https://www.dxomark.com …review-Updating-a-classic
DXO says better corner sharpness with diminished center sharpness. Seems like more evidence that upgrading from Mk I is probably not a great idea.
Left Handed Brisket Combating camera shame since 1977... ![]() More info | Jan 14, 2017 07:26 | #136 https://www.dxomark.com …review-Updating-a-classic PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Mangfeldt.ma Mostly Lurking ![]() More info Post edited over 4 years ago by Mangfeldt.ma with reason 'Typos'. | Jan 14, 2017 09:39 | #137 I spoke with a Canon rep here in Norway a couple of weeks ago and asked him straight up why I should spend double the money for a mkII, when there is plenty of affordable mkIs on the market. Canon EOS 40D • EOS 1D X | Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM • EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM • EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CheshireCat Goldmember ![]() 2,303 posts Likes: 406 Joined Oct 2008 Location: *** vanished *** More info Post edited over 4 years ago by CheshireCat. | If you buy two copies of the v1, you can keep the other as a spare in case the main one fails. And when/if this happens, you'll get it "repaired" in no time and for free 1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Bill Emmett Member 201 posts Likes: 10 Joined May 2012 Location: New Orleans, Louisiana More info | Jan 14, 2017 15:35 | #139 CheshireCat wrote in post #18244146 ![]() If you buy two copies of the v1, you can keep the other as a spare in case the main one fails. And when/if this happens, you'll get it "repaired" in no time and for free ![]() I would that Canon has come up with new version of failing internal ribbon cable. I don't own this lens, but from time to time did consider it. But, reading about the failures on this forum, and others made me drop my consideration. I ended up buying a 24-70mm Tamron, with VC, and carrying my 70-200mm f4L IS with me most of the time. I just can't justify the failure while in the field. New Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, Canon EOS 7D Mark II, Canon EOS 50D, Canon 7D Classic, Canon 6D, Canon EF 70-200 f4L USM with IS, Canon 40mm pancake, Canon EF 50mm 1.8, Canon EF-S 10-22mm wide angle, Canon EF-S 18-135 IS STM, Canon EF 100mm 2.8L USM Macro, Tamron 18-270mm Dii VC, Tamron SP 150-600mm VC, Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 VC USM, Canon EF 16-35 f2.8L II USM, Tamron 2X Tele-Extender, 1.4 Tele-extender
LOG IN TO REPLY |
umphotography THREAD STARTER grabbing their Johnson ![]() More info Post edited over 4 years ago by umphotography. | Jan 17, 2017 08:43 | #140 I have since got my hands on a couple more copies at different camera stores and another photographer who got one with his 5D4 Mike
LOG IN TO REPLY |
FarmerTed1971 fondling the 5D4 ![]() More info | Jan 17, 2017 09:15 | #141 Should have made this a 24-135L. ߘ Getting better at this - Fuji X-t3 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 16 1.4 - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 - 50-140 - flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CheshireCat Goldmember ![]() 2,303 posts Likes: 406 Joined Oct 2008 Location: *** vanished *** More info Post edited over 4 years ago by CheshireCat. | Jan 17, 2017 11:03 | #142 Actually what they did is quite smart: take the old lens, make it cheaper to produce and sell it at twice the price. 1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nethawked Senior Member More info | Jan 17, 2017 11:38 | #143 Well, after several failed attempts at trying to figure out the hype on the 24-105L I, I'd say anyone who wants a real new 24-105 go out and buy the 24-70 II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 17, 2017 13:53 | #144 FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18247104 ![]() Should have made this a 24-135L. ߘ That is a very good point. If Canon knew they were unable to reasonably improve the IQ due to *technical* reasons, they should have made the zoom range longer to increase its usefulness. Personally, I would even settle for 28-135 F4L IS (mediocre the heck IQ)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
umphotography THREAD STARTER grabbing their Johnson ![]() More info Post edited over 4 years ago by umphotography. | Jan 18, 2017 07:18 | #145 Im not buying that they could not make it better because of the focal ratios....they did it with the 100-400....its better.....much better in terms of improvements when you compare those two v/s the two 24-105's......Now IQ and sharpness is a bit better on the 100-400V2..you can see it......If its enough to upgrade then thats up to the buyer......but there is something there....not so with the 24-105 Mike
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Armando LaO Sr Mostly Lurking ![]() More info | I guess I won't know the difference between the V1 and V2 because i'm a newbie with this brand
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 23, 2017 08:37 | #147 Armando LaO Sr wrote in post #18252695 ![]() I guess I won't know the difference between the V1 and V2 because i'm a newbie with this brand ![]()
Mike
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 25, 2017 17:00 | #148 umphotography wrote in post #18248126 ![]() Im not buying that they could not make it better because of the focal ratios....they did it with the 100-400....its better.....much better in terms of improvements when you compare those two v/s the two 24-105's......Now IQ and sharpness is a bit better on the 100-400V2..you can see it......If its enough to upgrade then thats up to the buyer......but there is something there....not so with the 24-105 as for the IS argument It applies very well with the 100-400 due to the length of the lens. IS is a huge factor for upgrade in my opinion. Ask the guys that have it how they are getting better images because of the new IS system.....400MM with this new system... you betcha...big reason to upgrade the 24-105. the current IS system lets you flash and hand hold at 1/30 all day long...not sure where the new IS would be of benefit. Im sure it wouldnt hurt. Again..a major disappointment for me on this update I do understand what you are saying, however it is not fair to compare 100-400 to 24-105. The former only zooms in the telephoto range unlike the latter which doing from WA to medium Tele. A very diverse and useful range.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 27, 2017 21:20 | #149 Wow. I'm really surprised the V2 is so similar to V1. Of course I'm just reading your reviews but there aren't many "must have" reviews. I guess I'll continue using the V1 of the 24-105L and 24-70L.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Bassat "I am still in my underwear." 8,075 posts Likes: 2739 Joined Oct 2015 More info | Jan 27, 2017 22:47 | #150 ![]() dochollidayda wrote in post #18255400 ![]() I do understand what you are saying, however it is not fair to compare 100-400 to 24-105. The former only zooms in the telephoto range unlike the latter which doing from WA to medium Tele. A very diverse and useful range. ... This analogy/comparison makes no sense. We define wide-angle and telephoto with our own eyes as a reference point. There is no physical (optical) reason to make this distinction. If our eyes were similar to a 200mm lens' angle/field of view, we'd be calling 150mm wide, and 50mm UWA. Telephoto would not kick in until what, 300mm? 400mm?
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 Max Subbotin 910 guests, 315 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |