I've heard several bad reviews and one good one, I'll keep watching them. There are so many other things we need to see in reviews and that may take a while.
Upvote
0
meywd said:That's ok but why release a version two if its worse?
Why? See bolt above.meywd said:Random Orbits said:It IS designed as a kit lens. The 24-70 f/4 IS came out at more than 1500 USD and that was a ridiculous price. The 24-105 f/4 II has a lower initial price, and is probably designed to minimize cost so that the kit prices can be slashed in the future.
That's ok but why release a version two if its worse?
In-The-Dark said:meywd said:That's ok but why release a version two if its worse?
Version II = Better than the previous one.
neuroanatomist said:In-The-Dark said:meywd said:That's ok but why release a version two if its worse?
Version II = Better than the previous one.
Or...Version II = Cheaper for Canon to produce than the previous one = more profit for Canon. Just sayin'.
ahsanford said:neuroanatomist said:In-The-Dark said:meywd said:That's ok but why release a version two if its worse?
Version II = Better than the previous one.
Or...Version II = Cheaper for Canon to produce than the previous one = more profit for Canon. Just sayin'.
I could see that happening with kit EF-S glass, but this is an L lens. Have we ever seen a 'II' / sequel L lens get worse than its predecessor?
- A
meywd said:to reduce cost they can keep the naming and refresh it without telling anyone
ahsanford said:meywd said:to reduce cost they can keep the naming and refresh it without telling anyone
That's an inventory and ordering nightmare. You'd never know which version of the lens you'd get!
- A
meywd said:Anyway it seem IS was upgraded, and maybe they fixed the zoom creep.
Maximilian said:By the way:
If you take a look at the MTF charts these results can only be interpreted that Bryan got a bad copy.
Or... I don't read the MTF charts properly ... or ... they're faked, which I cannot believe with Canon.
AdamBotond said:So I wonder, why would one upgrade from version I to II? (Or for that matter from 16-35 2.8 II to III?) Both these successors looks like a dead-end to me.
atlcroc said:Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.
atlcroc said:Since my basic travel lens when hiking is the 24-105 when limiting weight and changing lenses in bad weather, I really wanted this lens. So to get one early since I was already upgrading to the 5 D Mark IV, I ordered the kit. Took tons of photos inside, architecture, landscape, etc. and was super pleased with extra resolution and sharpness. Decided to test lens by itself. So shot same shots on the 5 D Mark III and 5 D Mark IV using my original 24-105 and the two version. My first impression was my original lens was the same and maybe slightly better which I could not believe. So I set up my own test. Used tripod, timer and shot same scene at various set ISO settings and tested at F 4, F 5.6, F 8 and F 11 for each focal length of 24, 50, 70 and 105. I could not see any real difference in my perceived sharpness in most cases and actually thought my original lens may have been better. Called Canon to discuss and the rep I talked to indicated that I would not see a difference in sharpness. The improvements were internal- one better stop of IS, quieter, quicker focus, etc. None of which mattered to me. To return the lens I had to send the entire kit back. Now waiting to get just the 5 D Mark IV and credit for the difference. So these results are not a surprise.