bchernicoff said:I don't know if I would call that a spanking. The review is mostly very positive with one big gotcha. That big gotcha plus the high cost of this lens means I would expect few to choose it over the 24-105. Maybe that does add up to a spanking.
robbymack said:Not a wholly unflattering portrait of a lens. Yes price seems a little high for what you get but I am sure the little Japanese guys at canons advertising and marketing department know more than I do so they obviously think there is a market for this lens. I also assume the 24-105 will soon go the way of the dinosaurs or well see an update to that lens (I'd actually be really interested in that) probably at a much higher price point. Fwiw there seems to be little reason to buy this lens unless you have red ring envy or really care about weight, the tamron is cheaper, faster, and also has IS.
Zlatko said:By their own numbers, resolution is excellent at every aperture. Just be sure to stop down for macro shots ... Standard operating procedure for any macro work.
+1RLPhoto said:This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.
well_dunno said:+1RLPhoto said:This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...
Cheers!
YuengLinger said:Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance.
Zlatko said:YuengLinger said:Not sure how this 24-70mm f4 can compete against a cheaper, longer lens that in many ways delivers equal or better performance.
The cheaper one is better? I don't think so. As I read the resolution numbers on Photozone, the new 24-70/4L is mostly better than the 24-105/4L. And it offers a much closer minimum focusing distance. And it's smaller and lighter. Except for the initial price, it would make a very attractive kit lens.
RLPhoto said:well_dunno said:+1RLPhoto said:This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...
Cheers!
Or even
28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2
or
24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)
or
5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8
or
1500$ worth of frito lays.
Zlatko said:RLPhoto said:well_dunno said:+1RLPhoto said:This lens was DOA @ 1499$. IQ wouldn't of mattered at that price.
Cannot really see the point with this lens, one could get tammy 24-70 + 100 mm non-L macro lens for that amount and these two are f/2.8 lenses after all...
Cheers!
Or even
28mm 1.8
50mm 1.4/1.8
100mm F/2
or
24-105L (Used) + 100L (used)
or
5Dc + 24-105 + 50mm 1.8
or
1500$ worth of frito lays.
Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro? None. There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.
Image quality wouldn't matter at $1499? Then the 24-70/2.8II was DOA at its introductory price of $2299. But it wasn't.
Mt Spokane Photography said:When Roger Cicla of lens reviews tests 50 lenses out of his stock, the results are going to be more meaningful.
Zlatko said:Which of those options offers a high quality weather-sealed compact mid-range zoom with built-in macro? None. There are substitutes, perhaps better for some applications, but no one-lens equivalents.