It seems like there is no magic in this glass and it got low photozone score. I am glad i canceled my Amazon pre-order for it. Also another proof of needless IS for lens shorter than 200mm even with 4 stops/hybrid or whatever they called this ...
They scored a macro lens lower (I wouldn't consider that a low score at all) because of bokeh fringing and other performance at f/2.8...that's like scoring an UWA lower because of poor corner sharpness at f/2.8. It has been said that the optical quality is on par with the original, the cost difference is due to the addition of an IS system and the L designation, which includes weather sealing/BQ. The implementation IS is enough for many to buy this lens and should be a main determining factor. Aside from that how many samples were tested by photozone?
M Vers wrote:
They scored a macro lens lower because of bokeh fringing at f/2.8...that's like scoring an UWA lower because of poor corner sharpness at f/2.8. It has been said that the optical quality is on par with the original, the cost difference is due to the addition of an IS system and the L designation, which includes weather sealing/BQ. The implementation IS is enough for many to buy this lens and should be a main determining factor. Aside from that how many samples were tested by photozone?
Lens didn't get High Recommendation in photozone, that is also means something to many. Especially upsetting since new technology inside.
Breitling65 wrote:
Lens didn't get High Recommendation in photozone, that is also means something to many. Especially upsetting since new technology inside.
Do you understand what you are saying or didn't you read the review? The lens scored high with an exception of performance wide open, which is negligible from a macro standpoint.
M Vers wrote:
Do you understand what you are saying or didn't you read the review? The lens scored high with an exception of performance wide open, which is negligible from a macro standpoint.
I believe you like arguing lot, I prefer not too especially with Vers, do you know who is this? Also I am speaking for last page of photozone review where normally word verdict is posted. Did you saw it? So, call Vers about ...
Breitling65 wrote:
I believe you like arguing lot, I prefer not too especially with Vers, do you know who is this? Also I am speaking for last page of photozone review where normally word verdict is posted. Did you saw it? So, call Vers about ...
Again, you clearly have little understanding of what you are speaking about. I'll leave it at that.
Canon has been keeping their IS module as a sort of a trump card when they need to improve return on warmed-over lenses as well as new lens models.
No doubt, that IS should work very well, and for some folks that sorta "electronic tripod" is a real boon to their photography.
If I was into hand-held macro photography I could probably justify the acquisition of the new lens for IS alone. However, since I am not, a new red-necked and image stabilized short telephoto lens with the same optical qualities as the old one, yet twice as expensive, holds no appeal.
Sorry, Canon boys, you've failed again to get my money.
Breitling65 wrote:
Again, you are clearly protecting something got not perfect score in very reputable site ...
Based on the fact the ONLY reason it scored lower than it should have is because of performance wide open, which again is completely negligible for MACRO work, which is what the lens is designed for. I am not "protecting" anything rather pointing out insignificant points both you and photozone present.
M Vers wrote:
Based on the fact the ONLY reason it scored lower than it should have is because of performance wide open, which again is completely negligible for MACRO work, which is what the lens is designed for. I am not "protecting" anything rather pointing out insignificant points both you and photozone present.
The word ONLY somehow lowered to you but not to me. It is not Highly Recommended as any close competitors are (135L, 100mm macro non-L), that is fact and very important for lot of people reading this reviews. So, read review and ask photozone not me why you don't agree with it.
PetKal wrote:
Canon has been keeping their IS module as a sort of a trump card when they need to improve return on warmed-over lenses as well as new lens models.
No doubt, that IS should work very well, and for some folks that sorta "electronic tripod" is a real boon to their photography.
If I was into hand-held macro photography I could probably justify the acquisition of the new lens for IS alone. However, since I am not, a new red-necked and image stabilized short telephoto lens with the same optical qualities as the old one, yet twice as expensive, holds no appeal.
Sorry, Canon boys, you've failed again to get my money. ...Show more →
Breitling65 wrote:
Lens didn't get High Recommendation in photozone...
Breitling65 wrote:
It is not Highly Recommended as any close competitors are (135L, 100mm macro non-L), that is fact and very important for lot of people reading this reviews. So, read review and ask photozone not me why you don't agree with it.
Breitling65 wrote:
Read 135L as I suggested, it has FF review. Also prefer not to talk to Vers, dono why I did this.
Oh, I could have sworn you compared it to the 100/2.8... Breitling65 wrote:
It is not Highly Recommended as any close competitors are (135L, 100mm macro non-L),
, I believe Vers does ...