice lenses. I've had the 24-70 II on pre-order since Feb and really looking forward to it.
p.4 #17 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
PetKal wrote:
No need to.......the discrepancy will be fixed within a year when both 24-70L MkII and the existing 16-35L MkII prices will stabilise around $1,999.
Indeed that would work pretty well too, and it wouldn't even require any extra R&D effort
p.4 #20 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
RCicala wrote:
There have been a number of examples where 'adding IS' has reduced resolution. (Not that you can add IS, it's part of the original optical design of a lens). The Tamron 17-50 and Canon 70-200 f4 come to mind (and yes, there are reliable numbers, not impressions, showing the IS versions of those two have slightly lower resolution than the non-IS versions).
I think it's very possible Canon looked at various designs and decided "we'd rather have the resolution rather than the IS" because it may not have been possible to have both. Manufacturers have to make the same decision about distortion sometimes: correcting distortion can significantly reduce resolution.
I'd like IS. But if I was Emperor and had to choose between amazing resolution and good resolution plus IS, I'd have gone for amazing resolution. I certainly understand some people would rather have the IS, though. ...Show more →
Roger, how did the 24-70 II compared to the 24 TS-E II in the corners? It's hard to think that the zoom would have higher resolution.
?
......as they like to say it in Pictou County, "noblesse oblige", and so does elevated standing of being a leading edger.