October 02, 2014, 03:02:25 AM

Author Topic: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here  (Read 35249 times)

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1519
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2012, 10:13:20 AM »
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

Compared to the 85L ii, both stopped to F4, the 70-200ii is actually sharper and has less light loss. Didnt expect this. In the 135 vs mk.ii, the 70-200mk.ii is sharper @ f2.8 in the mid to corners. About the same at center. Again.. the 70-200mk.ii raises the bar and competes with primes. The only area is loses is the extra stops of light compared to the uber large aperture primes. But with high ISO capabilities, that need is somewhat compensated for.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 10:17:07 AM by K-amps »
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2012, 10:13:20 AM »

fanfan

  • Guest
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2012, 10:37:57 AM »
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

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 ?

Quasimodo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • View Profile
    • 500px.com
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2012, 11:28:17 AM »
Here is one straight out of camera jpg. I wish I could post Raw here, but they are too big. I have reduced it to    to be able to upload it here. They are both shot with the 1D X
1Dx, 3x600 EX RT, ST-E3
Canon: 8-15L, 16-35L II,  24-105L , 70-200L IS II, 17L TS, 135L, 100L, 2x III TC, 40 F2.8 STM, 50 F1.4. Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4, Sigma 150-500.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

Quasimodo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • View Profile
    • 500px.com
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2012, 11:29:36 AM »
Here is the second.

If the pictures are bad, I IMHO its the photographers fault and not this excellent lens :)
1Dx, 3x600 EX RT, ST-E3
Canon: 8-15L, 16-35L II,  24-105L , 70-200L IS II, 17L TS, 135L, 100L, 2x III TC, 40 F2.8 STM, 50 F1.4. Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4, Sigma 150-500.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

well_dunno

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2012, 11:34:09 AM »
any images where we can see to what extent there is distortion on the wide end?

Cheers!

Quasimodo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • View Profile
    • 500px.com
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2012, 11:43:18 AM »
here is a third one.
1Dx, 3x600 EX RT, ST-E3
Canon: 8-15L, 16-35L II,  24-105L , 70-200L IS II, 17L TS, 135L, 100L, 2x III TC, 40 F2.8 STM, 50 F1.4. Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4, Sigma 150-500.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

Quasimodo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • View Profile
    • 500px.com
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2012, 12:01:06 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.
1Dx, 3x600 EX RT, ST-E3
Canon: 8-15L, 16-35L II,  24-105L , 70-200L IS II, 17L TS, 135L, 100L, 2x III TC, 40 F2.8 STM, 50 F1.4. Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4, Sigma 150-500.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2012, 12:01:06 PM »

Bosman

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
    • View Profile
    • Bosman Photography
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2012, 12:37:59 PM »
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

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 have had each of these lenses. I no longer own the 135L or 85L. I was never disappointed in the 135, ever. The 85 when it hit it hit with impact. The 70-200L II never fails me either and there isnt much real world change to the impact of my images compared to the 85 and 135 other than larger apertures but at 200mm the dof is extremely shallow. the 70-200LII F2.8 at 135mm .3ft, at 10ft F2.8 is .1 ft dof. The 85L 10ft F2.8 is .7ft dof, even at F1.4 it is still .3ft in focus. So if blurred effects are what you are after the 70-200 is no slouch, however the bokeh of the 85L is legendary. The CA on the 85L is really bad in some situations. The 70-200LII flare and CA are pretty much close to eliminated. For me the 50L takes care of my 85L lust and the 70-200 takes care of my need for 85 focal length. Not sure why 85mm it isn't a marking on the 70-200LII, i have considered locating the 85mm spot on the lens and marking it myself. Sharpness is nothing left to be desired on the 70-200L II either. Can't say why you don't talk it up more than you do. I shoot Primes as my primary but the 70-200 is a cut above any zoom and if the next 24-70 is anywhere similar it will bang out wedding images to perfection. The benefit of the newer model will be the metal bearings inside the lens zoom portion. When those wear out as mine have the zoom doesn't lock focus correctly. They replaced this in my lens as well as the zoom barrel and it was back to one of my most reliable lenses. Honestly though the 70-200 never fails me whereas my primes often do. Can't brag louder about that kind of performance!
Bosman Photography www.bosmanphotography.com, Fast Photo Pro www.fastphotopro.com
Follow Bosman Photography on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Bosman.Photography
Sports Photography  Follow Fast Photo Pro on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Fast.Photo.Pr

Bosman

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
    • View Profile
    • Bosman Photography
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2012, 12:41:37 PM »
I apologize for getting off topic. In looking at the images below there isn't anything that shows the performance of the lens here. This thread should have started when people actually had production lens samples not pre production imho.
Bosman Photography www.bosmanphotography.com, Fast Photo Pro www.fastphotopro.com
Follow Bosman Photography on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Bosman.Photography
Sports Photography  Follow Fast Photo Pro on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Fast.Photo.Pr

Quasimodo

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
  • Easily intrigued :)
    • View Profile
    • 500px.com
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2012, 01:08:42 PM »
I apologize for getting off topic. In looking at the images below there isn't anything that shows the performance of the lens here. This thread should have started when people actually had production lens samples not pre production imho.

You might be right about the pictures being bad examples, but it is not a per-production version.
1Dx, 3x600 EX RT, ST-E3
Canon: 8-15L, 16-35L II,  24-105L , 70-200L IS II, 17L TS, 135L, 100L, 2x III TC, 40 F2.8 STM, 50 F1.4. Sigma 35 F1.4 Art, Sigma 85 F1.4, Sigma 150-500.
www.500px.com/gerhard1972

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1519
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2012, 01:23:37 PM »
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 ?
  Not sure who you were referring to but I have tried all 3. I don't know how one can measure value, but price aside... the utility of a lens should carry a lot of weight.

How do you measure utility... perhaps by usage? So unles syou are in a studio in a controlled environment where the Primes could do a better job, In the rest of the situations, the 70-200 mk.ii will be my goto lens. It is amazing that it can compete with steller primes.

If one devised a 20 point criteria and compared all 3 lenses... I am willing to bet the 70-200 mk.ii would outshine the other two;  2 times out of three... Maybe more.

When it comes to the strengths of the primes, i.e. Sharpness, bokeh, the Zoom can compete with them head to head. Granted it is a tad slower, but it is not slouch. When it comes to versitility and utility, it smokes the primes, no competition. Then there is IS... and ability to match the primes focal lengths (reverse is not true)...

Overall the 70-200 mk.ii commands not only respect, but admiration... it is spoken in the same breath as the mighty 85L 1.2 and the Amazing 135L.

To each one his tool.

EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2582
    • View Profile
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2012, 01:56:37 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.

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

Interesting.  My 24-70L I was just as sharp, or sharper at all apertures f/2.8 and up than my 35L. 
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

DerStig

  • Guest
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2012, 02:52:44 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.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 02:58:03 PM by DerStig »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2012, 02:52:44 PM »

keithfullermusic

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
    • k2focus.com
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2012, 03:07:51 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.

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?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2012, 03:09:28 PM by keithfullermusic »
5Diii - 50D - 100mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.2 vii - 50mm 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
---
Pics - http://k2focus.com | Tunes - http://keithfullermusic.com

well_dunno

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2012, 03:48:52 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!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2012, 03:48:52 PM »