Holy cow, and not a good holy cow:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1198&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
The new optical design doesn't look that new at all. I know it's just one copy, but:
We expected this from the f/2.8L IS III, not from the new optical design f/4L IS II.
[Checks TDP specs]
The IS improved, MFD got smaller, one more blade was added and the filter thread got bigger... but the element count is the same and the IQ looks very similar. Just how new and improved is this optical design? Is this another 24-105L II sort of situation?
- A
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1198&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
The new optical design doesn't look that new at all. I know it's just one copy, but:
- At 200, the Mk II looks a hair better in midframe. It's not a resounding win, but it's better.
- At 135, the Mk II is a step forward.
- At 70, I'll take the Mk I thank you very much.
We expected this from the f/2.8L IS III, not from the new optical design f/4L IS II.
[Checks TDP specs]
The IS improved, MFD got smaller, one more blade was added and the filter thread got bigger... but the element count is the same and the IQ looks very similar. Just how new and improved is this optical design? Is this another 24-105L II sort of situation?
- A