Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here

[DerStig]

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.

[K-amps]

Isn't this post kind of cruel ?   

[87vr6]

Here I am fresh out of my time machine. The lens is sharp. It's so sharp that I actually cut a picture in half with it. It doesn't even need IS because though it's advertised as a 2.8 lens, it's really a .95, but it is razor sharp wide open, so there's no need for the IS.

Also, I was shooting with it on my 3DX...

[K-amps]

Here I am fresh out of my time machine. The lens is sharp. It's so sharp that I actually cut a picture in half with it. It doesn't even need IS because though it's advertised as a 2.8 lens, it's really a .95, but it is razor sharp wide open, so there's no need for the IS.

Also, I was shooting with it on my 3DX...

 

[bdunbar79]

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.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

MTF charts for the 24-70 II are actually better than the ones for the 24 1.4 II.

[bdunbar79]

That could be true yes.  I wasn't going by charts I suppose, but rather, experience.  However, wouldn't that be amazing if it were sharper than the 24L?  I still won't sell it because I shoot wider than f/2.8 with that lens.  But if I can have the 16-35L, 24L, and 24-70L, that will more than cover me for what I shoot.  Now, suppose we saw a 35L II and 50L II come out later.  Boy, will Canon have a superb lens lineup by then or what, not that they don't already??

[M.ST]

I am very happy with my EF 24-70 II (non production version).

But I don´t waste my time and money reading charts, looking at tests from magazines or test self the lens against a lot of primes.

[Cannon Man]

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.

I say primes are always better for anything. If i used the 24-70 to shoot weddings in dimmed light i would get much more noise than at 1.2 or 1.4 with primes. If you compare mtf charts look at the f/8 results to compare.

I use TS-E 24mm 3.5 II, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 II, 135mm 2.0 ,so i won't be buying any zoom lenses anytime soon on those focal lenghts.

[DerStig]

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.

Sorry, I'm quite confused. I rented 24-70 a few times, the images were nowhere near sharp and there is no way it comes even close to 35L in any aperture. The only thing that comes close to 35L, but does not beat it is the 70-200 IS II. I have both lenses so I am not making this up. I don't know what aperture that MTF chart is posted there at, but I'd highly doubt they made a lens that beats all of their primes. A lot of people buy the primes not only for their low light capabilities but also for their sharpness.

Please also see:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

[photogaz]

I am very happy with my EF 24-70 II (non production version).

But I don´t waste my time and money reading charts, looking at tests from magazines or test self the lens against a lot of primes.

How long have you had it and how comes you've got a non production version?

[fanfan]

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.

70-200 IS II sharper then 85L II and 135L Really??? I think you need some good glasses, not for your camera, but for your eyes !!!

[96Brigadier]

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.

Sorry, I'm quite confused. I rented 24-70 a few times, the images were nowhere near sharp and there is no way it comes even close to 35L in any aperture. The only thing that comes close to 35L, but does not beat it is the 70-200 IS II. I have both lenses so I am not making this up. I don't know what aperture that MTF chart is posted there at, but I'd highly doubt they made a lens that beats all of their primes. A lot of people buy the primes not only for their low light capabilities but also for their sharpness.

Please also see:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

This isn't a discussion about the 24-70 Version I, it is about the 24-70 Version II that has just started to hit stores.  Totally different lens.

For the record though I have Version I and I'm quite happy with the results I get out of it.

[Quasimodo]

In this post I posted a shot (bike) I took with the new II version, that I was lucky enough to get to play with for 24 hours the 16th of August. To me it is very sharp
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8766.0

[scarbo]

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.

70-200 IS II sharper then 85L II and 135L Really??? I think you need some good glasses, not for your camera, but for your eyes !!!

I think you're underestimating how sharp the 70-200 IS II is. Take a look.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2