Canon 24-70 f/2.8L IS on the distant horizon

JAcosta wrote in post #15727084
Im assuming you shoot landscapes? Can you demonstrate with examples how much dynamic range you lose if you bump the ISO from 100 to say, 400? Im actually wanting to see what youre talking about as I routinely shoot high ISO.

Not answering your question I know, but I use a rule of thumb of just 5 stops DR when figuring metering issues and have found it pretty close to the truth. Canon would have us believe DR is double that, which is just not true. I'm not alone, a pro 'tog running a photography course I went on uses the same logic.

If they make it like the new 24-70 II (extends with hood), then I wond't buy it, if they make it like the old 24-70 (Extends within the hood), then I am sold.

Attempting to buy a 24-70 mark 2 next week and this just pushed it away. shall i buy the current or buy the one with IS?

boerewors wrote in post #15814943
but the Tamron is nowhere near as sharp when wide open and focus accuracy suffers with the Tamron in low light scenarios. The canon would land you a much higher keeper rate and render more detail especially at higher ISO's. Add VC to that and you have a mythical lens thats perfection in every way.
I have only 2 lenses a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the 70-200 F4 L IS and i prefer using the 70-200 in low light even it gathers one stop less of light because the optics are just so much sharper when wide open that i can go all the way to the cameras maximum ISO without worries of image quality. The Tamron is soft wide open which exagerates the noise at higher ISO's and the AF is inacurate in low light.

you're seriously comparing your $400 lens with a $1300 lens?

crop shooting vs full frame shooting?

non USM vs USM?

soft wide open?

AF accuracy?

easy to say that you've never even shot the tamron 24-70 on a crop or FF, yet feel comfortable commenting on it...

NemethR wrote in post #15815154
If they make it like the new 24-70 II (extends with hood), then I wond't buy it, if they make it like the old 24-70 (Extends within the hood), then I am sold.

I had similar reservations at first, but as soon as you actually start using it such reservations quickly evaporate; it is an awesome lens as all the reviews have said. It's weight advantage over the older one is obviously a welcome change. I love mine

Jahled wrote in post #15815551
I had similar reservations at first, but as soon as you actually start using it such reservations quickly evaporate; it is an awesome lens as all the reviews have said. It's weight advantage over the older one is obviously a welcome change. I love mine

I prefer a lens to be heavy (easier to hold steady).
On the other hand, for that much money, I really would expect at least something that does not extend in overall lenght,
and the hood protects the extending element (from water, etc.), not to mention that the hood on the 24-70 II is only useable at 24mm...
That is why I think the older mechanism was an excellent piece of engineering, and that is (part of the reason), the new 24-70 II comes to me as a cheap "counterfeit".
Even if it is sharper.

No-no, Canon lost my $$ there.

Its going to retail for over $3,000. Your going to pay at least $800 more for the IS mechanism.

Personally I dont really see the need for IS under 70mm but I am sure that there will be droves of people that want one and will buy one...

NemethR wrote in post #15815578
I prefer a lens to be heavy (easier to hold steady).
On the other hand, for that much money, I really would expect at least something that does not extend in overall lenght,
and the hood protects the extending element (from water, etc.), not to mention that the hood on the 24-70 II is only useable at 24mm...
That is why I think the older mechanism was an excellent piece of engineering, and that is (part of the reason), the new 24-70 II comes to me as a cheap "counterfeit".
Even if it is sharper.

No-no, Canon lost my $$ there.

the old design was obnoxious, big, long, and heavy. It had such a presence that people would run when pointed at them. It really was built like a brick, but due to it's reliability issues, perception of build quality != actual build quality. The lens has issues.

Charlie wrote in post #15815641
the old design was obnoxious, big, long, and heavy. It had such a presence that people would run when pointed at them. It really was built like a brick, but due to it's reliability issues, perception of build quality != actual build quality. The lens has issues.

Hehe, and when you point a 85mm 1.2 or a 70-200 2.8 at people, thats how much better?!

Storage wrote in post #15815396
Attempting to buy a 24-70 mark 2 next week and this just pushed it away. shall i buy the current or buy the one with IS?

Since this lens doesn't exist at the moment, and may not exist for quite some time, I'd say to get the mark 2 now. Or you could consider the Tamron 24-70 VC, which is a crackin lens.

I will always buy the IS version of a lens since I have a tremor and a tripod is not always practical. I purchased the 24-105 rather than the 24-70 because it had IS. Cost was not a consideration. I will be looking forward to the new 24-70 IS.