I think this is really interesting and deserves a post over here, because Roger comes to the conclusion that even though the data shows a large variation, the real world difference (well, with the current mp count on Canon) is very small - though shows when pixel peeping or comparing a "good" 24-70 against a "bad" 70-200 or vice versa.
I think most people realize there is sample variation. But this provides a nice illustration showing just how random a test report comparing just one copy of each lens can be. Don’t get me wrong; those reports are totally worthwhile.
But we have to be really careful splitting hairs with camera lenses. With 70 copies tested, I’m comfortable the average (mean) resolution of the 24-70 Mk II is slightly higher than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II at 70mm. But that difference is much less than the sample variation
I'm wondering how much the difference between lenses will show up when used on the upcoming high mp ff sensors, or when being (dual-)used on crop with higher pixel density?
I am not a scientist or necessarily a Canon fanboy (Check my lens list), but I recently bought a Canon 24-70 II(with reservations regarding price vs "variations" in individual lenses). To my eye, (which is getting old...LOL), the sharpness on my 5D III compares to my Sigma 50mm @F/2.8. I think that that is pretty incredible for any zoom lens.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2012, 09:11:57 AM by infared »
5D Mark III, Battery Grip BG- E11, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art, Canon 85mm f/1.2L, Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III