Gear Talk > Reviews

Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

<< < (12/12)


--- Quote from: calydus on November 08, 2012, 08:56:10 AM ---I suggest you guys read this review:

These guys are VERY thorough with their review.
Based on this, I decided to go for the Tamron ( as each of the lenses has their pros and cons, but the price vs the pros of the Canon 24-70 II wasn't enough for me justifying buying this lens against the Tamron one.

It seems that a lot of people just like to have the "fame" or "high end image" that seems to come with a red ring on the Canon lenses, but they aren't necessary the best, just because it's "Canon" and the price tag is crazy high.

Don't get me wrong I love Canon lenses and all the other lenses that I got, are Canon lenses. But I had high expectations and they didn't came. Many of the reviews had high expectations too... and I find Canon failed to impress with this one, mainly because of the price tag... but still no IS, or any other thing you would expect in this price range.

--- End quote ---

The near 24mm range is super important to me. The Tamron is good there but it's not a match for a 24 1.4 II or anything and yet the 24-70 II is. The 24-70 II tests out better almost everywhere on PZ other than edges and corners at 70mm, that is a little bit of a shame, but I mean it tests better everywhere else, including center frame 70mm including wide open so in a more portrait, low DOF mode it does better than the Tamron there and it does better as corner to corner landscape lens everywhere else so to me the Canon is the one. The only one to finally bring truly stunning performance to a standard FF zoom. Plus, it also has the super precision AF for use with 5D3/1DX. I don't believe the Tamron does.

The tamron is a solid value though, no doubt. And it does have VC.


--- Quote from: mpetersheim on November 08, 2012, 01:44:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: neuroanatomist on November 08, 2012, 11:58:46 AM ---
--- Quote from: mpetersheim on November 08, 2012, 11:53:56 AM ---      Compression/Distortion: this doesn't change between bodies, so it's still 70mm, not 112mm.

--- End quote ---

These are referring to perspective, and the only thing that determines perspective is distance to subject, i.e. focal length is irrelevant.  Since you're further from your subject for the same framing on APS-C, there will be more perspective compression, which is usually viewed as a 'good thing' for portraits.

--- End quote ---

Really?!? So if I shoot a portrait on a medium format body with a 150mm lens and do another from the same distance with a 60D and 50mm lens, then crop both photos to identical framing the perspective will be exactly the same?

--- End quote ---

think about it this way, without magic the lens could have no idea what is behind it, a large or small sensor, the lens projects what it projects and that is that, the exact same image is projected onto a wall behind it, different sensor sizes are just like drawing different size boxes on the wall, draw a large box for MM and then draw a small box inside that frame, erase the outer box and the smaller box inside is the APS-C frame and it is still the same box you were able to draw inside th MF box and nothing about the image projected into it suddenly changes as you erase the larger outer box that you draw on the wall (unless maybe you are a witch or warlock  ;D)

Hi everybody,

I was a tiny bit 'scared' buying this lens with the price in mind. It is quite a commodity to have on your 5DmkII in a land like Indonesia.

After using it on my last trip to Bali i must say; this is THE lens. It is not only the best Canon lens but also the first lens you should get if your budget allows you to, at this point in life, get just one lens.

I used to own the 24-105 because it came with my camera but sold it years ago when the first rumors of the 24-70 II appeared. Haha... Yes, i waited a long, long time for this lens. I even bought the 50mm 1.2 to fill the gap between my 16-35 II and my 70-200 IS II 2.8.

If there is one thing i want to point out here is; don't even consider the 24-105 IS in favor of this lens ! It is such an inferior lens in comparison. The IS ? I have been able to be successful with the 24-70 II many times at shutter speeds as low as 1/40 th of a second. Tag sharp ! Not streetphotography-blurry-style. No, tag sharp images during daytime on the steets of Bali.

So, IS ? For me it is a non-existent barrier. And the optical quality of the 24-105 is a joke in comparison. Making video ? Buy a 50$ Joby flexible tripod and use it as a shoulder-stabilizer if you have to.

But... I am extremely happy with my new all-round lens. It is so much sharper and faster that it bumps your focusing success rate of your 5DmkII considerably. (Yes, i also considered to buy a 5DmkIII instead of this lens to be more successful in photographing moving objects but i am so glad i made this decision since the image quality of the mkII and mkIII are on par)

So overall, for those of you who are not sure for whatever reason; the price, the IS or family planning; it hurts a lot in your wallet but it's worth every penny in my opinion.

Thx for reading,
Cheers !


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version