I wonder how it compares, factoring in inflation, with the initial price of the original.


From Bryan's examples, it seems like a superior lens.


OTOH, my 35mm f/1.4 isn't a mkII, and cost about the same as the 'cheap' version. I don't know how it'd compare to the new mkII, but I was doing some center focus comparisons with my 16-35mm f/2.8, and I thought the zoom lens was pretty impressive, until I took a close look at the prime. Geez. For an old lens, it looks STUPID good at 100%. I'm sure it was much softer at 1.4... still.


I'm not introducing any new information, but there seems to be a point when performance improvements are largely academic, for practical, real use purposes. There comes a point from the resolution camp that we'd just say go large format with a scan back. Near impossible to get most of the pictures we use our dinky SLR cameras for, but the DETAIL!


Used lenses, from what I see, hold their value incredibly well, compared to electronics, cars, underwear... When my 16-35mm became discontinued, it bothered me for awhile, just because. If the 100-400 is replaced soon, well, I guess the refurbished one I ordered will be old too. Worry about it then, when I've got money. Until that time, it'll match nicely with my vintage 5D