well, I can tell you that the lens hood on the Nikon 24-70 was engineered correctly. It snaps on with a lock. Its impressive and gives the indication that Nikon engineers their products with a bit more thought.
It doesn't seem to work very well. In any case, it doesn't seem to work any better than the Canon hood, which I've never really had problems with. Unlike the hood design of the 135/2L, which is terrible. Mine wore out after about a month of use.
It probably doesn't work any better than the Canon way of the hood attaching but it's a nice thing to have. The lock works fine tbh, and I'm coming from an 18-70DX and 70-300VR.
Not having used the Canon 24-70, I can say that from following the various Canon boards and newsgroups that that lens is by far the most returned/replaced lens I read about. It seems like everyone is talking about their "bad copy".
Maybe it's just the fact that only the negative folks are on the boards, but that's what I've experienced after following all these boards over the last 5yrs or so.
Paul L. wrote:
Not having used the Canon 24-70, I can say that from following the various Canon boards and newsgroups that that lens is by far the most returned/replaced lens I read about. It seems like everyone is talking about their "bad copy".
Maybe it's just the fact that only the negative folks are on the boards, but that's what I've experienced after following all these boards over the last 5yrs or so.
I returned my first Nikon 24-70 because the zoom ring felt like crap. It also back focused at 24 mm and far distance, which wasn't possible to correct.
I've had both, and I could have sworn that the Canon diameter was larger. It looks that way in the above picture as well. I like the Nikon version better, but it may be because I prefer the Nikon system.
Never cared for any of my several copies when in the Canon fold, coming over I just had to check one out.
Now I own the "Nano one" and want to put down my primes and play. That's RARE for the 'monkey. Awesome lens.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Never cared for any of my several copies when in the Canon fold, coming over I just had to check one out.
Now I own the "Nano one" and want to put down my primes and play. That's RARE for the 'monkey. Awesome lens.
Yep thats pretty much what i just wrote in another thread....rarely do i wnat a prime within that range anymore. The whole thin dof look imo is better served on longer focal lengths...
Now low light needs is another thing...which is one reason i may pick up 50 sigma or the new nikon version if it proves to be better....but in my experience, the needs of low light shooting and wide angle shooting really dont intersect as often as you might think. Thats why my 24L stayed int he bag so much as the 16-35's versatility was worth more to me than the speed at that focal length, yet i loved the longer primes.
For an example...in a typical wedding day..there are 3 main times where low light situations come in to play almost every week.
1 Getting ready. This is the one time i enjoyed the 24L if the room was darker than normal. However iso capability of 3200-6400 and even 12800 with no ill effect have made this a moot pt
2 Church ceremony....wides just dont have the reach to benefit. And I can handhold the wides pretty well at 2.8 for those few shots
3 Reception. Thing is I use off camera lighting for pretty much the whole reception so again, no need for the prime, when the zoom does it better and with more versatility.
Joe Marques wrote:
Owned 2 Canon 24-70 L's and one Nikon 24-70. The Nikon is easier to handle (see pic above, more narrow zoom ring - just feels better to me). Sharper than both Canon's by a good margin (and I had 2 good copies of the Canon 24-70 which has a rep for sample variation that is uncommon for pro glass). I certainly experienced why the Nikon cost more.
