Which L zoom brought you great joy?

[An drew]

I didn't say i wanted to get that lens mah.

No not for you. I was referring to the recommendation to avsquare. Only agreeing with you that it is not L. Only a small number of people with FL, weight and size requirements would pay for this lens.

 

[Snoweagle]

No not for you. I was referring to the recommendation to avsquare. Only agreeing with you that it is not L. Only a small number of people with FL, weight and size requirements would pay for this lens.

All right then. I used to carry this lens out at AP funan and it is indeed quite light, compared to the f/2.8L cousin which is significantly heavier and costlier.

 

[LittleSid]

24-70L and this is the only L zoom lens I have.

 

[An drew]

24-70L and this is the only L zoom lens I have.

This could be the best value for money L zoom.

 

[An drew]

This could be the best value for money L zoom.

Is the 24-70 Mark II value for money?

 

[An drew]

Seeing the great popularity of the 24-70 it looks like the 24-70 Mark II will be another success story for Canon.

 

[rickygck]

70-200 for me, but f4.

 

[avsquare]

my recently bought 70-300 L is another treasure

 

[Turbonetics]

Seeing the great popularity of the 24-70 it looks like the 24-70 Mark II will be another success story for Canon.

Definitely.
It can't be worse than its predecessor.

 

[An drew]

Definitely.
It can't be worse than its predecessor.

I am thinking of getting it. Just hoping the price will fall. The MTF looks unbelievable.

 

[Snoweagle]

IMO, Canon made a wrong move. They should've included IS in the 24-70 II instead of both the new 24 and 28mm primes.

 

[An drew]

IMO, Canon made a wrong move. They should've included IS in the 24-70 II instead of both the new 24 and 28mm primes.

What to do? :dunno: We are at Canon's mercy. We can only take what Canon gives.:what:

 

[Halfmoon]

What to do? :dunno: We are at Canon's mercy. We can only take what Canon gives.:what:

I do not understand why so many lament the lack of IS...... I really think it is ok, and the lens is lighter, at 805g...... instead of 950g......

 

[Snoweagle]

What to do? :dunno: We are at Canon's mercy. We can only take what Canon gives.:what:

Think they purposely did that.

 

[Snoweagle]

I do not understand why so many lament the lack of IS...... I really think it is ok, and the lens is lighter, at 805g...... instead of 950g......

What i meant is they putting IS into the new 24-70 makes more sense than the wide primes.

 

[Halfmoon]

What i meant is they putting IS into the new 24-70 makes more sense than the wide primes.

It is a puzzle to me as I do not think 24 & 28 need IS are all......... as along as the results are sharp......

Or just to bump the prices up???

 

[eleveninth]

It is a puzzle to me as I do not think 24 & 28 need IS are all......... as along as the results are sharp......

Or just to bump the prices up???

More for video prolly.

 

[Snoweagle]

It is a puzzle to me as I do not think 24 & 28 need IS are all......... as along as the results are sharp......

Or just to bump the prices up???

I think it's just gimmicks to include IS in those 2 new wide primes, and yes, also to increase price of cos.

 

[An drew]

I do not understand why so many lament the lack of IS...... I really think it is ok, and the lens is lighter, at 805g...... instead of 950g......

Having used a 24-70 and a 24-105 IS, the value of the IS becomes clear very quickly. While you can get sharp shots most of the time with the 24-70, there will be a number of shots marred by handshake. So if you need a keeper, you have to be extremely careful. With the 24-105, less care is needed and you can move very fast and many instantaneous grab shots can turn out perfectly. With the 24-70 you have to practice good technique and maybe bump up the ISO a little.

Furthermore, at 70mm, IS would be more useful than for the the 24mm or 28mm prime.

I think Canon is hoping that a few years down the road you fork out money again to buy the 24-70 Mark III IS.

It is a puzzle to me as I do not think 24 & 28 need IS are all......... as along as the results are sharp......

Or just to bump the prices up???

This is of course to bump up the price. I do not think I have ever read anywhere in any forum that Canon users are asking for Canon to include IS into the 24mm prime.

More for video prolly.

I think many people are hoping to use the 24-70 for video too.

 

[LittleSid]

IMO, Canon made a wrong move. They should've included IS in the 24-70 II instead of both the new 24 and 28mm primes.

No need is for 2470, I hv been using 2470 for three years and I assure u it's still awesome without the is function.