What will determine if I buy the 35mm f/2 & the 24-70mm IS f4

[Radiating]

Image quality. If they deliver stunning quality then they are a guaranteed purchase, if not then it's a no go.

So far I've been disappointed with the 24 & 28mm IS, while they have better quality than the lenses they replace by far, the way people say they have L image quality is misleading. They have the most entry level L quality and their L counterparts primes are much better.

The 24-70mm IS F4 looks to be a real winner though, it should have the highest IQ for any normal image stabilized zoom and the macro is a nice bonus.

Image quality is the single most important factor above all else for me. Does anyone else feel the same?

 

[RLPhoto]

With the same money of the 24-70 F4L, I could buy a Used 24-105L and 100mm Macro L.

That says enough about my thoughts on that lens.

 

[Radiating]

With the same money of the 24-70 F4L, I could buy a Used 24-105L and 100mm Macro L.

That says enough about my thoughts on that lens.

Then you'd have to also buy a 50mm 1.4, 24mm 1.4 35mm 1.4. and 85mm 1.8, if the quality is good enough.

 

[RLPhoto]

With the same money of the 24-70 F4L, I could buy a Used 24-105L and 100mm Macro L.

That says enough about my thoughts on that lens.

Then you'd have to also buy a 50mm 1.4, 24mm 1.4 35mm 1.4. and 85mm 1.8, if the quality is good enough.

Hmmm, I don't connect how wide aperture lenses have to do with a over-priced zoom. ???

 

[Random Orbits]

So far I've been disappointed with the 24 & 28mm IS, while they have better quality than the lenses they replace by far, the way people say they have L image quality is misleading. They have the most entry level L quality and their L counterparts primes are much better.

Why would non-L lenses that cost less than their L counterparts have better IQ?

The 24-70mm IS F4 looks to be a real winner though, it should have the highest IQ for any normal image stabilized zoom and the macro is a nice bonus.

Looking at the MTFs, the 24-70 f/4 looks to have IQ better than the 24-105 but worse than the 24-70 II. Given the high price tag of the 24-70 f/4, I'd rather try saving more for the 24-70 II.

 

[insanitybeard]

So far I've been disappointed with the 24 & 28mm IS, while they have better quality than the lenses they replace by far, the way people say they have L image quality is misleading. They have the most entry level L quality and their L counterparts primes are much better.

How do you quantify that? The photozone review showed that the 28 IS resolution (they haven't tested the 24 IS yet) was similar to the 24L at comparable apertures, and it tested well in other respects- CA, bokeh etc. So is there something else undefined that makes the L better? The 24 and 28 IS lenses, whilst expensive for what they are are still around half the price of the L and far more compact (and likely to get cheaper over time). The points also apply to the new 35 f2, though obviously there are no reviews for that one yet.