« PX PLZ* | Main | The Canon "L lens" Mystique Can Be Yours! »

Friday, 10 February 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Or this. I got a Nikon 24-70 mug for Christmas. My coffee just tastes sharper in it.

To be honest, I had the predecessor, and the 16-35mm L F2.8, and the 70-200mm IS L f2.8 and I sold them all - I found that small light cheap primes such as the 85mm f1.8 or the 50mm f1.4 or the "budget "l" 135mm f2 were superior in image quality, operability and suited me much better. I decided the big pro-zooms were for news hounds.

I love my Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8. I think I paid $1800 for it. Nothing like a camera with an image stabilized sensor.

I likewise started with 16-35 and 24-70 amd became frustrated with the slow 2.8 speed. I moved to 24 f1.4, 35 f1.4 and 50 f1.2 and am much happier. If canon came out with a 24-70 f2 that would be a real improvement.

That Mug is as close as would come to that lens!

I have the Nikon equivalent, and find that I use my primes a lot more.

Looks like this new lens either has internal focus or is at its physical shortest when it is at its shortest focal length. Noteworthy, because the old lens' front element extends as you move from 70mm to 24mm. Evidence, at least, that this is an all new optical design.

Wow, $2300 but no IS!

Suspect Tamron's similar lens announced the day before, with image stabilisation, will have narked them (slightly).

God gave me two legs and the earning power to be able to afford standard primes, but not "pro"-zooms. He also gave me time and forethought to be able to move about a bit. As a bonus, He also gave me the ability to be able to use primes to capture images just a bit different in composition or perspective from those of the "zoom till the viewfinder is full" school of thought. I'm still not very good, but am contented with slow and incremental annual improvements.

It's a winning combination, on the cheap.

Let's hear it for the journeyman amateur's set of 24, 50 and 105 primes.

It doesn't have *every* Canon technology: No DO. 8^)

I have the older version and love it's sharpness and focusing speed. I can't see getting the new lens, because my work doesn't require an improved lens.

It will be interesting to see how the new Tamron 24-70 optically stabilized lens compares--both on performance and price (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/06/tamron24-70_2p8_divcusd).

I hope the third big (performance) is big this time. I haven't been impresed by Canon L wideangle zooms. A friend has the version I of this lens and all the advantages of his full frame Canon 5D Mk II disappear with it. Corner performance is very poor. I have the ZD 14-35 f2 which gives much better performance with my 12 MP E5

I used to use the CZ 24-70 on the A900, but later sold in favor of faster, lighter primes, once I stopped doing studio work.

Canon has a lot of gall to up the price that much and not include IS in the lens.

The current EF 24-70L was the first lens I bought when I returned to still photography. Its sharpness, contrast, and general clarity are exceptional, not to mention that f/2.8 is pretty handy, too.

When I absolutely positively have to get something with my 5D2 or 1DsIII I don't grab for a prime. Too limiting. I often grab for the EF 24-70L if I'm going to be in short range and/or the EF 70-200L IS for longer range or separation.

I know shooters who have literally earned their livings from only those two lenses for many years.

IS for a 24-70 f/2.8 with silly-high-and-clean ISO cameras? Surely you jest. Switch to decaf.

So did Canon fix the field curvature or the slightly below par resolution and contrast?
Like this whole class of lenses, these are without a doubt "good enough" but don't we miss that somewhat better performance that our Leicas gave on film before Leica's digital cameras seemed just a bit too expensive to justify?

Great, now we can all look forward a larger coffee mug to match the 82mm filter size. But Honey, I only had one cup today....

The 16-35mm f/2.8 & 70-200mm f/2.8 IS have been updated, it's no surprise that the 24-70mm f/2.8 ll has followed. Took longer than I expected as canon zoom shooters love this setup. I was thinking that they might include IS but that could affect the sales of the 24-105mm f/4 IS.

@ Doug C: "Like this whole class of lenses, these are without a doubt "good enough" but don't we miss that somewhat better performance that our Leicas gave on film before Leica's digital cameras seemed just a bit too expensive to justify?"

Your memory may be enhanced. As one who has lots of both Canon and Leica I can comfortably say that while a Leica M lens will do an admirable job in the right hands and under the right conditions, Canon's glass has nothing to apologize for. My 24-70L, specifically, is way beyond "good enough", Doug. It's on par with my Leica equivalents 24mm and 75mm) and far more versatile.

Don't kid yourself; as Carly Simon wailed so long ago "These are the good ol' days" when it comes to photography and optics.


I have a 1ds mklll myself and I when I absolutely
have to get the shot, I absolutely leave my
one and only zoom at home.

Maybe there are no absolutes.

I have the older 28-70 f/2.8 lens. It was made in 1995 and I bought it second hand in 1998. Superb lens. I've used it on film cameras and made large darkroom prints where any flaw would be apparent. Always loved how it rendered a scene. It's also very good on digital.

I keep the 24-70 2.8L more-or-less glued to my 5D2. Since I mostly do landscape work it serves me well, especially in the f8 to f11 range. Very acceptable prints up to 17X22 which is as big as I can print. The only wide I have that is sharper is the Zeiss Distagon 21mm T* which cost me a lot more. I'll probably order the new version and if it isn't significantly better I'll return it.

MTFs are extraordinary. It will be a stunner. Now Canon needs a 45mp DSLR to go along with it....

I've Pentax K-5 and DA* 16-50/2.8 that is good enough for me. Though it seems Canon is pursuing the absolute/ultimate sharpness. Somehow I have a bit of deja vu here where the comparison to pixel count wars in camera sensors realm pops to my mind.

Surely there will be great many users who will find their good and valid reasons to buy this lens. But I wonder how many would look inwards and realize that 5DMk3 (or whatever is going to be the name) and this new lens is actually too much.

Personally, I feel like I am stopping at K-5 and DA* 16-50/2.8.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007