Thanks for posting this comparison! I disagree about the conclusion.
It is clear to me that the Nikon image is much cleaner (corresponing to 1-2 stops "normal ISO noise"), shows more detail (where the lens is sharp and in focus) and more accurate color (Canon shadows go red when pushed).
Marco wrote:
Gunzorro, v1 is still an amazing lens... while the v2 has nice bokeh I'm stunned by some images from the 24-70 v1 with regard to threedimensionality (is it a word..?).
I wouldn't be in a hurry to change a good copy of the v1 for the v2 and your choice to make it serviced is indeed a very sensible one.
Thanks for the encouragement, Marco! I've gotten a lot of good years out of that lens. Lots of fantastic shots, not only people at events, but at least one 16x20 inch calendar image. I noticed it had a some slack/wobble in the zoom ring, and after reviewing Roger's (Lens Rental) earlier tear down and showing wear areas, I'm not surprised if it needs service adjustment after five or six years. I'll see what I end up with when all is said and done. (Roger's tear down of the new model really shows the comparison of better engineering and materials.)
Difference: $1914.10 (Enough to buy a 35/1.4G and a 50/1.8G and pocket $78 in change!)
You compare diamonds with (nice yes, but) riverstones here, SchnellerGT. If I would compare, I would compare a D600 to a 6D not to one of the premium all arround cameras. This would be around 1000 bucks less. And of course one can not compare the premium 24-70 2.8 lens to another one, too. Not everybody bases value on price only.
The camera bodies used are the 1DS MIII and D3X - so its a more closely matched in terms of mp. The lateral CA and distortion on the Nikon at 24mm is something else ;-)
The camera bodies used are the 1DS MIII and D3X - so its a more closely matched in terms of mp. The lateral CA and distortion on the Nikon at 24mm is something else ;-)
I just bought a 5D3 kit from Adorama. My "net" cost on the body is $2,450 to $2,550, depending on how you allocate cost to the kit component.
So I get $2,500 + $2,200 = $4,700, which is almost $900 lower on the top set (lens at Crutchfield with 5% rewards, or on sale recently at $2,150, etc.)
For the bottom, I'd use the D800. At $2,500 for a refurb (versus a NIB 5D3 with 1 year Canon Warranty), I get $2,500 + $1,886 = $4,386 Or about $315 difference.
Considering the net resale value on lenses will probably be proportional to purchase price, and that a lens like the $2,200 70-200 II sells used for $1,900 - very little depreciation, I'd call it a wash.
Thanks for the tests all! I am shooting both Nikon & Canon right now, and the 24-70 is my "go to" lens, always.
The 24-70 2.8 Version I stayed on my camera about 85% of the time, even when I had a studio and was shooting location fashion, etc. Great core lens! The 70-200 is another 10%, while the 45 Tilt/Shift and 85 1.2 II made up most of the rest.
If I had to take a single lens for life it would be a good 24-70!
The quote for tune-up of my original 24-70Lis going to be $188 (with CPS Gold discount). It's there with my 1Ds3, so they will both be tuned to match each other. Hoping the lens will get me through another year or so, before I succumb to the version II -- such an awesome lens.
Hoping the lens will get me through another year or so, before I succumb to the version II -- such an awesome lens.