jamato8 wrote:
I wouldn't. I now realize my 24-70 ver 1 is fine and pretty sharp. I feel a little foolish spending the money I did. Someone will get a good lens as I won't keep both and will most likely sell the ver 1 but just like when I sold my 100 macro non L after I got the L version, I see no advantage to the newer L, even with the IS. So there you go. I do like the MKIII 5D though. :^)
aladyforty wrote:
I thought 24-70 F2.8L II did not have IS ??
I think John was refering to the 100 macro when he made the comment about IS.
jcolwell wrote:
I think John was refering to the 100 macro when he made the comment about IS.
Yes, the IS of the 100 macro. With the price of the 24-70II and with Canon putting the IS on so many lenses, I am surprised they didn't add it but then it would have cost even more and weighed more.
I should have the lens back tomorrow. They said it did needed adjustment and they did that for the edges to get it sharp across the image. It was stated that the electronics were out of adjustment and that electronically they can adjust the optics unless mechanically the optics have shifted, which supposedly they hadn't. Will know soon.
I got my II back today. I haven't really tested the edges yet but the center is even sharper. Extremely sharp. Now to see how the edges are but most likely tomorrow.
jamato8 wrote:
Well after getting the II back, having been adjusted, I would say this is about as sharp as my best primes. And edge to edge, excellent.
??
