james_mccormick Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 <p>Today I got an email from Calumet informing me of three new additions to the Canon lens line. Being a 24-70/2.8mkI owner I was interested to see what the mkII had to offer and what the price tag was going to be. Was I ready for what I was about to read? Absolutely not!<br> Now I have never posted a message/musing of this sort but I couldn't resist this one.<br> I do not tend to use IS, I used to shoot Sony with its sensor based IS and did not miss it when I rebranded my gear to Canon. However, I was very surprised to see this lens not having IS. From my evenings of browsing through this forum, it appeared that IS was what most people wanted from an update to this lens. However, from what I could see, it appeared that the upgrade was a couple of fluorite coated elements, the entire lens being lighter by 100g and the filter thread being a few millimetres bigger. Also, a feature that I really like on my mkI copy is the lens hood becoming shallower as the lens goes wider. This seems to have been scraped on the mkII.</p> <p>Now I can understand that this lens needed some mass taken away as it is a heavy beast, but really, am I missing something here? This lens is up for £2300! Have Canon gone completely bonkers?<br> I would love to hear other peoples thoughts on this?</p> <p>James</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._kaa Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The mk2 is said to be (based on the theoretical MTFs on Canon's website) MUCH better optically than the mk1 version. That's what you're expected to pay for. Also note that this lens is aimed straight at professionals and they do not blink at these prices.<br><br> Otherwise, I've heard that Canon made pre-production models both with IS and without, and after much debate concluded that the IS model was too heavy and too expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 <p>Already much discussed here last week:</p> <p><a href="00ZyUl">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00ZyUl</a></p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 <p>As Ken says, we've been there and done that.</p> <p>Tamron have announced they will be introducing an optically stabilized 24-70/2.8 VC USD lens. No work on when or how much, but my guess is less than 50% of the cost of the new Canon. In fact I would not be at all surprised if the Tamron lens was well under $1000, given that their current non-stabilized 28-75/2.8 sells for around $500.</p> <p>I'd say there are quite a few professionals who will blink at $2300 for an unstabilized 24-70/2.8 lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_mccormick Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 <p>Yes, sorry, I missed that thread! Case closed!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 <p>I reckon Canon wanted to improve the performance so as to match a high MP 5dMkIII. The ver 2 of the 70-200f2.8 prepared the ground last year. Next will be the 16-35mm...</p> <p>I agree with you about the hood on the current one - a shame to lose such an ingenious feature, but I notice most photojournalists don't seem to bother with the hood.</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel_odabashian Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 <p>It's simple canon concentrates on it's name and no name is worth that much! Go back to sony i was interested in what this lens had to offer but it does not not seem as if there is anything extra</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 <p>Robin - we already have a second version of the 16-35 F2.8 although they may well do a version 3. The mkII 16-35 already has an 82mm filter thread.<br> I am not sure Sony is a lot better - their 24-70 is $1800 at B&H or Adorama!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_littleboy__tokyo__ja Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 <p>Much of the price difference is due to the change in the Yen/USD exchange rates over the last few years. In Japan, the 24-70 II is only slightly more expensive than the old version, at least at the MRP level. And I expect prices will come down somewhat once initial demand has been met. Still, that's cold comfort for folks who work solely in USD or Euros. The massively improved MTF performance has me enthused; finally a normal zoom that makes not lugging all the primes an option. Given the quality that the Zeiss 21/2.8 coughs up, there currently isn't a normal zoom I'm willing to use. Your mileage and pocket depth will vary, of course.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowcatcher Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Good point Jimmy babes, now I can pick up a cheap mk I instead of lusting over yours. I'll tell your missus if you buy the mk II! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now