Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 13, 2012, 12:15 PM   #26
danpass
macrumors 68020
 
danpass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Miami, FL
Not remotely interested at the price they are asking






so it will be this

Quote:
Originally Posted by NZed View Post
Im tempted for the second hand price of the 24-70 I

Its heading down baby!
danpass is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 12:27 PM   #27
wolfpuppies3
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Virginia, USA
No

I'm quite content with my 24-105, my favorite of 12 lenses for my 1DIII, 5DII, and 5DIII
__________________
2012 MBA 13, 2 Ghz i7, 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD; 2011 MBA 11, 1.8 Ghz i7, 4 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD; 2010 MB Pro 15, 2.66 Ghz i7, 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD; two iPad 3s and a mini, two iPhones and a bunch of iPods
wolfpuppies3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 10:51 PM   #28
John.B
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flyover Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessica. View Post
Do you know why they had to change the filter size or did they just change it to change it? I see that as a move similar to Apple. They seem to be changing their charging ports for reasons that do not seem entirely clear to me.
Bigger glass to account for the shorter overall lens length at the same aperture:



Nobody is complaining that this outresolves the old one, at a shorter length. Someone called this Brick II, but it's a quarter pound lighter than the original Brick.

The guy from LensRental positively gushes about the resolution of this thing.

Is it worth the jack? Everyone will have to decide that for themselves.
__________________
Motorola: Larry Page's Folly

Last edited by John.B; Sep 14, 2012 at 10:57 PM.
John.B is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2012, 04:19 PM   #29
blanka
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
I hope it does not have the "fog" of the I. Don't like that lens. It is very sharp, but it gives very annoying "hiss" or "fog" with headlights. A bit like instagram with fingerprints on your cellphone. A lot of contrast goes away and the fog can have weird colours. With the primes I can shoot directly into the sun, and no problems at all, but not with the 24-70 I.

Last edited by blanka; Oct 2, 2012 at 04:39 PM.
blanka is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2012, 05:44 PM   #30
AxisOfBeagles
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: East of Shangrila
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocabj View Post
I have the 24-70 f/2.8L (I), and I use it so infrequently enough that I can't justify the upgrade to the II.
I have the EF 24-70 f/2.8L, LOVE it, and use it all the time.

And btw, it's a 77mm ...
__________________
Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy
AxisOfBeagles is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2012, 06:47 PM   #31
someoldguy
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Can't see it , especially at that price . My 24-105 does all I want plus gives me extra reach , which to me is more important than an extra stop. If I did feel that 2.8 was necessary , I'd look for a used Mk 1 .
someoldguy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 06:34 PM   #32
Kronie
macrumors 6502a
 
Kronie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronie View Post
Same here. Let the price drop 500+ and well see. I keep looking at my 70-200MKII and what that cost and then the 24-70 MKII and I cant help but think I am getting much less for the same amount of money.
Well, I flip flopped and ended up buying one. $2,300 is hard to stomach BUT here are my thoughts compared to my 24-105:

It produces the same colors and slightly sharper results than the 24-105. It has much sharper corners and slightly more contrast. Less flare and CA. It auto focuses faster and more accurately. (on a 5d2) Basically the same weight and size. BUT it has 2.8 which I think I would rather see at this point than an F/4 lens. I will miss the 71-105mm...

I can say the 24-70 II is better in every way than the 24-105. Except for price and the 71-105mm. Well, 82mm filters kind of sucks as well...
Kronie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2012, 10:27 PM   #33
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
 
Prodo123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Here's my take on it.
The 82mm thread and the normal zoom are what kills it for me. Does sharpness and marginally better bokeh justify a +$1000 price hike? Is it worth it for you to get the lens at that price? That is what you should ask yourself.

Canon shaved off a couple grams from the 24-70 by making the lens out of mostly plastic. Whereas the Mark I had metal threads and barrel, the Mark II has plastic. Not to mention that the lack of reverse zoom means you don't get that awesome deep hood of the Mark I; no, you're stuck with the conventional hood.

I mean, even Nikon took somewhat of a cue from Canon by having a stationary deep hood on its own 24-70. So you know it's a very desirable, popular feature. It's a shame that it's gone, and makes justifying the $2200 price tag even harder. The lack of IS is even more disappointing at this price point.

In the end, is it worth getting the Mark II when there's the original 24-70 selling for ~$1400 on the streets? Only if you really, really need the sharpness. Otherwise, you're just wasting money on an incremental improvement.
__________________
MacBook Pro 15" 2.2Ghz hi-res glossy, 16GB RAM, Logitech G700, Das Keyboard, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB iPhone 5 White 32GB Audiophile Photographer, videographer, audio engineer
Prodo123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 11:45 AM   #34
equilibrium17
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
If I may be permitted to expand the topic a bit:

In the same lens class, does anyone here have an opinion on the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC?

I am intrigued... as a hobbyist, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is way above what I am willing to spend on a single lens. But at $1300 MSRP, the Tamron is more of a possibility. If I am patient and wait a few months I bet I'll be able to pick one up refurbished or lightly used for couple of hundred less than the MSRP.

In addition to the cost savings, the VC of the Tamron would definitely be useful to me, as I shoot a fair bit handheld in the 1/30 - 1/60 shutter speed range, which is pushing it at 70mm without image stabilization, especially since I'm shooting on a crop sensor (I'm shooting on a T3i/600D right now).

I was going to buy the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. But looking at what I shoot on my 18-135mm kit lens right now, I shoot a lot more in the 55-70mm range than I do in the 18-24mm range. So I'm guessing a 24-70mm lens would be more useful to me than a 17-55mm. It is a bit more money, but not tons more. And while I'm not looking to upgrade my body anytime soon, it is also definitely a plus to have the option of keeping the lens if I decide to upgrade to full-frame at some point.

I dunno... I'm in no rush to make a purchase right now, but I'd be curious to hear opinions.
equilibrium17 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 12:50 PM   #35
macjonny1
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
problem is canon is overpricing all of their new gear.
__________________
MacLOL
macjonny1 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 02:09 PM   #36
firestarter
macrumors Demi-God
 
firestarter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Green and pleasant land
Quote:
Originally Posted by equilibrium17 View Post
If I may be permitted to expand the topic a bit:

In the same lens class, does anyone here have an opinion on the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC?
These guys do:



(A great YouTube channel to follow, by the way)
firestarter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 03:09 PM   #37
Fandongo
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Space
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessica. View Post
Do you know why they had to change the filter size or did they just change it to change it? I see that as a move similar to Apple. They seem to be changing their charging ports for reasons that do not seem entirely clear to me.
I'd guess it was an attempt to reduce vignetting, particularly with additional filters. It is a bummer, since 77mm seems to be the largest relatively standard filter size. If only 4x4 matte boxes/filters weren't so cost prohibitive...

I would have embraced Apple's new port 100% if it were thunderbolt.
1) It would have made the current iPhones and next iPads PERFECT lag-free DSLR monitors.
2) Potentially uncompressed sensor data recording.
3) Immediate sync
4) Smaller ports mean easier weather resistance (@ $700, clearly they don't care).

These technologies (phones/tablets + cameras) were born to sex each other... The past 4 years have been one big tease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
I have the 24-70f2.8 (I) and I use that 80% of the time on my 5DII (use the 85 f1.8 second most).

I have no desire to 'upgrade'. The first version is a fine lens, sharp wide open with great bokeh. The price of the new one is ridiculous!
I love the bokeh and color of the 24-70 I, and f4.0-5.6 appear unbeatably sharp.
I feel like II really needs a new 46MP camera or something to make the added sharpness noticeable.
No IS is fine for me from a photo perspective, but I would have considered upgrading if it had IS for the sake of video.
Of course, it degrades image quality, so it's not ideal... but rolling shutter is MOST noticeable (and hardest to fix) when walking/running.
__________________
"There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it."
Fandongo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 03:10 PM   #38
Kronie
macrumors 6502a
 
Kronie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Looks like the Tammy got a beat down. Here is a couple from the MKII:

6 shot Pano:


My kid:
Kronie is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 07:42 PM   #39
100Teraflops
macrumors 6502a
 
100Teraflops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
I'll consider it when the price decreases! I have "The Brick" and like it. I read a few reviews on POTN and so far I'm impressed. People say it is sharper than 70-200 2.8 II, which is a sharp lens. Down the road it will be part of my kit, just not now!
__________________
Long live the photographer! Got memories? Record your moments with current electronic devices. I stumble, fall, get up and do it again.
100Teraflops is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2012, 08:57 AM   #40
equilibrium17
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by firestarter View Post
These guys do:

(A great YouTube channel to follow, by the way)

Thanks for that, and I'll definitely follow that channel in the future. I had read a couple of reviews but there's something about actually seeing the lenses in action on video that's helpful.

I'm actually pretty favorably impressed with the Tamron based on this and other reviews. There is no doubt that the Canon 24-70 Mk II has strictly better IQ, and the focus speed of the Canon is also something I would really like to have. But the Canon is also nearly twice the price and this simply puts it out of my budget. So for me the choice would be between the Tamron and another option at or below this price -- maybe lightly used or closeout Canon 24-70 Mk I, for example. At some point I'll have to give them both a try, but right now the Tamron is looking like it might be the better choice for what like to shoot.
equilibrium17 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2012, 10:04 AM   #41
Beamengine
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brighton, UK
I have the 35/1.4. It is a dream of a lens and I cannot imagine parting with it for a zoom and all the inevitable compromises that you get with one, especially one that tries to cover a wide angle to modest tele range.

All lens choices are a compromise, but the shots I 'lose' by having the 35 attached are more than outweighed by the sheer quality of the best shots I get from my prime.
Beamengine is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2012, 12:44 PM   #42
jhall1jax
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
I have one

I sold all my gear a few years ago, including a 24-70mm 2.8. In the last month or so, I've bought all new equipment and saw there was a version II of both the 24-70 and 70-200. I bought one of each.

A couple nights ago I had my first shoot with the 24-70 II and I'm blown away, the pics are brutally sharp. Like, see each pore in someone's face sharp, on a full-body shot. This is shooting wide open at all focal lengths.

The version I was great, version II is phenomenal. I couldn't be happier. Well, I'd be happier if it was much less expensive!
jhall1jax is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 18, 2012, 09:28 PM   #43
george-brooks
macrumors 6502a
 
george-brooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: New York, NY
Not tempted at all. Far too expensive, not a big improvement over the Mk I, I'm happy with my 24-105. Sure its a stop slower, but with Image Stabilization, I get about 3 extra stops anyways, so in practical terms its a faster lens with more zoom for less money. I'm far more interested in the ultra fast L primes.
__________________
Mac Pro 3,1: 8 Core 2.8 GHz|16GB|Radeon 5870|2TB+120GB SSD
MacBook Pro 8,2: 2.5 GHz i7|16GB|750GB+240GB SSD
iPhone 5, iPad 4, 11" Macbook Air, 12" Powerbook G4
george-brooks is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2012, 02:34 PM   #44
cocky jeremy
macrumors 68020
 
cocky jeremy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntington, WV
Send a message via AIM to cocky jeremy Send a message via Skype™ to cocky jeremy
For me, no. I have a 50mm, going to buy the 35 or 40mm, 100mm macro, so i pretty much have the 24-70 range covered, all the way up to 135 (I have the 135 L already). I'm not big on zoom lenses anymore. I think the only zoom i'm going to get is the 17-40, and that's just because of price and to have a versatile walk around lens.
__________________
 27" iMac. 3.4 GHz i5. 24 GB RAM. 512 GB SSD - 16 GB iPhone 5S 
cocky jeremy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2012, 03:01 PM   #45
VirtualRain
Thread Starter
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocky jeremy View Post
For me, no. I have a 50mm, going to buy the 35 or 40mm, 100mm macro, so i pretty much have the 24-70 range covered, all the way up to 135 (I have the 135 L already). I'm not big on zoom lenses anymore. I think the only zoom i'm going to get is the 17-40, and that's just because of price and to have a versatile walk around lens.
Why not?

I thought this was an interesting observation from Bryan's review at The-Digital-Picture...

Quote:
Sharpness and contrast used to be an advantage held by most primes, but ... the sharpness and contrast difference between the 24-70 L II and the primes falling into this range is much harder to discern. The differences are probably not significant for most. The versatility of having the range of focal lengths in the mounted lens is often preferred.
BTW, this is my current thinking as well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by george-brooks View Post
Not tempted at all. Far too expensive, not a big improvement over the Mk I, I'm happy with my 24-105. Sure its a stop slower, but with Image Stabilization, I get about 3 extra stops anyways, so in practical terms its a faster lens with more zoom for less money. I'm far more interested in the ultra fast L primes.
I really like the 24-105 as a travel lens. It's great for landscapes, monuments, and inside dark venues like cathedrals. I also have the 35L and think it's ideal for shooting in bars, clubs, etc. I think the combo of these two lenses fits my needs better than the 24-70 would.
__________________
tools: nMP for kickin ass, rMBP for working, iPad for surfing, iPhone for communicating, Mac Mini for entertaining
Canon tools: 5D Mark III 24-105L/70-300L/35L/50L/85L for capturing
VirtualRain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 04:59 PM   #46
cocky jeremy
macrumors 68020
 
cocky jeremy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntington, WV
Send a message via AIM to cocky jeremy Send a message via Skype™ to cocky jeremy
Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtualRain View Post
Why not?

I thought this was an interesting observation from Bryan's review at The-Digital-Picture...



BTW, this is my current thinking as well...



I really like the 24-105 as a travel lens. It's great for landscapes, monuments, and inside dark venues like cathedrals. I also have the 35L and think it's ideal for shooting in bars, clubs, etc. I think the combo of these two lenses fits my needs better than the 24-70 would.
Even if the difference in sharpness and contrast isn't as great as it used to be, it's still there. I want the best quality lenses. I'd rather have ten lenses that i consider a 10/10 than two to three lenses that cover the same range that i would consider an 8.5/10.
__________________
 27" iMac. 3.4 GHz i5. 24 GB RAM. 512 GB SSD - 16 GB iPhone 5S 
cocky jeremy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2012, 06:42 PM   #47
OreoCookie
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocky jeremy View Post
Even if the difference in sharpness and contrast isn't as great as it used to be, it's still there. I want the best quality lenses. I'd rather have ten lenses that i consider a 10/10 than two to three lenses that cover the same range that i would consider an 8.5/10.
Unless you have to schlepp 10 lenses around. My fully stocked camera bag weighs ~7 kg. No way I'll carry that around all day (except for special occasions). Instead, I usually pack two primes and a zoom. A 10 % loss in sharpness or contrast doesn't mean anything if you're unable to make the shot, because you either can't change lenses fast enough or you didn't take your equipment with you.
__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
OreoCookie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2012, 10:04 AM   #48
cocky jeremy
macrumors 68020
 
cocky jeremy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Huntington, WV
Send a message via AIM to cocky jeremy Send a message via Skype™ to cocky jeremy
Quote:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Unless you have to schlepp 10 lenses around. My fully stocked camera bag weighs ~7 kg. No way I'll carry that around all day (except for special occasions). Instead, I usually pack two primes and a zoom. A 10 % loss in sharpness or contrast doesn't mean anything if you're unable to make the shot, because you either can't change lenses fast enough or you didn't take your equipment with you.
I don't care to carry lenses with me. It's all about getting the best shot possible for me. I'll give myself a workout to do that, no problem.
__________________
 27" iMac. 3.4 GHz i5. 24 GB RAM. 512 GB SSD - 16 GB iPhone 5S 
cocky jeremy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2012, 06:51 PM   #49
OreoCookie
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocky jeremy View Post
I don't care to carry lenses with me. It's all about getting the best shot possible for me. I'll give myself a workout to do that, no problem.
Then you don't travel far enough
__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
OreoCookie is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC