Roger at Lensrental posted his initial tests;
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013...solution-tests
I was expecting better results at 70mm based on the MTF charts Canon provided.
Printable View
Roger at Lensrental posted his initial tests;
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013...solution-tests
I was expecting better results at 70mm based on the MTF charts Canon provided.
Yeah, those MTF lines were pretty high. But, it is performing admirably. Better than the 24-105 f/4 and 24-70 f/2.8 I, ever so slightly better than the tamron 24-70 f/2.8 IS, but not as good as the 24-70 f/2.8 II. And that is where it is priced. Granted, it is f/4 and not f/2.8.
Still seems that it should be a less expensive lens. I expect we'll see that in a few months.
I am not so thrilled about this lens - compared to the 2.8 II, less resolved, stop slower, smaller, lighter, and Macro save $700. Hmmmm, wait the Tammy is same size, effectively the same resolution, step faster, IS, no macro and a bit less $$....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
What this really points to is the 2.8 II is a monster of a lens. I was hoping for some sort of uber resolution, a step beyond the 2.8. Oh well, sort of falls under the if you care the load weight & dollar wise, do the 2.8. if not Do the Tammy.
Price-wise, I would NOT want to be an early adopter. This may be coming down in price/going on sale fairly soon after release. There's just not enough discount from the 2.8 version, and the 2.8 itself seems to be pretty likely to come down from its chunky cost a bit too, unless people are snapping it up like $2,300 hot cakes after the preorders clear, anyway.
The $408 question for me is:
24-70 f$ L IS @ 70mm and cropped vs 24-105 f4 L IS @ 105mm and down-rezzed.
Great way to ask the question.....Hmmm,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
As I am looking to replace my 24-105 (a story not worth telling) and had pre-ordered the 24-70 2.8 but then cancelled to see if it would be really worth $2,300.
So I am spending basically a $1,000 out of the blocks as a constants - so the pricing is from "0" for the 24-105, +300 for the Tammy, +500 for the f4 24-70, and plus $1,300 for the 2.8. in round numbers.
$500 buys something that could be useful, and certainly $1,300 does as well. My perception of the $300 to the tammy is not mental "step" of $500 and the resolution looks pretty darn good. Better than the 24-105 through the range 24-70.
I may very well just replace the 24-105 with the Tammy (never thought I would ever get non Canon) and get something more specifically purposed like the 180 macro for macro work with the differential of going all the way to the 2.8 .... or the 100L + 35 f2 or, or, or, or,.... What a wonderful set of choices to have...
Lenses in general are not worth what we are paying for them. But I think the 24-70 II is priced right in comparison to Canon's offering. It is the best and should be priced as the highest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles
Comparing technical specs of these lenses do not fully tell the story. On the surface the technical specs would make the step from the 24-105mm to the 24-70mm II a gradual step. Now that I own the 24-70mm II I can tell you it is a big jump not small. It gives near prime quality in a zoom which IMO makes it the first zoom in this range Canon has made worth carrying as my walk around lens. Before this I would have rather used primes and switched lenses.
Just read Bryan's review. I rented this lens over the weekend and took some shots - very impressed over the 24-105 - or at least my copy of the 24-105.
Somewhat surprised that it held up as well against the 24-105. hmmm
I can only agree. I originally intended to keep the 24-105 for a walk around lens, because of the extended zoom range and IS, but since I got the 24-70 2.8L II, the 24-105 has been stuck in my bag until I sold it last week. I even sold the 50mm f1.2L, for the same reason (I still have the Sigma 35 f1.4 and the Canon 85 f1.2L II though).Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
At first I thought the price for the 24-70 II was outragous, but having worked with it for a couple of months, it is difficult not to say that it is worth it. Complementing it with a 50mm f1.2L IS II and/or an 85mm f1.2L IS III would be high on my wish list though ...
Eldar
Playing with the ISO 12233 charts and the 24-70 f/4 IS has made me appreciate primes that much more....
Here it is compared to the 24 mm f/2.8 IS, 35 mm f/2 IS, 50 mm f/1.4, and 85 mm f/1.8. Not even getting into the L glass, but at f/4, the non-L is awfully close.
Granted, different camera bodies, but also against my EFS 15-85 at 24 mm, 35 mm, 50 mm, and 70 mm. It may be odd to compare these two, but optically I'd call the 24-70 f/4 IS on a 1DsIII just a little better than an EFS 15-85 on a 50D, mostly at 24 mm and 70 mm. Of course, I really like the EFS 15-85 on my 7D and thus I think the 24-70 f/4 IS will be a great walk around lens on FF. But it seems that the 24-70 f/4 IS doesn't take full advantage of the bump up to FF that I typically expect.
Rick and Eldar. Great to hear such positive reports on the 24-70 f/2.8 II.
+1. I'm becoming much more inclined to pick up a 24-70/2.8L II...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
Why would you want to buy the 24-70 f/4 when you can buy the 24-105 f/4 and have a little more range? My 105 is super sharp. I understand if you wanted f/2.8 then you'd go with that model and focal range.
It is slightly sharper, slightly lighter (70 g), slightly smaller (0.5" in length, same width), has a much shorter MFD (7.9" MFD compared to 17.7" for the 105), is near macro (0.7x) and if you own a 70-200 or 70-300 lens, you already have the 70-105 mm range covered. But my biggest concern is how much longer the 24-105 is going to be available (just idle concern on my behalf).Quote:
Originally Posted by Photog82
That said, if I were buying today, I'd get the 24-105 f/4 IS. :cool:
Even if you do own a 70-xxx zoom, it is still useful to have additional zoom range on your walk around lens. I certainly prefer not to change lenses to get from 70 to 100mm, and then back, and probably would just crop in PP instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72