08-31-2012, 11:59 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1346410953' post='19904']
At the end of the day there is a relationship towards the pricing of these things.
The large aperture of the old model doesn't make things any easier at max. aperture, of course.
[/quote]
The difference in aperture isn't enough to merit much thought, I think - f/2.8-4.0 vs. f/3.5-4.5
I did use the 2.8-4.0 for a while and wasn't terribly impressed. It wasn't bad, just unremarkable, and mechanically somewhat convoluted. I'd take a 3.5-4.5 VR any day over the 2.8-4.0 unless the sharpness difference is noticeable in the favour of the D, which I think is improbable.
By the way Klaus, since you're in this thread... can we hope for a retest of the Canon 24-85 lens? Maybe a full frame evaluation even?
At the end of the day there is a relationship towards the pricing of these things.
The large aperture of the old model doesn't make things any easier at max. aperture, of course.
[/quote]
The difference in aperture isn't enough to merit much thought, I think - f/2.8-4.0 vs. f/3.5-4.5
I did use the 2.8-4.0 for a while and wasn't terribly impressed. It wasn't bad, just unremarkable, and mechanically somewhat convoluted. I'd take a 3.5-4.5 VR any day over the 2.8-4.0 unless the sharpness difference is noticeable in the favour of the D, which I think is improbable.
By the way Klaus, since you're in this thread... can we hope for a retest of the Canon 24-85 lens? Maybe a full frame evaluation even?