It's funny how the 24L II at the $1,700 price point suddenly makes the original 24L a more desirable lens than ever before! I have to say that this is a good thing for Canon, as there are now more interest and awareness of the 24 prime and people are now buying either the original version or the Mk II. There is less interest in the 35L now! Me, I am planning to get the 24L Mk II .... and then switch to the Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon when it becomes available.
The improvements in the 14mm and 16-35 in the MkII editions were very noticable, IMO...so going on a little bit of history (charts be damned) the 24 should be def better. Yeah, yeah...big assumption, but the Canon engineers are not stupid.
And boy oh boy, how much more complaining about Canon's horrible WA lenses could we take anyway!
I get first dibs on the first 24mm II to come on FM market...Of course, at a large loss to the seller. Hey, I don't like paying full price for anything...I can't help it...I'm frugal!
Nano crystal element coating sounds good. At any rate, it shouldn't harm the lens performance, should it........although one never knows with new products and applications. After all, Nikon has used it on their 14-24 f/2.8 zoom to reportedly excellent results.
However, the bottom line for me here is that the 24L (and 35L) I already own handles flare nicely. Therefore I must assume the old type of Canon glass coating works rather well too.
bobby, i'm sure (based on what, who knows) that the 35L is on the list of lenses to upgrade, but something in me is still happy that canon didn't decide just yet to upgrade a lens i just bought two months ago.
dumb, but...
Sep 21, 2008 at 09:12 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
abam wrote:
bobby, i'm sure (based on what, who knows) that the 35L is on the list of lenses to upgrade, but something in me is still happy that canon didn't decide just yet to upgrade a lens i just bought two months ago.
dumb, but...
We don't know yet Some shops have the 35L mkII on their website
I wonder how the new 24L will compare with the class leading (but sadly discontinued) Nikkor 28mm f1.4? The Nikkor was clearly better than the old 24L .
David Baldwin wrote:
I wonder how the new 24L will compare with the class leading (but sadly discontinued) Nikkor 28mm f1.4? The Nikkor was clearly better than the old 24L .
David Baldwin wrote:
I wonder how the new 24L will compare with the class leading (but sadly discontinued) Nikkor 28mm f1.4? The Nikkor was clearly better than the old 24L .
the Nikkor was also priced at $1700, compared to the canon (currently $1170)
I have to say that this is a good thing for Canon, as there are now more interest and awareness of the 24 prime and people are now buying either the original version or the Mk II. There is less interest in the 35L now! Me, I am planning to get the 24L Mk II .... and then switch to the Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon when it becomes available.
