« on: May 02, 2014, 05:18:33 AM »
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
...I like how people as dissing something new without actually trying it. I agree with you, either post comparison shots from the lenses or just... ah never mind.
Where in the world these folks are coming from saying the 24-105 IQ is better than the 24-70 f/4, either don't own the 24-70 f/4 or they are trolls. The IS on the 24-105 is old 2nd generation and does not hold a candle to the new 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 MkII. This hybrid IS is rock solid.
I just wish the naysayers would come out and honestly say whether they have actually shot with the lens or not. Further, on an actual shoot and not shooting a bunch of test circles....
This reminds of when the 70-300L just came out and I got it. Some people were saying why did I get it because the 70-200 F4 IS is much better. They also complained about the price. Then a bunch of positive reviews from people who actually shoot with the lens, and it turns out it's actually a really good lens. I wonder if those are the same people dissing the 24-70F4 IS now.
...IF u don't like Canon strategy or product's there is an alternative solutions & it is good as Canon just no need to stick with it & complain how bad they are.I can complain all I want... and I will give my opinion, and my opinion of your opinion. And I will stick with Canon and the products that make sense and are relatively well priced. This is not it, and I will, as I see fit, complain about it wherever I want!
If you don't want to read my complaints, don't read them, but don't tell me not to complain.
...any way if any body don't like don't buy it there is no need for complaining or whining...This is, precisely, a place to actually discuss and disagree about opinions, ideas and the decisions behind Canon's new products. Also, many people eagerly await new releases, precisely, because they usually address key downsides or shortcomings of previous products.
That is why several people are complaining about this product (with good reason, IMHO). Most everyone was expecting that, given the shorter range and identical luminosity of the 24-105, this would be significantly better in IQ to justify both the release of a newer product with shorter range and its at-release higher (MUCH! higher) price tag.
According to initial pre-views, it appears this lens does NOT fill those expectations. Furthermore, Canon has, as of late, given many mind-baffling products: the very-expensive, very-slow but ISed 24, 28 and 35. On the other hand, it has delayed what seems like forever the products people actually where looking for, like the 200-400, so many loyal Canon customers are really NOT happy with the trends of late.
I will repeat myself here, but I cannot see who would be seriously (and massively at that) interested in this lens. Of course there are people here and there, but I can't see lots of people flocking to this lens if you can have the 24-105 for half the price! Even if the IQ of the 24-70 is a bit better (which still remains to be seen and I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt), paying twice as much for half the range and identical luminosity only for the macro option is kind of absurd.
I follow several sites and forums dedicated to photography and this is a general trend. Incidentally, those other lenses I mentioned 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8 and 35 f2 have received equally bellow-expectation marks, and places like POTN with over 100K members, do not show anyone using those $800 lenses. I feel this will be the same for this ultra expensive de-buffed 24-105 . So Canon either missed the specs, or missed the price point. The combo of both makes this lens really not very appealing to anyone other than the people that really need to have the latest for no other reason than being new.
It actually isn't that much more expensive than the 24-105 MSRP of $1,149.00 USD
Comparing MSRP to MSRP, the new lens is 30% more expensive than the 24-105.
Comparing current street prices, it is 100% more expensive ($1500 compared to $750).
My point was this lens is new, and it's "life cycle" hasn't even started. Every product that is released doesn't need to be pre-order purchased by every consumer. I don't need this lens, so I wont buy it.
I won't be shocked if I can buy this lens for 1K in 8 years from now. And I won't be shocked if this lens ends up in a kit in the future. That's all I was saying.
I'am so excited about this lens specially for it is Macro capabilities,
You may be better off getting the 100L if macro is your thing. I wouldn't get this lens for serious macro work.QuoteSmall size regarding the IQ i'am sure it will be better than the 24-105 F4L i don't believe the theory of a new product worse than the old one also i don't care about web sites reviews.
History is littered with examples of companies coming out with products worse than earlier offerings. Not all web site reviews are worth reading, but I wouldn't discount all of them either.QuoteThe price is high but for me still cheaper than getting 2 lenses, any way if any body don't like don't buy it there is no need for complaining or whining.
Well, thanks for your unquestioning support for Canon. Hopefully it means Canon has to ding the rest of us less to please its shareholders.
But since Nikon announce there cam thats mean Canon will follow it in a short time i hope they release 70D or 7D MK II
well and what if canon plays the usual game?
imagine the 70D and 7D MK II really get the "hybrid" 650D sensor.
plus a few gimmicks of course.
or the same sensor technology as the 650D but with 20-22 MP.
of course for 300$ more then the latest models.
Nikon and Sony have completely out foxed Canon.
Totally irrelevant. What matters is if they out sell Canon. For the past several years, they have demonstrated a complete lack of ability to do so. Keep in mind, superior technical specs aren't the whole story - if they were, Betamax would have beaten VHS.