What's the best Canon L standard zoom for corner sharpness ?

[bitm2007]

I'm looking for a Canon L lens to bridge the gap between my 16-35mm f4 L IS and 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS. It's too replace my aging 24-105m f4 L IS mk1 and will be used almost exclusively for tripod mounted landscape photography. So IS and a fast maximum aperture aren't important to me, but good corner sharpness is.

 

[ahsanford]

On the wide open end, the f/2.8L II is the choice:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests/
(many standard zooms' results are in there, including corner values)

But tripod landscapes? I'm not convinced you'd be able to tell the differences unless you were shooting buildings -- the 24-105L I had some distortion on the 24mm end.

Here are some f/8 shots from all 4 24-something L zooms. The two 24-70s look better but perhaps the fringing can be defeated in post. Your call.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=355&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=823&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=1072&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

My choice? 24-70 f/4L IS = less weight + 0.7x macro mode. It's the perfect hiking/travel lens if you can only bring one, IMHO.

But the 24-70 f/2.8L II is stellar instrument for all-purpose use. It costs more and weighs more, but you get more (optically) in this case.

- A

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I moved from the original 24-105 F4 L IS to the 24-70 F2.8 L Mk2.

At smaller apertures the (pixel peeping) IQ isn't that different - so why do my pictures look so much better? I rarely go more open than F4 (mostly F5.6-F8) yet I get more detail, more (subjective) depth, better colour rendition etc. This is TOTALLY non scientific but my images look nicer so I am happy!

I really liked my 24-105 but the 24-70 F2.8 mk2 is, well, just better! Perhaps it benefits from not having the IS system? Perhaps the better coatings etc?

You might have guessed that I am very happy with this lens

 

[ahsanford]

You might have guessed that I am very happy with this lens

The f/2.8L II is almost universally loved. The only issues I hear aired on this forum are fairly petty (why is it so heavy, where did my beloved enormous Mk I hood design go, why didn't they put IS on it, etc.), which underscores how good it is.

- A

 

[bitm2007]

But tripod landscapes? I'm not convinced you'd be able to tell the differences unless you were shooting buildings -- the 24-105L I had some distortion on the 24mm end.

I've been if'ing and am'ing about whether the 24-70mm f2.8 L II is a worthwhile upgrade since it was released six years ago. I'm happy with my 24-105L mk1 at most focal lengths when stopped down to f8 to f13, my only concern is corner sharpness at the extreme ends of it focal range, I've already got these extremes covered by the excellent 16-35mm f4 L IS and 70-300mm L however, so all i'd really be gaining is the convenience of also having the 24-35mm focal range covered by my standard zoom (which could be useful for reducing weight when hiking).

Do you have 24-70mm f2.8 L II in your kit bag ? If so, can you see your Lee 105mm Polarising filter in the corners of the frame at 24mm when you've also got your two slot Lee filter holder and w/a adapter ring attached ? The fact that it takes 82mm filters concerns me in this regard.

 

[zim]

What camera body do you have?

Depending on the answer you might want to consider a fast prime to bridge the 'gap' and give you some more subject options and flexability

 

[bitm2007]

What camera body do you have?

Depending on the answer you might want to consider a fast prime to bridge the 'gap' and give you some more subject options and flexability

5D Mark 4 but I prefer the compositional flexibility offered by a zoom.

 

[Maximilian]

...
My choice? 24-70 f/4L IS = less weight + 0.7x macro mode. It's the perfect hiking/travel lens if you can only bring one, IMHO.

But the 24-70 f/2.8L II is stellar instrument for all-purpose use. It costs more and weighs more, but you get more (optically) in this case.

I would second this conclusion.

But I would also add, that you should also consider to keep you 24-105 and spend your money on something else, because it is quite good compared to the 24-70 f/4 and the f/2.8 is a lot more money.

 

[Larsskv]

In my experience the 24-70 f4 L IS is a more even performer than the 24-70 f2.8 L II. The f2.8 is sharper in the middle, but seems to be more uneven towards the corners. The f4 lens has less weak spots throughout the zoom range.

I must add though, that I have had five copies of the f2.8. Three of them (bought used) had issues with corner sharpness. The first copy I had was good, but was damaged in an accident. The last copy I bought (new) seems to be very good without the uneven corner performance I mention above.

A good copy of the f2.8 will be your best pick, but the f4 is a very good pick if you want even performance.

 

[BeenThere]

I’ll give you an oddball recommendation that seems to meet your criteria.
Take a look at the Canon 28-70mm f/2.8L lens. You would have to find a used copy, but shooting at f/5.6 or 8 for landscapes gives relatively sharp even performance across the frame. See a review here:

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/186-canon-ef-28-70mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review

I still use my copy for some landscapes. Pretty inexpensive if you can find a decent copy.

 

[amorse]

But tripod landscapes? I'm not convinced you'd be able to tell the differences unless you were shooting buildings -- the 24-105L I had some distortion on the 24mm end.

I've been if'ing and am'ing about whether the 24-70mm f2.8 L II is a worthwhile upgrade since it was released six years ago. I'm happy with my 24-105L mk1 at most focal lengths when stopped down to f8 to f13, my only concern is corner sharpness at the extreme ends of it focal range, I've already got these extremes covered by the excellent 16-35mm f4 L IS and 70-300mm L however, so all i'd really be gaining is the convenience of also having the 24-35mm focal range covered by my standard zoom (which could be useful for reducing weight when hiking).

Do you have 24-70mm f2.8 L II in your kit bag ? If so, can you see your Lee 105mm Polarising filter in the corners of the frame at 24mm when you've also got your two slot Lee filter holder and w/a adapter ring attached ? The fact that it takes 82mm filters concerns me in this regard.

I carry the 24-70 f2.8 L II for hiking (among a few other lenses), and I regularly use the Lee 105mm polarizing filter on it. I too replaced the 24-105 f/4L (version 1) for the 24-70 f/2.8 L ii. I used to find that between 24 and 35mm I'd lean toward the 16-35 f/4L instead of the 24-105, but now I often choose the 24-70 over the 16-35 in that range - I've found it sharper. I've found that I am pretty satisfied with the lens - although I will note that the first version I bought was not great - my 105 out performed it so I returned it and got another copy (which has been wonderful). I'm told that's pretty uncommon though.

I don't believe the lee 105mm polarizer filter ever enters the image on the 24-70 (despite the huge filter thread), but I do know that it has shown on one of my lenses (I can't conclusively remember for the life of me which one, but I think it was the 16-35 f/4L). I found that the filter can show depending on how wide you are, and depending on focus (both the 24-70 and 16-35 focus breath a bit), but I have very rarely found myself in that position. Also, the uneven application of the polarization effect at super wide usually has me removing the filter at that width anyway.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't believe the lee 105mm polarizer filter ever enters the image on the 24-70 (despite the huge filter thread), but I do know that it has shown on one of my lenses (I can't conclusively remember for the life of me which one, but I think it was the 16-35 f/4L). I found that the filter can show depending on how wide you are, and depending on focus (both the 24-70 and 16-35 focus breath a bit), but I have very rarely found myself in that position. Also, the uneven application of the polarization effect at super wide usually has me removing the filter at that width anyway.

From my own testing on the 16-35 f/4L IS with a two slot holder + 105 CPL ring in front:

• Images are clean down to 16mm with the CPL ring in place and no CPL in the ring, i.e. no vignetting at all
  
  
• Images are clean down to 20mm with a 105 Kaeseman B+W CPL in place, i.e. you will vignette from 16-20mm

So despite the fact that the f/2.8L II has 82mm threads, if a WA 82 ring is used and you do not put a filter between the lens and the WA ring, I'm guessing you'll be fine at 24mm. However, you shouldn't rely on a guess if vignette-free 24mm performance is a high priority for you. The following variables could spike the punch for you:

• Every lens has it's own story for how close the filter threads are to the front element.
• The 105 CPL you use can have a massive front (turnable) ring, while others are slimmer.
• You may have to front filter your lens with clear/UV/ND for money reasons or spray/splash/environmental reasons, and that will see you vignette sooner than if you didn't

...so it's always best to try the lens out and set it up exactly as you would use it and run a quick test.

- A

 

[amorse]

...so it's always best to try the lens out and set it up exactly as you would use it and run a quick test.

- A

This is a good point. I believe I have one image on my camera at home where the polarizer is showing due to focus breathing. I'll check it out tonight on that lens and post an example with settings and identify the offending lens. This is using the exact lens and filter combinations you're considering so it should be valid.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

You might have guessed that I am very happy with this lens

The f/2.8L II is almost universally loved. The only issues I hear aired on this forum are fairly petty (why is it so heavy, where did my beloved enormous Mk I hood design go, why didn't they put IS on it, etc.), which underscores how good it is.

- A

The lack of IS (and the extra bulk/expense that IS involves) was one of the factors that attracted me to this lens.
I just tried it, loved it and promptly bought it! No regrets.

 

[privatebydesign]

The f/2.8L II is almost universally loved. The only issues I hear aired on this forum are fairly petty (why is it so heavy, where did my beloved enormous Mk I hood design go, why didn't they put IS on it, etc.), which underscores how good it is.

- A

I don't consider the hood design to be petty, it is the primary reason I still use the MkI, and the fact that of the two MkII's I tested myself I found very little difference in IQ for the newer model.

Of course we all prioritize features differently but as a committed long term hood user and an equally committed non user of UV filters for 'protection' I find the hood design compelling enough to keep my MkI.

Ultimately I wasn't impressed with the MkII.

 

[ahsanford]

The f/2.8L II is almost universally loved. The only issues I hear aired on this forum are fairly petty (why is it so heavy, where did my beloved enormous Mk I hood design go, why didn't they put IS on it, etc.), which underscores how good it is.

- A

I don't consider the hood design to be petty, it is the primary reason I still use the MkI, and the fact that of the two MkII's I tested myself I found very little difference in IQ for the newer model.

Poor choice of words. Forgive me. It's not petty if it matters to how you shoot/operate/do your thing.

Perhaps I should have said "trivial in proportion to those that are delighted with the f/2.8L II". It would be a safe statement then.

- A

 

[bitm2007]

I don't believe the lee 105mm polarizer filter ever enters the image on the 24-70 (despite the huge filter thread), but I do know that it has shown on one of my lenses (I can't conclusively remember for the life of me which one, but I think it was the 16-35 f/4L). I found that the filter can show depending on how wide you are, and depending on focus (both the 24-70 and 16-35 focus breath a bit), but I have very rarely found myself in that position. Also, the uneven application of the polarization effect at super wide usually has me removing the filter at that width anyway.

From my own testing on the 16-35 f/4L IS with a two slot holder + 105 CPL ring in front:

• Images are clean down to 16mm with the CPL ring in place and no CPL in the ring, i.e. no vignetting at all
  
  
• Images are clean down to 20mm with a 105 Kaeseman B+W CPL in place, i.e. you will vignette from 16-20mm

So despite the fact that the f/2.8L II has 82mm threads, if a WA 82 ring is used and you do not put a filter between the lens and the WA ring, I'm guessing you'll be fine at 24mm. However, you shouldn't rely on a guess if vignette-free 24mm performance is a high priority for you. The following variables could spike the punch for you:

• Every lens has it's own story for how close the filter threads are to the front element.
• The 105 CPL you use can have a massive front (turnable) ring, while others are slimmer.
• You may have to front filter your lens with clear/UV/ND for money reasons or spray/splash/environmental reasons, and that will see you vignette sooner than if you didn't

...so it's always best to try the lens out and set it up exactly as you would use it and run a quick test.

- A

Thanks for the reply's guy's.

The reason I was asking is that my 105 Kaeseman B+W CPL comes just into view in the corners of the frame when using my Lee 100mm filter holder (with two filters slots) and 77mm w/a adaptor on my 24-105mm
f4L mk1. Logically I'm thinking that it should be worse on a lens with a 82mm filter thread.

This however can be solved (on the 24-105mm f4L mk1) by switching to the slimmer Lee Landscape CPL, this set up also resolved the same issue on my 16-35mm f4 L IS, which I can now use without the slimmer CPL coming into view all the way down to 16mm (with a two slot holder and no protection filter in place).

I would try before I buy, but no with no good camera store within 100 miles of where I live and the closest camera store with a comprehensive set of L lenses over 200 miles away it's easier said than done !

 

[bitm2007]

I don't believe the lee 105mm polarizer filter ever enters the image on the 24-70 (despite the huge filter thread), but I do know that it has shown on one of my lenses (I can't conclusively remember for the life of me which one, but I think it was the 16-35 f/4L). I found that the filter can show depending on how wide you are, and depending on focus (both the 24-70 and 16-35 focus breath a bit), but I have very rarely found myself in that position. Also, the uneven application of the polarization effect at super wide usually has me removing the filter at that width anyway.

From my own testing on the 16-35 f/4L IS with a two slot holder + 105 CPL ring in front:

• Images are clean down to 16mm with the CPL ring in place and no CPL in the ring, i.e. no vignetting at all
  
  
• Images are clean down to 20mm with a 105 Kaeseman B+W CPL in place, i.e. you will vignette from 16-20mm

So despite the fact that the f/2.8L II has 82mm threads, if a WA 82 ring is used and you do not put a filter between the lens and the WA ring, I'm guessing you'll be fine at 24mm. However, you shouldn't rely on a guess if vignette-free 24mm performance is a high priority for you. The following variables could spike the punch for you:

• Every lens has it's own story for how close the filter threads are to the front element.
• The 105 CPL you use can have a massive front (turnable) ring, while others are slimmer.
• You may have to front filter your lens with clear/UV/ND for money reasons or spray/splash/environmental reasons, and that will see you vignette sooner than if you didn't

...so it's always best to try the lens out and set it up exactly as you would use it and run a quick test.

- A

Thanks for the reply's guy's.

The reason I was asking is that my 105 Kaeseman B+W CPL comes just into view in the corners of the frame when using my Lee 100mm filter holder (with two filters slots) and 77mm w/a adaptor on my 24-105mm
f4L mk1. Logically I'm thinking that it should be worse on a lens with a 82mm filter thread.

This however can be solved (on the 24-105mm f4L mk1) by switching to the slimmer Lee Landscape CPL, this set up also resolved the same issue on my 16-35mm f4 L IS, which I can now use without the slimmer CPL coming into view all the way down to 16mm (with a two slot holder and no protection filter in place).

I would try before I buy, but no with no good camera store within 100 miles of where I live and the closest camera store with a comprehensive set of L lenses over 200 miles away, and my prefer stockist almost 300 miles away. It's easier said than done !

 

[AaronT]

I have the 24-70 F4. I'm quite happy with how it performs on my 5DsR. Much better than my 24-105. Much less distortion at the wide end. And sharper. Here's how they compare at OpticalLimits (formerly PhotoZone).

24-105 - http://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/420-canon_24105_4_5d?start=1

24-70 F4 - http://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1

24-70 F2.8 MkII - http://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

The 24-70 F4 compares quite well with the 24-70 F2.8 MkII. I personally like the IS and I don't usually shoot wide open. The MkII wins wide open.

 

[docsmith]

My current travel kit for general photography purposes is the 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 II, and 70-300 L.

I upgraded from the 24-105 f/4 IS Mk 1 to the 24-70 II.

No regrets. The 24-70 II is an amazing landscape lens.

And, for what it is worth, that is a very nice travel kit.