September 17, 2014, 01:37:11 AM

Author Topic: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison  (Read 3089 times)

Micko

  • Guest
Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« on: November 21, 2012, 04:28:07 AM »
Just read a very interesting blog post on the Reikan website comparing aperture sharpness and focus consistency across a sample of original and new versions of the EF 24-70 f2.8L lens.

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/2012/11/ef-24-70-vs-ef-24-70-ii-aperture-sharpness-comparison/

Cheers,
Mick

canon rumors FORUM

Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« on: November 21, 2012, 04:28:07 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14381
    • View Profile
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2012, 06:53:37 AM »
Good read, thanks!
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Crapking

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • "Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
    • View Profile
    • Crapking Photos
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2012, 08:09:09 AM »
I also tested 2 copies of the Mark II, as well as comparing to my Mark I, and did these same tests at 50 and 70 mm on all 4 of my bodies (7d, 5dM3, 1DIV and 1D-X).  My results were very similar in that 1 copy of the Mark II consistently had considerable dropoff during the AP sharpness from 2.8 to 4.5 on every body!!  I repeated these test several times, and at different focal lengths, and concluded that that copy of the Mark II had issues and returned it.  On the good copy, sharpness from 2.8 to 8 was maintained at a high level, thus reassuring me that stopping down on this lens adds no 'real life' improvement in sharpness/quality.
I also found the same improvements/consistency in the Mark II AF 'consistency' over my Mark I.
Sure glad this more comprehensive analysis confirmed mine. :)
I could not be more pleased with the improvements in Mark II performance, so for those wondering if it is 'worth it' (over the Mark I), I would say emphatically yes.
1Dx, 1DIV, 5D3, 7D, (Sigma 15 FE)
16-35/2.8; 24-70/2.8 II; 70-200/2.8 II, 100-400L
35/1.4, 40/2.8; 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2; 200/2

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4010
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2012, 11:14:31 AM »

This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L :P
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 11:17:24 AM by Dylan777 »
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2012, 11:27:35 AM »

This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L :P

Different horses for different courses:  f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

PackLight

  • Guest
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2012, 11:39:41 AM »

This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L :P

Different horses for different courses:  f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

Which 2.8 effect is that, the terrible IQ that you get at f/1.4 from the 35mm L or the narrow DOF?

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8633
    • View Profile
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2012, 02:36:13 PM »

This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L :P

Different horses for different courses:  f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

Which 2.8 effect is that, the terrible IQ that you get at f/1.4 from the 35mm L or the narrow DOF?

I haven't seen any terrible f/1.4 images from my 35mmL.  One of the points made in the article and demonstrated is that lenses can vary, and so can the cameras.  If you get a bad result, get it fixed rather than assuming that everyone has the same result.
Certainly the 35mmL is not as sharp at 1.4 as a new model like the 24-70 is at f/2.8, but thats true for all f/1.4 lenses.  In extreme low light, f/2.8 is just not fast enough to capture some images, but f/1.4 makes the cut.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2012, 02:36:13 PM »

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2012, 02:49:59 PM »

This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L :P

Different horses for different courses:  f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

Which 2.8 effect is that, the terrible IQ that you get at f/1.4 from the 35mm L or the narrow DOF?

I'll assume that is a rhetorical question, although you can never tell on the internet...

Haven't had problems shooting 24/35/50/85Ls wide open, but then I'm not shooting at brick walls wide open either....

wayno

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2012, 03:19:47 PM »
"Terrible" IQ at 1.4 for the 35? Have you used it? Mine is sharp at 1.4 where it counts. It allows for gorgeous images at 1.4.

PackLight

  • Guest
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2012, 03:32:08 PM »
"Terrible" IQ at 1.4 for the 35? Have you used it? Mine is sharp at 1.4 where it counts. It allows for gorgeous images at 1.4.

Yes have had one for four years now. Both the 24mm f/1.4L II and 35mm f/1.4 L image quality falls off rapidly below f/2. See TDP ISO charts link.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It doesn't mean its a bad lens, the 35mmL is a great lens. The biggest mistake I see owners of the lens make is that they think that because it can shot at f/1.4 they should be shooting at f/1.4.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8633
    • View Profile
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2012, 03:48:49 PM »
"Terrible" IQ at 1.4 for the 35? Have you used it? Mine is sharp at 1.4 where it counts. It allows for gorgeous images at 1.4.

Yes have had one for four years now. Both the 24mm f/1.4L II and 35mm f/1.4 L image quality falls off rapidly below f/2. See TDP ISO charts link.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It doesn't mean its a bad lens, the 35mmL is a great lens. The biggest mistake I see owners of the lens make is that they think that because it can shot at f/1.4 they should be shooting at f/1.4.
I buy a f/1.4 lens because I need f/1.4.  Otherwise, I'd get f/2.8 or f/4 and save a ton of $$$.
Of course, not every image is at f/1.4, but many are at wider apertures than f/2.8.
of  the 2437 images I've kept, 1027 are wider than f/2.8.  Thats  42%, and 580 of them are at F/1.4.

wayno

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2012, 04:23:24 PM »
Charts aside, I know from both the 24L and 35L I get great 1.4 images. May not be as textbook sharp as at F2 but in real life shooting I have found 1.4 to be impressively sharp. The 24 is a whisker sharper too at least on my copy.
I don't dispute the charts but I don't care to dwell on them too much. I don't need to. My point is that calling the 35 terrible at 1.4 is IMO inaccurate. But granted what's terrible to me may be quite different to you.

gmrza

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2012, 05:09:09 PM »
Thanks - very interesting read.

While I haven't used the the original 24-70, my experience with the version II lens is consistent with what what is described.  When I used it the first time, mysubjective reaction was really "OMG, this is sharp!".
Zeiss Ikon Contax II, Sonnar 50mm f/2, Sonnar 135mm f/4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2012, 05:09:09 PM »

PackLight

  • Guest
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2012, 05:22:52 PM »
Charts aside, I know from both the 24L and 35L I get great 1.4 images. May not be as textbook sharp as at F2 but in real life shooting I have found 1.4 to be impressively sharp. The 24 is a whisker sharper too at least on my copy.
I don't dispute the charts but I don't care to dwell on them too much. I don't need to. My point is that calling the 35 terrible at 1.4 is IMO inaccurate. But granted what's terrible to me may be quite different to you.

"terrible" is a relative term and depends on what you are trying to do. The 35mm f/1.4L is one of my favorites.
My copy of the 24mm II is the same, just a shade sharper and a bit better color. But you have to look real hard for it.

PackLight

  • Guest
Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2012, 05:28:14 PM »
I buy a f/1.4 lens because I need f/1.4.  Otherwise, I'd get f/2.8 or f/4 and save a ton of $$$.
Of course, not every image is at f/1.4, but many are at wider apertures than f/2.8.
of  the 2437 images I've kept, 1027 are wider than f/2.8.  Thats  42%, and 580 of them are at F/1.4.

What if you like the IQ between f/2 and f/2.8? Or the fact it will have less lens distortion and chromatic aberration than the new 24-70mm? Lots of reasons to buy the 35mm f/1.4 other than it just being a f/1.4 lens.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2012, 05:28:14 PM »