kapanak said:Field testing, anyone?
Wow how did he get one before general release?
Any full samples at 24mm?
Upvote
0
Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Wow how did he get one before general release?
Any full samples at 24mm?
mememe said:
Not sure if that's the best way to decide on buying a lens. I'm crazy, but I usually look at image quality. And, the Mark I was NOT sharp at any focal length for the vast majority of lens copies. Maybe you had a good one, but it wasn't the case for most other users.
Bottom line, this is a very significant improvement, given the charts and the user's first impression here. Canon is going to make you pay for that improvement.
Not liking the price doesn't mean that we have to not like the lens, especially because "it doesn't have IS". The IQ and focus speed appear to be leaps and bounds better. Just wait a few months for the retail price to come down or for used copies to hit eBay.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
friedmud said:
friedmud said:
The design is still a good deal different than that of the 17-55, that said it is a much, MUCH closer design to that of the 17-55 than to the old 24-70 (I suppose it had to be just for the fact that it extends when going to longer focal lengths like the 17-55 and unlike the 24-70, although even taking that into account it still seems a touch closer.) and it does more similar on the outside too.
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l-ii/spec.html
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/ef-s/ef-s17-55-f28/spec.html
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l/spec.html
Upvote
0
LukieLauXD said:Price-wise, does it make sense? I just got a 5D Mark II in January, and it's the first time I've went full frame, my dad gave me his 40D to use for the last year or so. Other than a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8, I want a lens that I can walk around with and not have to back up for group pictures, so I'm considering this one or 70-200 II.
I really didn't expect this to cost $2300 though when rumors started about it x-x
Any advice?
advice? Save your pennies and get one.
Upvote
0
K
kapanak
Guest
photogaz said:
At 70mm f2.8, the 70-200 II is comparable to this. I'd say the 70-200 is sharper.
However, at all other stops, the 24-70 appears sharper.
The 24-70 focuses faster. Not by much, but the difference is noticeable.
My usage is limited to when the actual "tester" is present and available.
Tried and shot with on the 1D IV and 5D II.
I am willing to answer questions. No samples allowed yet, however.
Upvote
0
J
JakiChan
Guest
It does sound nice...I just dunno if I can justify the upgrade price. I think if you take the time to get the lens dialed in the Mk. I is pretty sharp.
And I wonder - once we've got a few thousand copies out there I bet we'll still have folks saying "it's not sharp". Also, no sharing filters with my other glass is a bummer, unless I get that 16-35...
And I wonder - once we've got a few thousand copies out there I bet we'll still have folks saying "it's not sharp". Also, no sharing filters with my other glass is a bummer, unless I get that 16-35...
Upvote
0
Well, I think the 16-35 was one of the main reasons they made the 27-70 have an 82mm filter threading. Many people buy the "trifecta" of 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200; so Canon makes some redundancy for this common combination. And then they assume if you have all three, then you'll have 77mm as well as 82mm filters.JakiChan said:
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
To me this lens looks like the love child of the 24-105 and 17-55. Both of those have IS! To me this is a very smart move by Canon. They will sell hundreds of thousands of these lenses worldwide. Then if and when Nikon bring out their 24-70 VR version, Canon will release an IS version of this lens, and sell lots more lenses! This lens, and a future IS version, are going to be major cash cows for Canon.
Upvote
0
S
shermanstank
Guest
This new Mark II version is very intriguing. BUT as a prime lens shooter myself, I would not trade the unique look arising from the 1.2 and 1.4 lens.
The price point of the new 24-70 f/2.8L II is ridiculous. If and when the price goes down to let's say $1800, then I could somehow justify the purchase of this lens. BUT THEN when I think about it, I could cover the 24-70 range with a 50mm f/1.2L ( zooming with my feet). In the end, paying $2300 for a newer version of a 24-70 f/2.8 , knowing that I have a 50L/35L doesn't make financial sense.
I rather use the money to purchase a used CONTAX 645 with a ZEISS 80mm f/2.0. 
What if a new 50mm f/1.2L II comes out in a year or two? Would you still buy the 24-70 f/2.8 II?-----> I know I wouldn't. ;D 
Cheers!
Sherwin
The price point of the new 24-70 f/2.8L II is ridiculous. If and when the price goes down to let's say $1800, then I could somehow justify the purchase of this lens. BUT THEN when I think about it, I could cover the 24-70 range with a 50mm f/1.2L ( zooming with my feet). In the end, paying $2300 for a newer version of a 24-70 f/2.8 , knowing that I have a 50L/35L doesn't make financial sense.
I rather use the money to purchase a used CONTAX 645 with a ZEISS 80mm f/2.0. What if a new 50mm f/1.2L II comes out in a year or two? Would you still buy the 24-70 f/2.8 II?-----> I know I wouldn't. ;D
Cheers!
Sherwin
Upvote
0
DarkKnightNine
The best camera is the one that's with you.
KitH said:
Visited the Tamron booth at CP+ yesterday, they neither have a working version nor do they have a time schedule of when this lens will actually be available for sale. They had a mock up lens on display in a glass case that we weren't allowed to hold or touch, so I don't think I'll be holding my breath for this Tamron any time soon.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
