watt100 wrote in post #15080744
I suppose the $64,000 question is - how well does it stack up against the older 24-70 2.8 and is it worth the increased cost
Even before I've finished my admittedly very unscientific tests, I know its better optically than the mark 1. I am trying to establish the best aperture (highest resolution), the best and worst focal lengths and how much difraction at the f/22 end affects resolution. I hardly ever venture into the f/2.8 area so thats of less interest to me.
One thing I have noticed: When the lens is tipped down, its easier to zoom out to 70mm than in to 24mm. Maybe that 24mm zoom lock is not as daft an addition as I first thought as with more wear it might move on its own.
Whether its worth the cost is impossible to answer. Its certainly not perfect, barrel distortion has not been designed out and its not as robust as the brick being made of plastic. But as I do not intend to use it to hammer in nails, its construction is not unreasonable and its certainly not flimsy. Are the optical improvements worth the money? The jury is still out.