cineski wrote:
That's unfortunate, what's the problem? I had an issue with an old 70-200 2.8 once. Took a few trips and they finally requested all my gear to be calibrated together (back when they did this).
Send it in because the AF died (second time in a year). Got it back, the zoom was locked and the case not reassembled properly. 3 hours into using it the first time after they "fixed" it, the same thing happened. It goes back to CPS for the 4th time in a year and 3rd time in a month tomorrow.
As soon as it is truly fixed, I am selling it. It truly is a killer copy of the lens...I never had any of the issues everyone always lamented. I would say 50% of my best photos were shot with it.
I feel like at $1700 this lens has finally gotten down to about what it's worth. At the intro price of $2300 I almost feel like canon was gouging us. A few months and a $600 discount later, we now know that to be the case. I'll probably hold off until it drops another couple hundred dollars.
deepbluejh wrote:
I feel like at $1700 this lens has finally gotten down to about what it's worth. At the intro price of $2300 I almost feel like canon was gouging us. A few months and a $600 discount later, we now know that to be the case. I'll probably hold off until it drops another couple hundred dollars.
may be what it's worth but $1,700 for a "standard zoom" lens is still a bit pricey !
i love mine, but it stays in the bag 90% of the time. still doesn't compare to my primes, but it sure rocks when i only want to use 1 camera and 1 lens at the reception.
CW100 wrote:
may be what it's worth but $1,700 for a "standard zoom" lens is still a bit pricey !
No doubt... but the price is commensurate to the performance you get. There are tons of cheaper options out there if the price of the new lens is a problem.
Considering I can sell my 24-70 for $900-$1000 very easily (and considering I paid $900 for the lens 5 years ago), paying basically $700 to upgrade to the newer, better version was an easy decision for me. At $2,300, it was way too much. Even at $2k it was not worth it to me. But at $1,700, it is more easy to do.
I love mine - it's a huge upgrade from the original - but it tends to lose out to the Sigma 35mm more often than not when I have to decide between the two.
My only real gripe with it is that I can't use my 77mm ND filter on it which I rely on heavily for my strobed stuff... I guess that just means I should buy an 82mm one!
WNStudio wrote:
Is it better that 35L? NO. Is it better that 50L? NO. Is it better that 85L? NO. Is it more expensive? YES. Is it better that 24-70 v.1? Probaby yes, but does it justify the price difference?
If you didn't like v.1 probably you won't love v.2. Maybe a bit sharper wide open, that's it. It's still 2,8.
WE are the market- if we start paying this big $$$ for lenses, there will be no end to this ridicoulousness (just imagine the price of 50L v.2 when it finally arrives).
Just my 02 cents.
save the $ canon wants you to spend upgrading to the vII and just dial up your unsharp mask by a few clicks.
Our new 24-70 came in the mail yesterday, so I decided to run it through some paces during a senior session we shot yesterday afternoon. I have not examined the photos too closely yet, but my initial reaction is that I was VERY impressed with it. The color and contrast and general image quality is significantly higher than what I am used to seeing with our old 24-70. We both will be using it at our wedding this weekend, so I am interested to see how it performs there.
