Pixel Peeping, is it worth it? 24-70 f4 v 24-70 f2.8

Started Apr 8, 2013 | Discussions thread
Biosphere Regular Member • Posts: 208
Re: There are some right and wrong statements here.

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

I totally agree with this (except for the "bit more sharpness" characterization). The 24-70/4 looks to be a nice lens. If the 24-70 II did not exist, I believe this would be a lens I could easily live with. However, one could use the same logic you have here to "step down" to the 24-105, a lens I lived with for two years while waiting on the 24-70 II. I have absolutely wonderful images taken with this lens. But, this doesn't stop me from knowing that the same images (in the 24 to 70mm range) could have been that much better if Canon hadn't dragged their feet coming out with the 24-70 II.

Thus spake the voice of authority..

Anyone who thinks that the IQ of the 24-105 isn't good enough has to explain why wedding photographers use it all the time...




Do you think you might stop posting in threads that have nothing much to do with the 24-105 about how good a lens it is and the pixel peepers have it wrong. R Knepper actually commented that he has absolutely wonderful images taken with it, but that they would have been much better in his opinion with a 24-70 II. It doesn't really merit the diversion on your hobby horse or you posting photos that to be honest don't do much in terms of building the case for the 24-105. Badly lit, black and white photos are no way to judge the quality of a lens.

There is an interesting comparison to be made between the two new 24-70 lenses from Canon, so why not try to stick to that. Surely with your 25 or so lenses there are enough threads that you can usefully contribute to (or even start)

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