Show Posts
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.
Hello guys,
I will really appreciate your help telling me the IQ difference between EF 16-35 f2.8 II and the new 24-70 f2.8 II?
I plan to buy the 24-70 II these days and i'm really frustrated about the quality of the image from this lens.
The vignetting and distortion aren't a problem for me,
for me important is the Resolution and Focus Accuracy.
Thank you in advance for your help.
I suspect that the 16-35 is better at 16 then the 24-70 - and the 24-70 beats the 16-35 at 70. Sorry, not trying to be a jerk here but I don't think that is a comparison that makes a lot of sense. The new 24-70 is obviously a stellar lens from what I hear and read. I find it weird though that it is made with a plastic barrel and wouldn't buy it just for that.
It seems some people complain about the 16-35's performance every now and then. I'm sure it's a great lens as well though and will deliver great results if you need that focal length. And if you are comparing only the overlap between the two I'd go for a prime such as the EF24 or maybe even better the Zeiss 21 Distagon. The latter would be my choice instead of the 16-35. For a 24-70 I would always prefer the older version over the new one even though it's not quite as sharp.
More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?
I have a hunch you won't want the 24-105.
But, just to put a different perspective on it...I've decided that I'm most unlikely to replace my 24-105 with a 24-70 II. The 24-105 is a wonderful lens, even if the 24-70 II is better...and, to be honest, I only ever grab the 24-105 when I haven't a clue what I'll be shooting. And, when I don't have anything already planned out, whether the resulting shots are superlative or merely very good doesn't make a bit of difference to me.
Seems rather silly to me to blow that kind of money on a "whatthehell" kind of lens, at least as I'd use it.
If I did a lot of event photography, if I already used the 24-105 a lot, if any of the other common conditions applied, I'm sure I'd upgrade. But I don't, I don't, and they don't, so I won't.
One other thing I know...if I did upgrade, I wouldn't keep the 24-105. It's probably just me, but I'd rely on a second lens to cover the missing length...either I'd already be doing events with a two-body setup with a 70-200, or I'd just pocket one of the short telephoto primes (with the new 100L being on the short list) and swap at leisure.
So, that's my advice. You use the 24-105 a lot, so it's very likely worth the upgrade. Those of us who don't get a lot of use out of a standard zoom, it's too much money for not enough extra.
Cheers,
b&
35 L
It has the best AF of the shortish fast primes, really sharp and really creamy bokeh and it's not as wide as the 24 which tend to be overdramatic for most everyday shots. And the 50 isn't wide enough to give that uniqe look. Small and light and juuuust fantastic.
Just curious...what are the black arm bands on the white jersey'd players?