So, if I understand well, the Zeiss ZE 21 is going to be cheaper.
Yes, I know, f/1.4 vs f/2.8. But for a landscape photographer, that does not count much.
I have a perfectly sharp 24L that happens to be my favorite lens. I wouldn't mind spending $1000 on the new one just to see what it offers... but $1700 seems a little high for this lens... no?? Is the $1700 the list price, and the lens actually goes for a much cheaper street price?
Seems like standard operating procedure for Canon based on what they did for the 85L update.
They are just trying to clear the 24L Mk I inventory by making it seem like such a great deal compared to the Mk II price wise. When the 85L Mk II first came out it was listed at $2199!!! It has come down significantly...albeit not to Mk I pricing levels but you have to adjust for inflation and the crappy dollar.
I sucks to have to wait but eventually, the 24L Mk II should settle around $12-13K as my guess.
Stunnaz wrote:
Question: Is the new 24L lens $1700
I have a perfectly sharp 24L that happens to be my favorite lens. I wouldn't mind spending $1000 on the new one just to see what it offers... but $1700 seems a little high for this lens... no?? Is the $1700 the list price, and the lens actually goes for a much cheaper street price?
If you were to spend $1k on the new one, it would be actually cheaper than the mk1, which would be a wee bit unusual and let's say unexpected.
As for the street price, the 1699 is the official retail price, aka MAP. I would not be surprised if the price drops after a while - just like the resale value of your 24L "classic"
Don't get me wrong, I've had the 24L since its inception last century, but I didn't expect anything else price-wise for the mk2, and I think that anyone who did is potentially somewhat naïve.
Phast1 wrote:
+1
A great plus for ultrawides, I love being able to get right in there.
+1
Impressive and the reason I will buy this lens...assuming the f/8 MTF wasn't excluded for cause I was already looking to buy the mkI a while back but they were largely out of stock and selling fast on the B&S.
Reading the MTF, the lens should have a tad less CA in the corners wide open.
brainiac wrote:
Because they are trying to make a business selling 15-21 megapixel cameras. Better have some lenses that can actually fill all those pixels with good detail.
+1 but wish they would pay attention to the non-L crowd..we are such parriah
18mm f2.8 usm would be nice
Grant808 wrote:
If you've seen my prior analysis of the 16-35 I vs II MTFs you *might* have changed your opinion.
Sorry to change the subject slightly....
I'm curious as to what your MTF analysis saw. My experience with both 16-35's puts the Mk II at a definate advantage in terms of CA around the periphery. Not to mention the drastic reduction in flare.
Grant808 wrote:
I don't think YOU can. All kidding aside, there is less divergence of the S & T lines in the corners. Overlay the diagrams and you will see.
If you've seen my prior analysis of the 16-35 I vs II MTFs you *might* have changed your opinion.
What about the color balance and rendition of the Zeiss 21mm vs. Canon 24mm (and other Canon lenses)? Should we expect the Zeiss to be cooler? warmer? less contrasty? just different looking colors? or?
bobbytan wrote:
I do believe the 24/1.4L Mk II will be a little better than the older version BUT not nearly as good as the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 ..... so I am going to put my money on the ZE lens. IQ is everything. Besides, the 21mm does not duplicate my 24-70L lens and will expand my wide end. Here's a photo of both lenses. To me, the Zeiss lens looks more solidly built and finished.
I respectfully disagree. AFAIAC, I am willing to sacrifice some IQ to get AF and two whole stops faster aperture. And besides, I am not so sure that when compared at f/2.8 you will see so much difference.
1. I do not have the 24/1.4.
2. When debating which lens to purchase, I opted for the 35/1.4 instead. I like the FoV better.
3. I mostly use my 35/1.4 at close range and/or low light. I bought if for the f/1.4 and use that aperture a lot. I have no doubt in my mind that if I'd purchase the 24/1.4 I'd use it in the same manner: Ultra-thin DoF and very low light.
What do you shoot, with a 24mm, that requires AF and faster than f/2.8?
Don't have one either but after shooting a wedding in a dark church last Friday (dark like in black velvet curtains everywhere with only a spotlight on the couple and a dim light on the altar) and the launch event of a new car the past two days, this time in a black tent and later in a dark nightclub, the 24L is definitely on my list. It's just that bit wider than the excellent 35L I own which would come in welcome to grab the entire scene. Afraid the Zeiss won't do that for me.
bobbytan wrote:
I do believe the 24/1.4L Mk II will be a little better than the older version BUT not nearly as good as the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 ..... so I am going to put my money on the ZE lens. IQ is everything. Besides, the 21mm does not duplicate my 24-70L lens and will expand my wide end.
Absolutely agree. Plus the new Canon pricing on those new lenses is out of this world.
200 f2L, 800L, 14L II and now this. All ridiculously overpriced.
