24-70 MTF: f/4 is not as good as f/2.8

Started Nov 6, 2012 | Discussions thread
jayphotoworks
Forum MemberPosts: 83
Like?
Re: seems about right.
In reply to technic, Nov 6, 2012

I sold my 24-105 up here in Canada for about $775 used with a filter a few weeks ago. I used the 24-105 a lot, especially on location as it covers a large range of lengths without needed a lens change and sufficient for most purposes as I'm usually stopped down. I expected a replacement on the way, so in its place I acquired a 24-70II which had a street price of around $2050 and it rectified my biggest issues with the 2.8 I, the gargantuan hood and matching weight.

I was surprised when the new f4 IS lens was annouced. I do hope the loss of the extra reach results in a massive bump in quality. If the actual street price hits around $1250 or so, the hybrid IS, and semi macro mode may still be a compelling swap later down the road.

cont: I also hate to jump into someone else's argument, but I too find the caviar analogy hard to relate. An F4 lens is hardly half the caviar of a F2.8 lens.. If its just aperture we are talking about, it really doesn't work if you start to compare something like a 200mm f2.8 prime and 200mm f2 prime. The hood for the F2 costs almost as much as the entire f2.8 prime 

-- hide signature --

jayphotoworks photography

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow