What is the difference between the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the original 24-70mm f/2.8L??? The price for the original one is $500 less!
606621
I don't think I can fully answer your question, however I wish I had watched this before spending $2000.00 on this lens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQSuexEQcgM This is a comparison of the Canon 24-70...with the Tamron 24-70... I hope this helps.
606622
The new one is made of fancy plastic and the old one has some metal. The new one is slightly sharper. Another major difference is that the old one has 77mm filter size and the new one had 82mm filter size. You have to be pretty finicky about image quality to notice the difference.
357732
I think the 24-120 is considerably more usable, and the f2.8 is not really necessary for low light with the D750 sensor. The f2.8 offers shorter Depth of Field, if that's the important thing to you. I have a 24-85mm f2.8-4D (I don't like the G version) that I use for this range on my D800E, mostly. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 24-120 f4, with similar optical performance. It lacks the 24-120 VR.The 24-70 is by far the largest and heaviest of the lenses I've mentioned, a negative for me.
1413081
Get the 17-40mm and the 70-200mm f4 for less tha half the price. It's a two lens combo that is outstanding. The pictures are sharp,crisp, and saturated.
759247
Even better. The 1.4 is rock solid compared to the flimsy 1.8, and slightly faster. Ten times as expensive, but may be worth it. If you're still thinking of adding a new zoom to your arsenal, look at the 24-105L, as well. It's pretty much a coin toss, as far as IQ, with the 24-70L, but it adds IS. So, it's one stop slower, but it gains about 3 stops due to the IS, so it's actually better for low-light than the "faster" lens. And longer, too.
933399
This is one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I am not sure about the 35-70 2.8 version because there is no macro application on the 24-70. I use this lens for both fx and dx cameras how ever I would assume that it is a little sharper than the 35-70 due to the fact that it is newer technology. I can't find any current reviews for your lens. I agree with Marty in LA, buy the Nikon 105mm or 200mm if you want macro and if you need a versatile wide angle buy the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 in either F2.8 or F4...
759243
Get the 24-70 for indoor/low light use over the 24-105. IS ONLY helps with camera shake NOT moving subjects. For moving subjects, the extra stop from the 2.8 trumps 4.0 + IS every time, all the time. So with reference to what DavInAZ wrote above, the IS does not make the 24-105 better in low light than the faster 2.8. An extra stop will always be an extra stop. An easy way to think about it is, if you are moving go with the IS, if the subject is moving go with the faster lens. Obviously, if you can have both (as with the 70-200 f2.8L IS), then you are golden.
666201
The difference is larger than "adding an image stabilizer" to the IS model. In other words, the internal lens elements are not identical (in design or in quantity) between the f/4L and f/4L IS. Perhaps some of the glass elements are shared between the models, but the addition of IS technology requires the addition of more lens elements. Look at the Canon site and compare the number of "elements" and "groups" internal to each lens to see what I am talking about. If you poke around the internet you should find a graphic demonstrating the optical arrangement internal to each lens. I have owned the f/4L, the f/4L IS, and the f/2.8L IS II. If I had to rate these lenses on a scale from 1-100 for image quality: I'd rate the f/4L at 85 because it lacks a little sharpness and has a small amount of chromatic aberration. I'd rate the f/4L IS at 95 because it has a small amount of chromatic aberration toward the corners. I'd rate the f/2.8L IS II at 98 because it is almost perfect with no real flaws to speak of. The f/4L IS is noticeably better than the standard f/4L (but doesn't "blow away" the f/4L model). If you can afford the f/4L IS model it is definitely worth the price premium. If you can only afford the f/4L you won't find a better lens at the price point.
2023169
They are both great lenses. Most landscapes are taken at the sharpest point of the lens which is generally f11 so the f2.8 is more of a luxury feature if that is all you are doing with it. If you are using it for some portraiture as well then it makes more sense. From the lenses you have I think you would benefit most from an upgrade of the camera body itself to full frame. It will cost you the same for a 6d body as the 24-70 lens. You will notice more of a difference in image quality and gain much more out of a wide angle lens than changing lenses at this point.
1582486
Brandon. It doesn't say when you asked this question but I figured the answer out. First, I just purchased the last one that a storefront had for $289, so i'm sorry if I stole the lens from you :X. Second, the price is going to be interesting on this lens from here on out. It has been discontinued due to a recently announced new model. The question is how much will this new model cost? To my knowledge that hasn't been answered. I decided to snag it at this price because if the new model is upwards of $400 then it out of my price range anyway. If the new model comes out sub $400 this older model might tank in price. Supply and demand will dictate based on that information. As for big stores, I don't see you having much luck. Most did firesales and liquidated their stock already to mitigate the price risk. I can tell you that this is my first fixed lens for general photography. It hasnt even arrived yet, but when it does I plan to test it out. If its not to my liking I can resell it to you at the price I purchased + the tax I paid + shipping. I would generally just return it but that lowers your chance of it ending up in your hands. If this was a recent post just come back to me and I can show you proof that it hasn't even arrived yet :). Take care!
1204901
I highly suggest going with the lesser known and fantastic 28-70mm F2.8. Great price, amazing glass.
483538
I would look to see if it says "IS" -IS stands for image stabilizer and often, the cheaper lens doesn't have this feature. Also the "II" should be an indicator of how new it is. The older models didn't have the "II" in the name.
1922082
As Matt said there is no "right" lens. If this is in addition to the kit lens I would get the F 2.8 70/200 just because the kit lens gives a wide range close in. If you are getting a body only and purchasing two lenses, I would get the 24/70 followed with something tailored to your primary subject matter.
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
929499
Yes, its a L lens, the 24-105. It would be about $800 by itself. I a incredibly useful lens, F4 is fine for almost any situations except very, very low light. This lens covers photo and video very well.
935597
It's very close in quality to its 1.4 counterpart. The L version has a very slight edge in contrast and sharpness. I opted for the 35mm f2 IS because the difference wasn't large enough for me to justify spending twice as much for the 1.4.Hope this helps!
2183426
Hi, Here is a good review from Ken Rockwell. This Nikon 18-300mm VR is a smaller, lighter version of the original 18-300mm VR. The original 18-300 was very good, so good in fact that I sold an image I made with it to McDonald's - and they are using it on a billboard. This new lens is as good, and is smaller, lighter and less expensive, so it's even better! My only real complaint about the original 18-300 was that it weighed a lot more than my camera, and this new 18-300 weighs ten ounces less! This new 18-300mm also offers Vibration Reduction (4 stops) and instant manual-focus override. It's very slightly slower at the 300mm end (f/6.3 versus f/5.6) than the older lens, and for ten ounces off my shoulder, that's nothing. By taking off 10 ounces, I now can carry this new lens everywhere I never bothered with the old 18-300. This new lens do everything, and it even does macro. At 300mm, it focuses to within just inches of the front of the lens.
1192437
I haven't used either of the lenses mentioned here but I thought I'd point out something that hasn't been mentioned yet. You say the 12-24 has an aperture range of f4-f5.6, and the 11-16 has a range of f2.8-f22. Actually- in the 12-24, the numbers you mention are the maximum aperture settings. At 12mm it opens up to f4 max, and at 24mm it opens up to f5.6 max. At any zoom range it would stop down to probably f22. So the 12-24 is not limited to only f4-f5.6 as this post suggests. The 11-17 lens has a constant maximum aperture of f2.8 through its whole zoom range, and also stops down to f22. So both of these two lenses have a normal range of apertures, but the 11-17 opens up to a bigger f2.8. Just thought I'd point that out if anyone was misled...