Roger at LensRentals impression of 24-70 II

[Zlatko]

Worse distortion at 24?

Ok, barrel distortion increased from 2.15% to 2.45%.  The 0.3% increase in distortion isn't going to affect my work too badly. 

[Viggo]

Worse distortion at 24?

Ok, barrel distortion increased from 2.15% to 2.45%.  The 0.3% increase in distortion isn't going to affect my work too badly. 

Yeah, the difference isn't much, but the old one wasn't very good in this respect, so worse is quite bad distortion.

[libertyranger]

Wow!  Is there any benefit to buying primes in this range?  Aside from the larger aperture for more light when you need it? 

[Zlatko]

Yeah, the difference isn't much, but the old one wasn't very good in this respect, so worse is quite bad distortion.

It wouldn't be my first choice for architecture, but it's fine for many other subjects.  In a design like this, distortion necessarily gets sacrificed in favor of other performance criteria.

[Dylan777]

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests

So.....the MTF chart provided by Canon is true? 

I'll be rich if I can come up with fixed hood for the mrk II. 

[Zlatko]

Wow!  Is there any benefit to buying primes in this range?  Aside from the larger aperture for more light when you need it?

Larger aperture and lighter weight are very important benefits.  So there will always be a benefit to buying primes.  Also:  smaller size & more discrete appearance & less distortion for architectural subjects.  And finally, some photographers sometimes prefer the benefit of not being able to zoom; a prime lens has a single way of seeing and that can be a creative benefit, depending on the situation and the photographer's mindset.

[Viggo]

Wow!  Is there any benefit to buying primes in this range?  Aside from the larger aperture for more light when you need it?

Larger aperture and lighter weight are very important benefits.  So there will always be a benefit to buying primes.  Also:  smaller size & more discrete appearance & less distortion for architectural subjects.  And finally, some photographers sometimes prefer the benefit of not being able to zoom; a prime lens has a single way of seeing and that can be a creative benefit, depending on the situation and the photographer's mindset.

Eh, and DOF... no way one can compare 2,8 to 1,4 at 24mm..or 35, 50 and almost 85..

[carlc]

OK retailers, this is my FINAL OFFER, take it or leave it:  New (USA) 5dMkIII with EF 24-70mm f2.8 MkII -$4,800.  Free shipping with arrival by 9.18.12.  Can't wait....

[wockawocka]

What I'd like to know is the results across all 7 Mkii's tested. Was there much variation between them?

[wopbv4]

Any comments on the "focus field curvature" that is very apparent with the version 1 at 24 mm?

Thanks,

Ben

[Axilrod]

What I'd like to know is the results across all 7 Mkii's tested. Was there much variation between them?

"We only had 5 copies to test, but they were all very similar with little copy-to-copy variation."

[DB]

I'd still like to see a side-by-side comparison of the same photo taken with both the original 24-70mm lens and the newer mark II.

I trust that the LensRental review is both valid and reliable, yet I'm cognizant of the attitude of many (more knowledgeable) commentators on CR that are quick to dismiss numerical tests (DxO springs to mind) when they are loathe to accept the conclusions.

It would be interesting for many here if Roger or someone else at LensRental was to shoot a reference shot using both lenses at 24/35/50/70mm zoom levels

We now know that the mark II is a lot sharper and exhibits similar barrel distortion, but colour is the area that I'm most interested in (btw I sold my sharpest lens - the 70-200mm f/4L IS - because the colours were not as warm or vivid as my 24-70mm f/2.8L mark I) as this is a feature of 'L' glass that sets it apart.

[drjlo]

Wow those are some seriously impressive results, sharper than the 24 ts-e and the 70-200@70mm?!  I expected it o be good but damn that's outstanding.

Assuming Lensrental meant Canon24 f/3.5 TS-E "MKII" (chart doesn't say MkI or II), that would be quite impressive for any zoom. 

I was not going to buy the 24-70 II, but I suppose I will wait a few months before biting the bullet, to shake out issues like the Tamron 24-70 VC 

[Zlatko]

Assuming Lensrental meant Canon24 f/3.5 TS-E "MKII" (chart doesn't say MkI or II), that would be quite impressive for any zoom. 

The chart doesn't say Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L MkII, but the article clearly says Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L MkII (just before the chart).

[Vonbon]

Assuming Lensrental meant Canon24 f/3.5 TS-E "MKII" (chart doesn't say MkI or II), that would be quite impressive for any zoom. 

The chart doesn't say Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L MkII, but the article clearly says Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L MkII (just before the chart).

I hope that was Mark I since I planned to buy Mark II for my first TS lens. Poisoned by Bryan DP.

I really dissapointed with 24mm result in 24-105, and I found 24-70 Mark I was worst beside I tested 4 copies. Good IQ in 24-35mm is prority when I purchase all around zoom lens.