August 28, 2014, 05:13:31 AM

Author Topic: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II  (Read 135792 times)

rwmson

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
    • Spirit Studios
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #330 on: March 04, 2012, 06:40:33 AM »
I am severly considering this lens to go along with the 5d3 I pre-ordered.  I'm a little annoyed that it will require purchasing another set of filters to fit the 82mm threads. :(
Rebel T1i | G12 | 5D Mk III | Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM AF | Canon Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro | Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Telephoto Zoom | EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Zoom Lens

drjlo

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #331 on: March 27, 2012, 02:08:37 PM »
Well, I think the 16-35 was one of the main reasons they made the 27-70 have an 82mm filter threading.  Many people buy the "trifecta" of 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200; so Canon makes some redundancy for this common combination.  And then they assume if you have all three, then you'll have 77mm as well as 82mm filters.

No way 16-35 II belongs in the same "trifecta" with 70-200 II (24-70 II remains to be seen), not even close IME.  The rumored Canon version of 14-22mm would make up that trifecta, and judging by the new 24mm samples, I have high hope Canon has finally refined their wide angle formula..

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #332 on: January 17, 2013, 07:28:06 AM »
Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3906
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #333 on: January 17, 2013, 08:39:18 AM »
Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?

I tried two copies from Crutchfield, Reikan FoCal showed 990ish in sharpness @ f2.8. Both copies were from 1st patch.
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #334 on: January 17, 2013, 12:38:46 PM »
Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?

I tried two copies from Crutchfield, Reikan FoCal showed 990ish in sharpness @ f2.8. Both copies were from 1st patch.

Nice, thanks for the input, then I know what numbers to look for also.
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

spinworkxroy

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #335 on: January 19, 2013, 12:04:47 AM »
Anyone knows where i can download a lens correction profile for Adobe Camera Raw for this lens?
I've been searching but the only only one i found from Adobe's database doesn't work...
Doesn't anyone do correction for this lens?

yablonsky

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #336 on: January 19, 2013, 02:39:50 AM »
The recent update Adobe Camera Raw 7.3 has the correction profile for this lens. Works fine.
5D2, 17-40 4L, 24-70 2.8L II, 70-200 4L IS,  300 4L IS

EvilTed

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #337 on: January 19, 2013, 02:45:13 AM »
The 24-70 II and 70-200 II are the only lenses I currently own in Canon L with my 5D MK3.
I sold my 16-35 F/2.8 II, 50 F/1.2 because they are soft and not what I expect from a modern Canon lens (and the AF is sup-par compared with the newer designs) and the 24 F/1.4L II because it is soft a sh@t in the corners @ F/1.4 and only sharpens up by F/2.8, where as the 24-70 II is better at F/2.8.

The 24-70 II is the lens that changed my mind from selling all my Canon gear and moving back to Nikon (D800E) - it is that good!

ET


Chris Burch

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
    • CHRIS BURCH photography
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #338 on: January 24, 2013, 12:12:03 PM »
Occassionally while processing my photos I'll get all gitty about when I come across an exceptionally sharp and crisp image.  That only used to happen with my 70-200 f/2.8 and of course the 85 f/1.2, but that's to be expected.  Now that I have the v2 of the 70-200, it happens even more.  I've never once had that feeling with my most used lens, the 24-70 f/2.8 until I invested in the new version.  As far as I'm concerned...worth every damn cent.  Here's a shot from an inaugural ball of the incomparable Audra McDonald.  Shot at 1/125 f5.6 ISO2500 with a tiny bit of sharpening in LR.  I included a 100% crop of the face.  The best part is that I have about 300 shots of performances that night, all of which were this sharp.
Canon 1DX, 5D Mark III, 5D MarkII

kubelik

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
    • a teatray in the sky
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #339 on: January 24, 2013, 02:32:51 PM »
man, I remember seeing Audra McDonald in the original run of Ragtime. mind-blowing. Brian Stokes Mitchell also has the perfect voice to compliment hers. the recorded version is also excellent and very much worth getting.

wonderful shot, Chris!

e-d0uble

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #340 on: March 01, 2013, 04:02:46 AM »
I'll quickly chime in here regarding this lens.  I've had it for two days, and I'm not terribly impressed so far.  I was excited to get this sucker, as I'm looking to consolidate my collection of glass and this lens could replace several other lenses if it were good enough. 

This is certainly a good modern lens: all the positive reviews can't be wrong or outright lies, can they?.. The samples I've seen posted all over the place look mostly good.. However, for $2049 and after reading all the over-the-top reviews I was expecting a bit more.  That being said, I have in the past disliked certain lenses at first, only to learn their quirks and produce acceptable results after time.

I did not own the mark I version of this lens, but I have lots of others (albeit primes, different zoom ranges, IS included, larger apertures, tilt-shifts, etc.) to compare it to.  Now, I'm not using Imatest like the lensrental.com guys, but my eyesight is quite good and I know how to use my 5dMkII and MkIII just fine :)   I'm fully aware that I'm not performing scientific tests here, and that the comparisons are in many cases completely unfair.  Hopefully, I'm not flamed to Hell for this.

First off: aside from corner performance (where the 24-70 is quite good), the 24-105 f/4 IS seems nearly as good @f/4 all the way from 24-70.  That in itself is bad news for such a new and  pricey lens, and I was completely shocked.  I tried hand held with IS on, and tripod mounted (IS off) shots and the results were fairly similar.  The 24-70 did have better contrast than the 24-105.  Perhaps my 24-105 is a real gem but something tells me it's as average as everyone else's.  Next up, I compared a few quick landscape shots taken with it (at 24mm f/3.5) to the 24mm f/3.5 TS-E II.  I felt the TS-E was clearly better.  Again I was shocked, as the lensrentals.com guys said this lens bested the TS-E... perhaps only on paper.  The next comparison wasn't exactly fair or balanced (lol) but I did it anyway..  I took a few quick shots of my wife (head and shoulders) with the 85mm f/1.2 II (@f/1.2) and compared to similar (yeah, I know.. it's pineapples vs. peaches) shots @70mm f/2.8 with the zoom.  The in-focus areas produced by the 85 seemed sharper to me.  Yes, it's a prime vs a zoom,  yes it's 85mm.. yes it's f/1.2 vs f/2.8, but I was still expecting better from this new pricey beast.  Lastly, I snapped on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which I consider to be the best zoom lens I've ever owned.  @70mm, f/2.8 (IS on or off) the 70-200 is again better than the 24-70II (@70mm f/2.8 ).  I'm going to shoot with this sucker for a few days straight to see if I can get better results, but so far I consider this lens somewhat of a letdown.
In closing: I believe that most of the "bad copy" scuttlebutt I hear about certain lenses is nonsense (or at least the differences in resolution copy-to-copy are next to undetectable by the human eye), so if I find this lens to be a dud I'm not sure I'd exchange it for another...  We'll see..

alexanderferdinand

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 408
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #341 on: March 01, 2013, 04:24:40 AM »
I think I had a good v1; and now a good v2.
At 24mm at 2,8 I noticed higher sharpness, contrast.
At 70mm the new one is a bit better.
Was it worth the money?
For me at using f2,8 yes; f4 and narrower too less difference.

I liked the tulip-sized lenshood from the v1. It was very protective.

drjlo

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #342 on: March 01, 2013, 04:52:31 AM »
I'll quickly chime in here regarding this lens.  I've had it for two days, and I'm not terribly impressed so far.  I was excited to get this sucker, as I'm looking to consolidate my collection of glass and this lens could replace several other lenses if it were good enough. 

This is certainly a good modern lens: all the positive reviews can't be wrong or outright lies, can they?.. The samples I've seen posted all over the place look mostly good.. However, for $2049 and after reading all the over-the-top reviews I was expecting a bit more.  That being said, I have in the past disliked certain lenses at first, only to learn their quirks and produce acceptable results after time.

I did not own the mark I version of this lens, but I have lots of others (albeit primes, different zoom ranges, IS included, larger apertures, tilt-shifts, etc.) to compare it to.  Now, I'm not using Imatest like the lensrental.com guys, but my eyesight is quite good and I know how to use my 5dMkII and MkIII just fine :)   I'm fully aware that I'm not performing scientific tests here, and that the comparisons are in many cases completely unfair.  Hopefully, I'm not flamed to Hell for this.

First off: aside from corner performance (where the 24-70 is quite good), the 24-105 f/4 IS seems nearly as good @f/4 all the way from 24-70.  That in itself is bad news for such a new and  pricey lens, and I was completely shocked.  I tried hand held with IS on, and tripod mounted (IS off) shots and the results were fairly similar.  The 24-70 did have better contrast than the 24-105.  Perhaps my 24-105 is a real gem but something tells me it's as average as everyone else's.  Next up, I compared a few quick landscape shots taken with it (at 24mm f/3.5) to the 24mm f/3.5 TS-E II.  I felt the TS-E was clearly better.  Again I was shocked, as the lensrentals.com guys said this lens bested the TS-E... perhaps only on paper.  The next comparison wasn't exactly fair or balanced (lol) but I did it anyway..  I took a few quick shots of my wife (head and shoulders) with the 85mm f/1.2 II (@f/1.2) and compared to similar (yeah, I know.. it's pineapples vs. peaches) shots @70mm f/2.8 with the zoom.  The in-focus areas produced by the 85 seemed sharper to me.  Yes, it's a prime vs a zoom,  yes it's 85mm.. yes it's f/1.2 vs f/2.8, but I was still expecting better from this new pricey beast.  Lastly, I snapped on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which I consider to be the best zoom lens I've ever owned.  @70mm, f/2.8 (IS on or off) the 70-200 is again better than the 24-70II (@70mm f/2.8 ).  I'm going to shoot with this sucker for a few days straight to see if I can get better results, but so far I consider this lens somewhat of a letdown.
In closing: I believe that most of the "bad copy" scuttlebutt I hear about certain lenses is nonsense (or at least the differences in resolution copy-to-copy are next to undetectable by the human eye), so if I find this lens to be a dud I'm not sure I'd exchange it for another...  We'll see..

Well, I also have the Canon 24mm TS-E II, 85L II, 70-200 II, along with 35L, etc, which is why I have not and will not buy the 24-70 II.  I had the Canon 28-70 as well as 24-70 MkI, and the lenses above were simply much better, and $2299 (before rebate) is simply not worth it for me for the 24-70 II. 

iso79

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 176
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #343 on: March 01, 2013, 03:58:45 PM »
The Mark II is totally worth it. Ridiculously sharp. Sold my Mark I to help pay for it. Ended up only paying $1200 for the Mark II.
5D Mark III | 5D Mark II | 17-40mm f/4L | 24-70mm f/2.8L II | 35mm f/1.4L | 85mm f/1.2L II | 135mm f/2L

e-d0uble

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« Reply #344 on: March 01, 2013, 10:45:02 PM »
Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality.  Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses.  Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test.  The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything.  I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.   >:(