3) Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 VC. I really like these lenses, they are my walkaround lenses and I thought that they are quite sharp. Test results were the following: 24 mm (AFMA +1), 35 mm (AFMA +9), 50 mm (AFMA +13), 70 mm (AFMA +6). In camera AFMA +6 was written. Despite the fact that difference between both FL is only 5 I was unpleasantly surprised that in between of min and max FL sharpness is reduced quite dramatically However, I now know what defficiency such lenses have and AFMA +6 at least will help me to have sharper images comparing to previous shots before calibration.
I wanted this lens so badly . . . when I got it, the weight surprised me (why? It's posted clearly) and then I software tested it to +5/-5 so now everything seems slightly OOF to me . . . is it? No clue, I think it's observational bias, but I'm convinced I need to sell my 3 bodies and get a 5Dmk3.
My primes were all spot-on with the 5DmkII. So, I clutch my 200mm 2.8 II with a gollum-esque lust and insist that people are too close to take a good picture half of the time.
Software calibration is a tool, so long as it doesn't run you.