Poll on new 24-70 f/2.8L mk.II

[K-amps]

Everyone has 3 votes: You get this the first time!

[7enderbender]

To add one more more option if I may:

I pass because given that it has more glass but is lighter is an indicator that it is yet another hunk of plastic that I'm not willing to shell out $2000 for. I'll try to pick up the original version while it's still available or keep my flimsy 24-105.

[danski0224]

The 70-200 IS II is pretty darn nice.

This 24-70 could also be pretty darn nice.

I'm reserving final opinion until some reviews come out.

If it is internal focusing, it moves up a notch on the want list. I haven't been able to figure that one out yet.

[K-amps]

To add one more more option if I may:

I pass because given that it has more glass but is lighter is an indicator that it is yet another hunk of plastic that I'm not willing to shell out $2000 for. I'll try to pick up the original version while it's still available or keep my flimsy 24-105.

True, but the older one has some plastic mounts inside in the focus mechanism that wore over time and has contributed to the original's hit/miss focussing. Many of those come back from Canon repair shops without any significant improvements.  Hopefully the mk.ii has fixed this issue.

[EYEONE]

I'd really love a 24-70 that matched the 70-200 f2.8 IS II in terms of IQ. It seems like this one will, or at least be closer. When the need for it comes up (i.e. mine breaks) I will replace my current model with version II. I'm happy with it.

I still think it looks funny.

[frisk]

The poll is missing the option:

  [ ] I am going to wait and see until I see a comparison against the Tamron 24-70 IS (VC) lens.

[CrimsonBlue]

How about: i plan to buy it when the price comes down a bit, and IS isn't really necessary for this type of lens.

[pharp]

premature - we really don't know what the street price is going to be.  If it actually went for $1800 - would that make a difference?

[sb]

How about this option:

"I pass because I don't use zoom lenses" :-)

[Dylan777]

For me...

Pro: The size, weight and MTF chart looks good

Con: Price and no IS

Buy it or not - it depends on how mrk II will perform in real life. Can't wait to see and hear reviews from the Pros and antienthusiastic shooters. Maybe a year from NOW

[Dianoda]

I'm not a fan of the available answers to the poll, where's my "wait and see" option?  Or "Maybe, if IQ is awesome and Canon puts it on rebate"?

[lol]

I'll probably eventually get one (unless a 24-105 II comes out that is even better!) but it is low on my priority list of lenses to get. Certainly not before I evaluated the 200-400 extender whenever that's out.

[Lyra Video Productions]

It would take a huge jump in quality (to go along with that jump in cost) for me to make the upgrade from the mk I.  As I shoot a lot of video, had there been IS, well that might have been a different story... but as it is I just don't see this glass in my collection any time soon.

[K-amps]

How about: i plan to buy it when the price comes down a bit, and IS isn't really necessary for this type of lens.

That is fine, and looking at the polls you will be one of the 6% who don't need IS.

[ghstark]

I will not buy at this cost unless  IQ is outstanding the cost isn't that bad the 70-200f2.8II cost me more and this one i would use more so let's wait to see how good it is first.