June 21, 2018, 03:08:50 AM

Author Topic: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here  (Read 65343 times)

Axilrod

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1379
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2012, 03:49:47 PM »
I think it's going to be hard to judge this lens until there are actual production units in people's hands.  I'm assuming there was some kind of issue with the pre-production units otherwise it wouldn't have been delayed this long. 
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2012, 03:49:47 PM »

K-amps

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1788
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2012, 03:51:23 PM »
There is no way this lens will be sharper than 35L or 50L.

Sidenote - How is it that there can be no way that its sharper than the 35L or 50L?  i understand that it might not be very likely, but how is it impossible?

I have the 24-70ii on pre-order, I am confident it will be good, I hope it makes Canon go and re-design the 35L & the 50L to separate them from the amazing Zoom...... here's to hoping DerStig backtracks.   :P
EOS-80D & Pentax K1
EF Mount Rok 14mm F2.8; ∑ 24-105mm F4 A; 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; 100-400mm L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; 100mm L F/2.8
Pentax D-FA 15-30 F2.8 & 28-105mm

Axilrod

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1379
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2012, 03:52:51 PM »
I have the 70-200 IS II, 85L II and 135L and in real life shooting, the 85L II and 135L are way more sharp compared to my 70-200 IS II and it's not a bad copy, I could compare with half a dozen similar zoom.

The test shot like the one you show me are nothing like real life shooting

Take by exemple the 24L II, it looks incredibly sharp on the test on that site, but in real life, almost 30% of the pictures are out of focus, so it make that lens useless in some situation

Always keep in mind that you won't be shooting number and line when you will be in studio doing fashion or outside doing landscape or street photo

Look also at the 50 1.2L on that website, It looks awful but go find some real pictures in real life situation taken with the same lens and you will see it can be crazy sharp

Black on white test shot are really killing some good lens, they look awful on such test but in real life situation they look awesome

It's all about personal preference, both can be good, it all depend of your shooting style, but I will never use my 70-200 in the studio if I have my 85 or 135. I will use the 70-200 if I'm outside doing sport or something that is too fast for me to change lens between shot.

And keep in mind something, 30 years ago some amazing photographer were able to take amazing pictures that many of us will never be able to make, and they did with lens that look completely awful on these test chart

And if you think it's all about that kind of test, I know people here hate DXO but what about this :

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF85mm-f-1.2L-II-USM
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM

2 different site, 2 different result, 2 different stories

I don't want to bash what you said, but have you ever tried all 3 lenses before or you just tell your conclusion by looking at some test shot on that website?

If you buy a lens just by looking at that website, you got it all wrong my friend
Rent the lens and zoom, go shooting for a day or a weekend and choose what's best for you

In my case, I don't need a zoom for what I do, I need sharpness, and for my own personal taste I really believe the 85L II and 135L are a lot sharper then the 70-200 IS II

But in the end it's all a matter or personal preference... I just wish you tried all 3 lenses before commenting on their performance, have you tried all 3 ?

I shot with the 135L and 70-200 one day and when I was going through the images there were some that I thought for sure HAD to be the 135L and they were actually the 70-200, and this was the V1 and the V2 is much, much better.  And I love my 85L/135L.  But if I shot stills primarily I'd definitely grab the 70-200, it's arguably the best zoom lens in the world.  And even if the 85L and 135L are sharper, it definitely isn't by much and you'd really have to pixel peep to see the difference.  Of course the bokeh is better on the 85 and 135, but that's to be expected.
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

K-amps

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1788
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2012, 03:57:29 PM »
The 85 f1.2ii  and the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii are 2 lenses that make Nikon guys wanna switch...  So I hear  ;)
EOS-80D & Pentax K1
EF Mount Rok 14mm F2.8; ∑ 24-105mm F4 A; 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; 100-400mm L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; 100mm L F/2.8
Pentax D-FA 15-30 F2.8 & 28-105mm

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3152
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2012, 04:34:41 PM »
To the people who think 24-70 mk1 was as sharp OR the mk2 is sharper, when you post sample images, posting a bike that merely takes %20 of the image at 2.8 aperture makes no sense. Please put your camera and lens on a tripod, using a minimum focus distance and largest aperture, take pictures of one of the ISO charts and post a 100% crop image. The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless, even the crappy 18-55 kit lens for a crop camera will look as sharp.

There is no way this lens will be sharper than 35L or 50L.

Except Bryan Carnathan already did this, and you're wrong.  This is nothing personal by any means.  Read his reviews of the 24-70L I and the 35L.  Then review the ISO charts.  Then look at your own photos of both lenses at say, f/4, everything else equal.  This is why this statement is being made.
2 x 1DX
B1G, MAC, GLIAC

drjlo

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 795
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2012, 04:53:54 PM »
I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

It will certainly for the 35L, considering the mark I already did that.  The 24 and 50 are yet to be seen, I highly doubt at the 24 end, but the 50 maybe.  However, the 50L's strengths are where the 24-70L II can't go.  So that is really not a contest truly.

I don't know.  MTF charts aside, when I had the 24-70 MkI, I far preferred the 35L at 35mm.  Then again, I don't often shoot 35L at f/2.8 or higher..
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 05:02:11 PM by drjlo »

DerStig

  • Guest
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2012, 04:54:50 PM »
Do you even know what you are talking about? How else can you measure the sharpness of a new lens, any lens? When you spend $2300 on a lens and it gets home, what do you do, just put it on and shoot bikers and farms infinite focus distance and measure sharpness, CA, distortion? Do you even listen to yourself?

When you buy a sports car, do you look at the factory figures of horse power or do you look at dyno test results at the crank and wheels that magazines perform?

I cannot believe you actually said this, for all intents and purposes, MTF charts are the theoratical charts, an ISO chart and a flat sharpness test is what every sane person should/will do at home with any lens that costs over $500. Your human eye won't be able to pick the differences in sharpness in those shots and if that's your way of measuring quality then a Sigma or Tamron would suit you better because you are wasting your money.

It is far easier to produce a lens in tele (hint 70-200) that is sharper than prime lenses in that focal range. If you took basic physics and optics, you'd know this. The wider the focal range gets, the more difficult, and in fact impossible, it gets. You will have to stop down the mk2 to most likely 4-5.6 to get close to the primes. It doesn't matter which "mk" this lens will be.

To the people who think 24-70 mk1 was as sharp OR the mk2 is sharper, when you post sample images, posting a bike that merely takes %20 of the image at 2.8 aperture makes no sense. Please put your camera and lens on a tripod, using a minimum focus distance and largest aperture, take pictures of one of the ISO charts and post a 100% crop image. The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless, even the crappy 18-55 kit lens for a crop camera will look as sharp.

There is no way this lens will be sharper than 35L or 50L.

yes, more pictures of charts.  that really helps me see if a lens is worth buying...

i say, take pictures with the lens in real world settings, because thats how i'm going to use my lenses.  i'm not going to take shots of a stupid chart all day long so i can pixel peep.  if that's what you want, look at the MTF charts.

i understand that charts have their value, and they show some important things.  however, i never look at that crap.  when i want to get something i usually see if there is a group on Flickr for the gear in question.  Then, I look at real world shots taken by real world people in the real world - really.

if you look at the 5d3 in terms of charts and 400% blow ups of little lines it doesn't look that impressive.  what makes it impressive are all the features that charts can't capture (the feel, the weight, the AF, the ease of use, etc.).  those are the things that make it so i can take a shot and not worry about all the trivial garbage.  what use is a lens with superb resolution if it needs to be on a tripod all the time in controlled settings to get a good shot?  taking real world shots, especially action & low light shots, shows what the lens is capable of in actual situations.  not to mention how it shows colors and distortion around the edges.

so please, keep the real world shots coming.  i'm not a professional studio chart photographer, so I can care less about that stuff.

Sidenote - How is it that there can be no way that its sharper than the 35L or 50L?  i understand that it might not be very likely, but how is it impossible?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2012, 04:54:50 PM »

keithfullermusic

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 461
    • k2focus.com | photography
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2012, 05:34:16 PM »
@DerStig

Believe it dude, because I said it.

First off, someone was nice enough to post pics from the new lens for everyone to see - these are some of the first pics I've seen from this lens, so I was pretty pumped.  Your response to those was basically, don't waste my time with this bs, I want shots of charts on a tripod!!! (your exact words "The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless").

This guy bought the lens for HIMSELF - not to take test shots for YOU - so stop demanding other people run tests for you.

So my response to you is, do you even listen to yourself?  If you want to see pictures of straight lines so bad then buy the lens, print out a bunch of straight lines and take a bunch of pictures.  The title of the thread is "Post your 24-70 II Experience Here" not "Run Chart Tests of the New 24-70 for DerStig so he Can Make a Decision on Whether or Not He Wants to Buy It"
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 05:48:09 PM by keithfullermusic »
5Diii - 50D - 100mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.2 vii - 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 20mm f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 vii - 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, 430 EX II, YN560, YN568, Bowen's 500R's
---
www.k2focus.com

Kernuak

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1102
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2012, 05:35:34 PM »
any images where we can see to what extent there is distortion on the wide end?

Cheers!

Not sure if this helps or not. I have a problem knowing which pictures that are taken with the 24-70 II since my software does not recognize the lens (as far as I can see in the exit info), and that day I only shot with two lenses; 24-70 II and the 70-200 II, so I have gone for pictures that are below 70mm :)

as with the three previous one, this one is also straight from camera without any editing or cropping.

hei!

Thanks for sharing the pictures! :)  I find it hard to say anything about the distortion, without having lines in the image - landscape is quite good at hiding the distortion while architecture shows it most I guess.

By the way, are f/2.8 zooms fast enough in winter conditions over there? I would be happy if I could use f/2.8 zooms, though I recall Kernuak saying he used fast primes in his visit to northern norway...

Cheers!
There are a lot of northern lights shots with the 16-35 or even the 10-22 (as well as Sigma equivalents), so wider isn't vital, but f/2.8 is generally recommended as the minimum in maximum aperture if you see what I mean. Basically, the faster the better (as well as wideangle) to limit the exposure time and mimimise the ISO, unless you also want to get a lit foreground in as well, then depth of field starts coming into play. Because Aurora move, to get the best definition, you want to try to freeze the motion.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

dave

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2012, 09:29:05 PM »
@DerStig

Believe it dude, because I said it.

First off, someone was nice enough to post pics from the new lens for everyone to see - these are some of the first pics I've seen from this lens, so I was pretty pumped.  Your response to those was basically, don't waste my time with this bs, I want shots of charts on a tripod!!! (your exact words "The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless").

This guy bought the lens for HIMSELF - not to take test shots for YOU - so stop demanding other people run tests for you.

So my response to you is, do you even listen to yourself?  If you want to see pictures of straight lines so bad then buy the lens, print out a bunch of straight lines and take a bunch of pictures.  The title of the thread is "Post your 24-70 II Experience Here" not "Run Chart Tests of the New 24-70 for DerStig so he Can Make a Decision on Whether or Not He Wants to Buy It"

+1

Thanks Quasimodo,  at least the horizon line doesn't look like the top of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. That's a good start

risc32

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 577
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2012, 10:06:43 PM »
first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage.    today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good.  from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use.   BTW- what happened to this thread?  and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

DerStig

  • Guest
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2012, 11:05:07 PM »
35L is the sharpest non tele prime canon makes, there is no way 24-70 MKII will be sharper at 2.8, period.

first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage.    today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good.  from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use.   BTW- what happened to this thread?  and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

dave

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2012, 11:06:08 PM »
first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage.    today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good.  from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use.   BTW- what happened to this thread?  and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

It's what happen when someone starts a thread about experiences with a lens that they (or almost anyone) doesn't actually have... And then promptly complains about the photos posted by someone that has actually used the lens.

Where else I there to go but to a debate about primes versus zooms? :)
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 11:10:27 PM by dave »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2012, 11:06:08 PM »

dave

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 128
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #43 on: September 05, 2012, 11:23:01 PM »
35L is the sharpest non tele prime canon makes, there is no way 24-70 MKII will be sharper at 2.8, period.

first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage.    today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good.  from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use.   BTW- what happened to this thread?  and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

At what aperture? And whereabouts on the image?

on full frame the borders and corners of the 35mm f1.4 are not great, even stopped down to f2.8. As just one example Photozone records the borders and extreme corners of the 40mm pancake as having higher resolution at the aperture that you nominated.

As for the 24-70mm I'll wait and see before making such a baseless statement.




keithfullermusic

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 461
    • k2focus.com | photography
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2012, 11:39:23 PM »
@dave

don't bother, DerStig will tell you that it's impossible, you're ignorant, and "If you took basic physics and optics, you'd know this."
5Diii - 50D - 100mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.2 vii - 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 20mm f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 vii - 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, 430 EX II, YN560, YN568, Bowen's 500R's
---
www.k2focus.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2012, 11:39:23 PM »