^I've shot both side by side. Any color variation is absolutely negligible. There is VERY little difference.
hieu1004 Goldmember  3,579 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jul 2010 Location: Seattle More info | Feb 02, 2011 10:03 | #16 |
hieu1004 Goldmember 3,579 posts Likes: 4 Joined Jul 2010 Location: Seattle More info | Feb 02, 2011 10:03 | #17 Indeed.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JonK Goldmember  2,161 posts Likes: 3 Joined Feb 2004 Location: PA USA More info | Feb 02, 2011 10:22 | #18 The 24L II looks badass w/o the hood 7NE | 7D | 5DII | 16-35/2.8L II | 24/1.4L II | TS-E 24/3.5L II | 50/1.4 | 85/1.2L II | 100/2.8L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS II | 400/5.6L | PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 02, 2011 11:24 | #19 JonK wrote in post #11762736  The 24L II looks badass w/o the hood if you care about looks, the 85L probably looks the baddest unless you go to the telephotos... or the 14L. of course that's JMO Body: Sony a7R IV
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 02, 2011 11:24 | #20 Spaniard wrote in post #11762048 The 24L MKII colors are better. please explain... or SHOW us Body: Sony a7R IV
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mattjns93 Senior Member  765 posts Likes: 5 Joined Nov 2009 Location: Lehigh Valley, PA More info | Feb 02, 2011 11:36 | #21 ilumo wrote in post #11763144 if you care about looks, the 85L probably looks the baddest unless you go to the telephotos... or the 14L. of course that's JMO  Got that right.  5DII | 17-40L | 35L | 85L II | 50 1.8 | 430EX | flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Terran Member 151 posts Joined Nov 2010 Location: Orange County, CA More info | Feb 02, 2011 11:39 | #22 Holly smokes! It’s like looking into a fish bowl. | 7D | Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 | 17-55 f/2.8 | 24 f/1.4L II | 60 f/2.8 Macro | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | EF 2X II | 430EX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JonK Goldmember 2,161 posts Likes: 3 Joined Feb 2004 Location: PA USA More info | Feb 02, 2011 11:47 | #23 This looks funnier
The camera can't even sit flat 7NE | 7D | 5DII | 16-35/2.8L II | 24/1.4L II | TS-E 24/3.5L II | 50/1.4 | 85/1.2L II | 100/2.8L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS II | 400/5.6L | PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 02, 2011 11:47 | #24 it looks even better without that grip. makes the lens look bigger. Body: Sony a7R IV
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ni$mo350 Cream of the Crop  6,011 posts Likes: 14 Joined Apr 2009 Location: Portland, OR More info | Feb 02, 2011 12:00 | #25 I choose the 35L over the 24L because I don't like the distortion. I feel like 35 is plenty wide enough for me and what I shoot. I've shot portraits/cars/landscapes and never felt the need for a wider lens on FF. Different strokes I guess. I also find the 35L's colors to be fantastic and have no desire to pay that much for a lens I won't use. -Chris-Website
LOG IN TO REPLY |
arentol Goldmember 1,305 posts Joined Jun 2009 Location: Seattle WA More info | Feb 02, 2011 12:20 | #26 TijmenDal wrote in post #11761698 ...except for me buggering you with, probably stupid, questions.... Sorry to get a little off topic, but For your edification and to try to ensure you don't make this mistake again somewhere where it will get you in actual trouble (especially since it is a short haul from the UK where it is a common term to Amsterdam where you are), this can not go unaddressed. 5D3 | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | 16-35L II | TS-E 24L | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Voigtlander 40 f/2.0 | Σ 50 f/1.4 | MP-E 65 | 70-200 2.8L IS II | Σ 85 f/1.4 | Zeiss 100 f/2 | Σ 120-300 f/2.8 OS | 580 EX II | 430 EX II | Fuji X10 | OM-D E-M5 | http://www.mikehjphoto.com/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Helena Goldmember  1,385 posts Likes: 15 Joined May 2008 Location: Trondheim, Norway More info | Spaniard wrote in post #11762048 The 24L MKII colors are better. I used to feel the same way, until I decided to do a comparison shoot a few weeks ago. I was really surprised to find that I couldn't tell them apart (except of course when the difference in focal length was apparent). Both are excellent lenses, and very, very sharp even at f/1.4.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
airfrogusmc I'm a chimper. There I said it... More info | Feb 02, 2011 12:48 | #28 Helena wrote in post #11763691 I used to feel the same way, until I decided to do a comparison shoot a few weeks ago. I was really surprised to find that I couldn't tell them apart (except of course when the difference in focal length was apparent). Both are excellent lenses, and very, very sharp even at f/1.4. Agree and are very different lenses. I have both and love them both and if you are looking for which lens looks bad ass which in my opinion should never be even a thought the 200 2L looks bad ass.  
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ni$mo350 Cream of the Crop 6,011 posts Likes: 14 Joined Apr 2009 Location: Portland, OR More info | Feb 02, 2011 12:58 | #29 |
JonK Goldmember 2,161 posts Likes: 3 Joined Feb 2004 Location: PA USA More info | Feb 02, 2011 13:10 | #30 200 2? Nawww. 500 4!
7NE | 7D | 5DII | 16-35/2.8L II | 24/1.4L II | TS-E 24/3.5L II | 50/1.4 | 85/1.2L II | 100/2.8L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS II | 400/5.6L | PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
| Latest registered member is gunshe 310 guests, 232 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
