[Klaus]

Not as stellar as the price suggests:



[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff"]http://www.photozone...non2470f28mk2ff[/url]

[Guest]

Nice review, but way beyond my budget.



Lensrentals.com disassembled a Mk. II lens and compared the design with the Mk.I. The front element on the Mk. II is held more securely, maybe the cause of the defects found with the Mk. I.



http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii

[Guest]

Wow this was pretty fast (given the lens was just released). Do you think there will be reviews of the olympus 75 and 60 in the near future ? Btw has micro 4/3 or other systems in general picked up with regards to views @ photozone or is the trend still canon/nikon ?

[Klaus]

[quote name='you2' timestamp='1348327455' post='20329']

Wow this was pretty fast (given the lens was just released). Do you think there will be reviews of the olympus 75 and 60 in the near future ? Btw has micro 4/3 or other systems in general picked up with regards to views @ photozone or is the trend still canon/nikon ?

[/quote]



Yeah, we'll test all the MFTs.



As far as content drill down is concerned - it's mostly Nikon/Canon DSLR really.



Canon EF: 40.7%

Nikon F: 36.8%

MFT: 6.8%

Pentax K: 6.6%

Sony Alpha: 5%

Sony NEX: 2.2%

Fuji: 1.3%

Nikon 1: 0.5%

Samsung: 0.5%

Pentax Q: 0.1%



Or in other words - all reviews but Canon EF, Nikon F and Fuji generate losses here at PZ.

[Rainer]

C24-70/28 II or T 24-70/2.8 VC ... which of these two

recently tested lenses would you take as your

standard zoom (given you would still be living in

Canonland)?



Rainer

[Martin_MM]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1348322393' post='20327']

Not as stellar as the price suggests:



[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff"]http://www.photozone...non2470f28mk2ff[/url]

[/quote]





Hmm, the Canon pricing policy seems slightly arrogant in this respect. Of course, they are Canon - "they can". But for the money, the lens should be really better at f2.8.



Like it was said in the summary: Now the Tamron 24-70 really IS a much more reasonable choice for most Canon shooters. Yes, the build quality may me better with Canon but remember you can buy 2 Tamron lenses for the price of 1 Canon - what will be more durable then...? ;-)

[Klaus]

[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1348345866' post='20333']

C24-70/28 II or T 24-70/2.8 VC ... which of these two

recently tested lenses would you take as your

standard zoom (given you would still be living in

Canonland)?



Rainer

[/quote]



Well, if money is no issue I would go for the Canon ... but then I am a non- believer in IS. I like reliable stuff.

[Rover]

Haha I was right. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> But if I'd been in a quest for a standard zoom, I'd get the Tamron. Until I win a lottery and really don't know what to do with the money, the 24-85 is going to suffice. By the way, this thing CAN be sharp.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Rover' timestamp='1348367288' post='20338']

Haha I was right. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> But if I'd been in a quest for a standard zoom, I'd get the Tamron. Until I win a lottery and really don't know what to do with the money, the 24-85 is going to suffice. By the way, this thing CAN be sharp.

[/quote]



Honestly -> I <- wouldn't buy these lenses anyway. I'm perfectly happy with my standard zoom lens - the PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS, a 300EUR lens.

I never really understood the sense of "fast" standard zoom lenses. The bokeh is always soso and they are still not fast enough for decent shallow depth-of-field photography. This leaves something like press-style photography (often requiring low light capabilities) as primary application - and that's where it is used the most anyway. I would rather invest in a decent slow speed standard zoom lens plus e.g. a really fast 85mm (f/1.2-1.8) lens.

[Guest]

I think some of it is left over from film. Digital can go to much higher iso and still retain good quality...