The Raw Data: The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is the Sharpest Zoom Canon Has Ever Made

[Marsu42]

Enjoy your onion rind bokeh with the Tamron.

Well, the Canon mk2 has it too (but to a lesser extent), ye know? But don't let get facts in the way.

Canon has in recent years really raised the bar with zoom lenses

Canon probably knows that the future brings higher mp sensors, and that on both ff and crop very sharp lenses are needed to outresolve the sensor. So while the 24-70ii should be great on 22mp, it'll show its true potential and the difference to the mk1 on a 40mp sensor.

[wockawocka]

For those calling shenanigans because the 24-70 beats the primes you guys gotta remember that Canon is consistently developing it's products.

The 24mm TS-E is now three years old. The Mk1 of the 24-70 is what? 10 years old?

These are results perfectly in line with expectations. The 70-200 MkII for example is prime sharp as well. So I expected the 24-70 MkII to be as good if not better as a result.

Do you guys remember just how bad the 24mm TS-E mk1 was? That is a prime but even a kit zoom lens is sharper than that.

[Marsu42]

For those calling shenanigans because the 24-70 beats the primes you guys gotta remember that Canon is consistently developing it's products.

... and "updating" the price tag, so if a successor is much more expensive it really is to be expected to have better performance, not just because of technological advance. If Canon had targeted $2000+ when they designed the 24-70mk1 or older primes they would have probably have designed them differently, too.

[romanr74]

can't wait to receive my copy. pre-ordered back in march. based on the MTF data and my experience with the really really nice 70-200 f/2.8 II (the MTF data of the 24-70 f/2.8 II is even more impressive) this should be a wonderful lens. i am perfectly aware of the fact that MTF charts don't tell the whole story, but roger's test data seems to be perfectly in line with what the MTF data suggests.

[wockawocka]

For those calling shenanigans because the 24-70 beats the primes you guys gotta remember that Canon is consistently developing it's products.

... and "updating" the price tag, so if a successor is much more expensive it really is to be expected to have better performance, not just because of technological advance. If Canon had targeted $2000+ when they designed the 24-70mk1 or older primes they would have probably have designed them differently, too.

What Canon lists their price and and what actually gets charged is completely different.

Example. Speedlite 600EX-RT - List price RRP is what? £629?
But I can buy it in the UK, with a VAT receipt for £429.99

The list price of the 70-200 mkII on launch was £2499, I paid £1349 - UK purchase, VAT receipt given.

The estimated price in the UK from my supplier is £1800 for the 24-70 MKII, which is a £500 increase over the Mk1 but it's only just came out.

Digital Rev are price scalping by charging £2499 which is £200 more than the RRP.

I wish everyone would stop bitching about pricing. Like the RRP means a damn thing.

It's the same as how a lot of guys in the UK complain about Ipads being cheaper in the states. The fools look at the prices less sales Tax. Account for that and the prices are almost the same as the UK.

[infared]

I find it hard to believe these "test results"
Partly because i love primes. And if they can make a zoom lens that good they better update every single prime lens they make to be much better cos' they seem to have better technology than before to design lenses.

If canon made a zoom lens that good it's fine with me but it should not be possible to beat primes.
I'm voting for this one to be a hoax! IT IS POSTED ON A RUMOR WEBSITE. It's not really official info.
I can make my own tests and say the 50mm 1.8 is sharper than the new 400mm 2.8L IS II USM.

you are a clowning i guess...

first... the test where not done by a rumor site.

second... new materials and technology help making better lenses.
look how old you beloved primes are....

and yes...some people need to be in denial. LOL! Roger is MUCH respected in the Canon community. Rightly so. He also always gives us the great insight he has in handling MANY samples of the same lens. Which is invaluable and is information that I can RARELY get elsewhere. 

[Peter C Photography]

I don't have any new numerical data to add to the discussion for sharpness etc, but I will say that after checking one out at my local camera shop this afternoon (I was a little stunned that they still had one as they only got one copy and no one had jumped on it yet), the "user experience" is absolutely fantastic.  I admit that I haven't shot with the mk1 version of this zoom but the new version is lightning fast while focusing (and that's on a 5d mark II, the shop didn't have a 5dIII out for me to try with).  The balance and feel are both wonderful and I ended up across the street scouring through Lightroom on my laptop to see what % of pictures i've taken with my 24-105 f/4L that were at a low enough shutter speed that they would have benefited enough from the IS to make a real difference.  I've been wishing I had a bigger aperture on the 24-105 for a while and I think I'm probably going to pull the trigger on this one and sacrifice the extra reach on the zoom for the bigger aperture and what most data point to be a sharper lens.

- I haven't shot at 70mm on a non IS lens before, can anyone provide any feedback on how slow they liked shooting on the mk1 version of this lens?
- When Canon has released lenses that have technical flaws or faults that they eventually fix, how long after the release are these typically discovered?  In other words, how much of a danger is there in being a first mover here?  I know we don't know until we know, but there are a lot of smart people on this forum with far more experience than me, so I'm always looking to learn off you guys.

[Marsu42]

What Canon lists their price and and what actually gets charged is completely different.

I don't know about the US, but in Germany the street retail price of current Canon products unfortunately is near the list price, maybe a couple of €100 or so off depending on how shady the dealer is - but certainly not "completely different" :-o

[romanr74]

What Canon lists their price and and what actually gets charged is completely different.

I don't know about the US, but in Germany the street retail price of current Canon products unfortunately is near the list price, maybe a couple of €100 or so off depending on how shady the dealer is - but certainly not "completely different" :-o

In Switzerland official list price and effective street price are very different, in this specific case > 25%

[dstppy]

Enjoy your onion rind bokeh with the Tamron.

Well, the Canon mk2 has it too (but to a lesser extent), ye know? But don't let get facts in the way.

I think you're spot-on here; I think the *real* news is that the Tamron is so dang sharp.

Anyone with a hair of faith (maybe gullibility) could have believed the part about the Canon II being the sharpest, since that's pretty much what they said.  Yes, yes, we shouldn't blindly believe it, but now that we have confirmation, it's sort of obvious

Honestly, I think the Tamron is going to be an excellent candidate for the "only own one lens" crowd, even with it's price.

[Dylan777]

For those calling shenanigans because the 24-70 beats the primes you guys gotta remember that Canon is consistently developing it's products.

... and "updating" the price tag, so if a successor is much more expensive it really is to be expected to have better performance, not just because of technological advance. If Canon had targeted $2000+ when they designed the 24-70mk1 or older primes they would have probably have designed them differently, too.

Don't expect to drive Benz S500 series at KIA price.

[nicke]

Some RAW files from a 5D mk III and the new 24-70/2.8L II to let you make your own opinion.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9336.0

[xtaski]

Any ideas when the prices may come down? Very compelling optics, but you could buy a decent used car for the price...

[tobiasg@gmail.com]

Is it wrong that my first response to those numbers is excitement over the tamron?

That much better than the excellent mark I? With stabilisation? For me it's a no-brainer (unless Canon decide to release a mark III with IS any time soon)

I have been using the Tamron 24-70 for the past week, including one wedding - I am not happy with it.  Need serious AF micro adjustments, it is now better but still seems softer than it should be, yes I do know the Mark I was pretty soft. But this Tamron is getting beat(at some focal lengths) by it's own 28-75 that I have and still use.   Rather than an arm or a leg I think I am going to sell my Kidney   For the Canon.   

Disclaimer- My data is ancedotal- Roger has three copies that he tested and all were better than mark I- he also mentioned the front element falling off. . . and did you see the tear down of the Mark 2 - his words "built to last"   

Finally some scums are selling the old version at the new version's price on Amazon. Be careful, I almost pushed the buy button in my excitement of seeing IN STOCK!

[K-amps]

Is it wrong that my first response to those numbers is excitement over the tamron?

That much better than the excellent mark I? With stabilisation? For me it's a no-brainer (unless Canon decide to release a mark III with IS any time soon)

I bought a Tammy 2 weeks back and returned it next day, the AF is no good.

The glass is not bad though. With MF I could get it to be very sharp, however at f2.8 and AF, it was pretty much useless... I would had to stop it to f5.6 to get much in focus , this was with an AFMA value of +10 (didnt get better at +15/20 but got worse at 0), but since I am not buying the lens for f5.6, it was no good for me.

This was painful since I did not want to pay an extra $1000 and lose IS... so I really hope the EF Mk.ii blows me away and that I get a great copy!