From engaged enthusiasts to plain gullible.

Started Dec 1, 2012 | Discussions thread
brightcolours Forum Pro • Posts: 14,455
feeling too lame to react to the points in my post?

brightcolours wrote:

PhotoKhan wrote:

Just read this:

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

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

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

* 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.

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.

Under-performance? Lets see.

Nikon vs Canon 24-70mm.

Nikon has worse vignetting (

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 (

Nikon has MUCH worse CA than 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.


-- hide signature --

“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
(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.

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