I would be curious about that comparison, my CZ 35-70 is one of my most used lenses. I had high hopes for this lens (24-105) but it looks like I'll be passing on this one.
I had a sharp 24-70 that would not stop back focussing, it was replaced, and the replacement was so bad that I sent it back to the store.
Man, my 24-105L works fine on my 20D, and my other lenses do great on it as well. Why was I thinking of selling the 20D and some lenses to finance the 5D, only to find my "stellar" lenses don't perform that well? I think I will wait and see what the 20D successor looks like...
I think the 35-70 is the best zoom in this focal range. I just wish it had AF
Andrew Gough wrote:
I would be curious about that comparison, my CZ 35-70 is one of my most used lenses. I had high hopes for this lens (24-105) but it looks like I'll be passing on this one.
I had a sharp 24-70 that would not stop back focussing, it was replaced, and the replacement was so bad that I sent it back to the store.
Henry (HROW) - I think we'll be reading more posts with the same sentiments as yours... I really thought Canon would make sure the 24-105L was good at the WA end to showcase the 5D capabilities. I've never seen light drop off anywhere near that bad with 24-70L and 1Ds2. The 24-70L @ 24 mm is soft at the extreme corners. It bugs me, but it's not a deal breaker. If the 24-70L were .5 pounds lighter, I'd probably like it lot more. It smoked my Zeiss 35-70 at 35mm --- and I love that Zeiss zoom. I'll probably try a 24L at some point to see if it's better. It's MTF is better than 24-70's at 24mm, so there is hope
Castleman pretty much matches what I saw when I had a 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L at the same time to compare them. Soft corners, not quite up to the level of the 35/1.4L, but good. Vignettes until you get to f/4.
The two 16-35's I've had have been real disappointments. I think there are QC issues with this lens. I'm happy you got a nice one, Mark. Now, the Sigma 12-22 I had was a honey... and I sold it d'oh!
I don't care about the 24L wide open so long as it's good from F5.6 to F11. Anyway, this lens way, way down on the wish list
I loved my 16-35L on the 10D/20D/1D2, but the 1Ds was too much for it. Even at F11 through F16 the corners were soft. A friend of mine has a 1Ds2 w/ 24-70L, 16-35L & 17-40L. In the 24-35/40 range, the 24-70L won each time. I was amazed, I expected the 16-35L to be the clear winner at 24mm. I don't like the 24-70L, but it's proving to be the best Canon option at 24mm (so far).
The issue for me was that the 24-70 was good on the wide end but not as good on the tele end. It is a big heavy lens for 24 to 35. My 16-35 is good from 16 to 24. IF the 24 1.4 was stellar I would buy it again. I do not care about wide open at 24mm either but I am not convinced the 24 1.4 is that much better stopped down than some of the zoom alternatives
nice testing thanks for that.. based on dpreview and these tests at fredmiranda i can smirk and scoff at this offering by canon.. what a piece of junk.. if u have a demand for quality are you going to fork over 1000+ dollars for this? HELL NO.. seemed like a good idea on paper before the testing though, ill buy this lense for the price of about 399US which is what it is really worth.. just for the convience of a nice focal range walk around piece of kit.. (oh wait i dont need it).. ya its worthless to me.. does canon piss me off sometimes? uh ya.. what ever happened to the japanese maxim of refining products with time? id rather not have more crappy variety
I think we need an FM convention where we can all bring our lenses and test side by side! It's so ironic, I like my 24-70L @ 70mm and you like yours 24mm. It would fun to see how much of our opinions are based upon QC variation vs personal subjectivity.
Before putting up the big bucks on a WA lens (again), I'm going to try a Sigma 20 1.8. I don't how crappy it is wide open, so long as it has good edge to edge performance at F8 to F11. I'll probably pick it up from B&H since they have the easiest return policy
John you should talk to Guy and Mike Hatam and Jack Flesher. they had the sharpest sigma 20mm on the planet. Since Mike Jack and I live close to each other we do alot of comparing and I assure you there is great differences in the canon zooms. Some on the primes but the zooms are extremely varied. Mark
I have the 28-135 today and I'm thinking about upgrading to a 24-105 (to get a slightly wider lens, better IS and a nice constant 4). It would be very interesting to see a comparison between these two lenses both on 1.6 and FF.
dagr wrote:
I have the 28-135 today and I'm thinking about upgrading to a 24-105 (to get a slightly wider lens, better IS and a nice constant 4). It would be very interesting to see a comparison between these two lenses both on 1.6 and FF.
better put your money somewhere else.............)
Buying an expensive prime but having to stop it down for edge to edge sharpness. Buying a zoom only to be satisfied with it at certain focal lengths. Sounds crazy to me. I guess FF will do that to you. I am happy enough with the 20D..
)