From engaged enthusiasts to plain gullible.

Just read this:

http://www.lenstip.com/358.11-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Summary.html

The "Cons" list is in tune with the shortcomings also noted by "Photozone.de":

These would be kind of acceptable:

• lateral chromatic aberration corrected in a worse way than that of the rivals
• huge vignetting on full frame,
• weak performance against bright light

If it it was not for this:

• exorbitant price.

If the idea is to have under-performance at exorbitant prices, we already have Leica and their "M" cameras, than you very much, Canon.

Has our collective fondness for the empowering digital gave to our photography making us an easy mark for predatory commerce?

...I guess someone at Canon went: "Hey, give them new versions of old lenses and they will pay anything.

2300$ for a standard range f/2.8 zoom lens with such limitations...?....Really...!?

The projected sales in the product-life cycle for a new lens in our days is multiple, multiple times that of a model launched back in 2002.

Even if design and production costs have marginally or moderately increased (...they can't have rocketed because the basic design and manufacture processes are evolutions, not radical departures from previous processes...), establishing such an huge mark-up for a new version of a sub-performing product can only be accounted to pure greed and the knowledge that the target market will be gullible enough to pay for it, no matter what.

Shame on Canon. Shame on us.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

Are you trolling or something? Lets look at the Photozone review findings, shall we?

* On lateral chromatic aberration: "Lateral chromatic aberrations (color shadows at hard contrast transitions) are well controlled. They peak at 1.2px at 24mm @ f/2.8 but even so this is very moderate. The issue is even less pronounced at 40mm and 70mm."

* On vignetting on full frame: "The vignetting is comparatively low within the full format scope."

* Photozone does not test against bright light.

Under-performance? Lets see.

Nikon vs Canon 24-70mm.

Nikon has worse vignetting (Photozone.de).

Nikon has worse resolution in center and border at 24mm, worse resolution at center and border at 40mm, worse resolution at center at 70mm. Canon has worse resolution at border at 70mm (photozone.de).

Nikon has MUCH worse CA than Canon (Photozone.de)

troll.

1. You assumed things that I did not write in that "EOS-1D / 5D / 6D Talk" thread about the 24-70 II.

2. You proved unable to identify a mis-focused photo as such.

3. You called me "troll". Twice.

Please consult with our fellow US users what the expression "3 strikes and you're out".

...but, before you go and since Dutch is your native language, try to absorb this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgbxS7hzfB8

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

You did notice, didn't you, that you replied to yourself, right?

Switch to hierarchical view to see it...

Regards, Mike

--
Wait and see...

Don't forget to also thank Nikon, and Zeiss.

Above is a selective quote from LensTip.

I can do that, too:

• "I am pleased that the new lens is much better than its predecessor in almost all categories."
• "Its high build quality and good optical properties are exactly those features professional photographers are looking for. "
• "In regard to that aspect the lens won’t disappoint you for sure."
• "You must honestly say, though, that when it comes to the resolution the Canon, along with the Nikkor and the Sony/Zeiss, fares the best, leaving all the products of the rival companies far behind."
• "the fact that new constructions, with cutting edge optics and mechanics solutions, have to be expensive. Their designing and production have involved considerable financial outlays which should be returned."

--
Unapologetic Canon Apologist

Yep.

So, integrally reproducing the "Cons" (...and, by noting it, implying that there must be "Pros"...) and putting them in perspective against the price is "selective quoting"?...Curious concept...

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

Yes...it is been happening, sometimes...To aggravate things I hit "Reply to thread", instead of "Reply with quote"...but what I write is not that important, so the only downside is that an educational short film won't probably be seen.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

I show how Photozone does NOT have a list of cons in tune with what you write at all. In fact, photozone finds the lens to excel in exactly those areas (LaCA, vignetting).

Also the lens is the sharpest of the bunch according to Photozone test data, and the lens has super low LoCa accroding to photzone.

So what you wrote is just plain BS.

It is fine if you think a lens is too expensive for you, no problem with that. Just don't make up such silly trolling rants about stuff. One post about that you think the lens is too expensive for you is enough.

Your soap box is burning. he he

It's unfortunate this stuff costs so much, but think about those starving executives at Canon. They need to tip their caddies, and schmooze it up. Where is that money going to come from, if not from the consumer? I would also imagine that running CPS costs them quite a bit. The measly membership fee doesn't cover it. And then there is the world wide camera division. The list goes on.

Sigma and Tamron exist to relieve the pain of expensive Canon AF lenses. I don't think Canon can afford to sell lenses at the price point those little companies can. Just the way it is.

I'm not sure I would rally behind this evil Canon concept even if I was going to buy that lens. I guess in a way I am making a stand, because I sort of decided to forget about it for the time being.

Anywho, enjoy your weekend

...mainly to the price it would appear. it's no reason to insult the members of this community. Bear in mind that review sites HAVE to find something to enter into the Con column lest they be accused of being a fanboi.

You simply have to put one of these on your own camera. You will be amazed. I believe your gripes about the price will take on some new perspective after that.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

...oh, it's OK...I am used to it

It's been insinuated that I am complaining because I can't afford it. Nothing farthest from the true, on several counts.

Firstly, I never found the 24-70 range appealing. I ordered both the 24-70 and the 24-105 to evaluate both, back in the day and kept the 24-105 because, among other reasons, I found the 24-70 range uninteresting for my type of photography. The fact that a new, better one came out does not affect that feeling.

Secondly, it is not the fact that it is expensive that is troublesome to me. It is the fact that it is  expensive and still has limitations. When we put one fact against the other, it's just sad....and it seems that, at least, two review sites agree with me.

...but, it seems that, to some "fanboys" it is just enough that it is better than the 5-year old Nikon offer...go figure...

I am not that self-centered that only the price policies that affect me, directly, should be the ones I take issue with. This is a community we have here and the fact that Canon decides to price a lens at a price point that does not equate to the overall performance but is rather dictated by the lens "novelty" is something that affects the whole community...especially, since it may very well turn into an established trend, regarding new offers.

I have no problems with lenses that are expensive, sometimes so expensive that I could only dream of owning them.

I do have a problem with "my" brand offering expensive lenses that, still, are not the best they could be.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

Rick, you're right: I do not own one (...and probably never will, as I find the range non-useful for my type of photography)

As such, I have to rely on reviewers and samples. Users, being "emotionally involved", are only relevant when considered as a large, significant "pool" sample.

To that extent I am taking due notice on how the lens scores a perfect "10" up until now on Fred Miranda...If it keeps an approximate score as the reviews samples grow from the current 12 to, say, 50 or 60 reviews, than I will incorporate that vector into my overall perception of the lens quality.

Meanwhile, and, again, not owning it, I can only but find extremely significant that one of the sites whose lenses evaluations I respect most, only gave it 3 1/2 stars out of 5 for its "Optical Quallity".

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

...What I mean is:

I loved my 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens. It had its limitations. Canon came up with the improved II version. It still has some limitations but is it is a massive improvement over the I version (...probably the same vast improvement you're referring to, in the 24-70 case).

...but Canon only pushed the price by about 30-35% from one version to the next.

Why then now the 70-75% increase in this offer?

It would be understandable if it was a "perfect" lens but, arguably, it isn't.

That's what I am getting at...that and the fear the it will become common practice, affecting future offers, offers that I might actually be interested in.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

I can't argue about your conclusion that it's overpriced, but I don't quite get why "pure greed" is always the conclusion when something comes out more expensive than we want it to be.  Canon isn't a not-for-profit camera collective, it's a company that is expected to pay its employees and make a profit for its investors.  I suspect the price is high to recoup the development expenses and provide for enough returns to justify those expenses in the first place.

When a person posts something negative about Canon in the Canon forums and doesn't get 100% agreement, they play the Canon fanboy card. What's that all about?

You brought up excessive price, and lack luster performance right off the top, right? So I figured it was about the price performance. That equates to expensive price in my poor little mind.

Just to be clear. I'm not a we, and I don't belong to any community. I am a rock I am an island. I have an opinion, like you. It does not agree 100% regarding this matter. I don't have a derogatory name for those that feel the same as you do. Well, I probably do, but I'll keep it to myself.

Anyway, your support will show eventually. There are people everywhere convinced they can save the world one message box at a time.

I do understand what you are talking about, and as I said, it is unfortunate.

Dang, I can't believe I'm still wasting my time in front of this computer.

Be well

What...!?...no, no...I certainly wasn't referring to you, when mentioning "fanboism". Structured, logic replies like yours are certainly always appreciated and I would never put them under that count. Sorry for the confusion.

I was referring to users that jump like one of their closest relatives has been offended every time something not 100% agreeable to Canon is mentioned (...and who always have the need, God knows why, to immediately bring other brands to the discussion as a sad insecurity-triggered validating device...). People who, in their zealot-fever don't even hesitate to accuse others of writing things that were never wrote or call for themselves the faculty of deciding what others "wanted" to say.

That's certainly not you, Schwany...

PK

(PS: I actually try to avoid the "fanboism" classification, unless it is blatantly obvious. I tend to put the "fanboy" in the same bag as the "troll" epithet. Usually, they are usually evoked just to try to suppress diverging opinions)

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

Why would an entirely newly designed lens justify a premium of 30 to 35% over the previous model (70-200) and, just a couple of years later, a similar upgrade (...minus a newly designed IS, mind you... ) call for a 70 to 75% markup, except for the simple "we can get away with it" reason?.

New offers from the same models for each automobile manufacturers represent huge investments in design, manufacturing processes implementations and assembly line re-tooling and, yet, no one single brand would even think of crossing the 10/15% price increase threshold. Why?...because they couldn't get a way with it as clients would flock to other brand's, same segment, competing models.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

That 3 1/2 stars is the highest rating that any 24-70/2.8 reviewed there has gotten.  It's also up 1/2 star over the previous EF version.  The limitation is apparently one inherent in the 24-70/2.8 class, one that shouldn't concern you anyway as you've mentioned several times you find the 70mm max too short for your needs.

Big jumps in pricing is the norm for all companies, not just Canon.

--
Unapologetic Canon Apologist

It seemed very boring. In the early 80's I owned the FD 35-70mm f2.8 (a $900 lens at the time) and my goodness was that a sharp lens! Anyhoo back to today, I quickly got over the short zoom range of the 24-70 once I saw the incredible IQ it consistantly delivers! I still have my 24-105 and currently it is sitting on a shelf sniff sniff.

I hope you atleast try one out if you get a chance.

Peace