24-70 vs 24-70 II Outdoors Test! WHOOAAA!!!b

[clicstudio]

Landscapes are one thing, but how is the af for fast close up stuff? I actually find the old 24-70 to have very good af. Is the new one like the 70-200 that doesn't rotate but jumps to focus?

It does't miss at all... Perfect focus out of the box. When I have some time I will try to do some micro adjustments. It should make it even better! I'm really happy with the new lens. Totally worth the steep price.

[clicstudio]

First off, thanks for putting up some actual pictures using both the old vs new 24-70 lenses.

I looked at all 3 test crops and there is visible handshake in all 3 tests in the 2nd photo in each series. On one example you cannot read the SubWay sign plus there looks like a circular smudge in the trees just an inch or two below that green billboard. If you had used a tripod and shutter release, it would have been a lot better.

However, my main interest is colour. I use the 24-70 mark 1 and I've always noticed that it requires minimal to no colour correction in Photoshop CS6. I took both of your original images the JPeG ones into PS because there is a huge colour difference between them - just look at the grey tarmac road surface on the bottom left of the image (including the car parking spaces); on the mark 1 it appears grey, but on the new lens it appears reddish (plus the trees in the forest have more of a brownish hue).

The RGB histogram in PS shows that there is much more colour saturation using the older lens - clearly by a big margin.

Secondly, I performed a simple test and used the Auto Tone, Auto Contrast, and Auto Color in PS and re-saved the jpegs (see below). Don't know if PS screwed these up or not, but all I know is that a lot of people use the Auto features to save time.

The new lens may be sharper, but I still prefer the colour from the original.

Check this out

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

[DB]

No, I fully accept that it is a lot sharper, and that the photographer can choose whatever saturation they'd like in post, but I think the most talked about 'positive' feature of the old lens was how wonderful the colours were (but I guess that is certainly true of most L glass.

Thanks again for taking the time to show us some landscape test shots, so far all we've had is un-boxing photos and technical stuff.

[Invertalon]

You would need the original RAW files to accurately judge color... Never know if the camera changed the value slightly between the shots. If you had the RAW file, then you can put both at same WB and compare. But using JPEG's is not accurate.

[clicstudio]

You would need the original RAW files to accurately judge color... Never know if the camera changed the value slightly between the shots. If you had the RAW file, then you can put both at same WB and compare. But using JPEG's is not accurate.

Most of the reviews I've seen say the lens is warmer. Warmer means more reds and yellows... Great for skin tones but bad for greens...
Easily fixable in Aperture, Lightroom or Photoshop...

[Invertalon]

It may be warmer, but still, to do an accurate judgement you need the RAW files