Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[Maui5150]

The more I look at those MTF charts, the more I'm amazed by them. My initial response was exactly WTF?!?!? But seriously, look at those charts. It's better all across the way, but at the edges the improvements are monstrous. I'm guessing this will outperform practically every prime that exists. If you're stopping down your 1.xx primes to over 2, you might just be way way better off with this lens.

Really?
the 24 f1.4 II
the 35 f1.4
the 50 f1.2

i dunno its hard to make comparisons from charts but it will be interesting to see the pics when they hit the street. Might make me reconsider it as an option if it really is that good. I was never impressed with the original so there was alot of room for improvement

What is the price of those 3 prime lenses? $4500. And yes they are all 1.4 or faster versus 2.8, but the majority of the MTF chart I see for this lens is much improved. Are each of these primes superior in their respective range? Likely, but if the images from this lens perform like the chart suggests, It looks to me like many people may pay a little more than they would like, but have a lens that COMES CLOSE to each of these primes, and has the advantage of not having to buy 3, swap 3 all the time and also maybe not need the 85, so closer to getting 4 solid primes in 1 zoom.

May not have IS, but with this 24-70 F/2.8 II and the 70 - 200 F/2.8 IS II a lot of photographers could cover MOST of the range they need with TWO LENSES and you pretty much would have to spend 5X as much in primes to better them across the range.

Time will tell, but I am definitely thinking that swapping out my 50 f/1.4, 85 F/1.8 and 24-105 F/4 and going with the 24-70 F/2.8 II and my 70-200 F/2.8 IS II not only is less to carry, but should even be better performing, and winds up being only about a $500 upgrade.

Granted, having speeds below F/2.8 is nice and can be a necessity, but what I see from Canon with these two lenses is a real solid covering of both range and performance

 

[Loswr]

Every L lens I own takes 77mm filters or less...
hence the several hundred dollars in 77mm filters I've dumped.

OTOH, I have the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, both of which use 82mm filters, so I already have an 82mm B+W Käsemann CPL and an 82mm Schneider Optics 10-stop ND (in addition to 77mm versions of them for most of my other L lenses, and a 72mm 3-stop ND for the holy trinity primes).

 

[kubelik]

Every L lens I own takes 77mm filters or less...
hence the several hundred dollars in 77mm filters I've dumped.

OTOH, I have the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, both of which use 82mm filters, so I already have an 82mm B+W Käsemann CPL and an 82mm Schneider Optics 10-stop ND (in addition to 77mm versions of them for most of my other L lenses, and a 72mm 3-stop ND for the holy trinity primes).

yeah, the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II was already my largest-common-denominator, so to speak. other than a Circ Pol, everything for me is Singh-ray glass plates, so 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm are all the same to me.

 

[Loswr]

yeah, the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II was already my largest-common-denominator, so to speak. other than a Circ Pol, everything for me is Singh-ray glass plates, so 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm are all the same to me.

Just to pick a nit, I believe that while Singh-Ray's screw-in filters are glass, their rectangular filters are all resin, not glass... AFAIK, the only optical glass rectangular filters (grads, ND grads, etc.) are made by B+W's parent company, Schneider Optics.

 

[waving_odd]

More images (1-5 out of 10) of 24-70 f/2.8L II from CP+...

 

[waving_odd]

More images (6-10 out of 10) of 24-70 f/2.8L II from CP+...

 

[Loswr]

Notice anything different between the first published photo and these current ones?

Here's a hint:

...I'm bothered by the lack of any IR focus markings...

 

[K-amps]

Where's the guys that said it's bad photoshopping?

 

[D.Sim]

Is it just me or does the lens look really really small =/

 

[briansquibb]

Perhaps we need to stop judging the performance of the D800 until full reviews are done - and compared to the Canon new line up - not the 4 year old 5DII

 

[thepancakeman]

Perhaps we need to stop judging the performance of the D800 until full reviews are done - and compared to the Canon new line up - not the 4 year old 5DII

I just hope Canon doesn't miss the opportunity for this to happen because people get tired of waiting and move to "the dark side".

 

[K-amps]

"Where's the guy who said it was bad photoshop?"

I'm here, it was, the bright orange coating has gone now. But I freely admitted I was wrong immediately it was released,

+1: We all make mistakes, I agree with your frustrations on the 24-70 though. I really wanted IS myself.

 

[JR]

Perhaps we need to stop judging the performance of the D800 until full reviews are done - and compared to the Canon new line up - not the 4 year old 5DII

+1

 

[Loswr]

Perhaps we need to stop judging the performance of the D800 until full reviews are done - and compared to the Canon new line up - not the 4 year old 5DII

Compared to 'the Canon new line up' would be nice...but currently, that consists of the 1D X, and only the 1D X. That should really be compared to the D4, leaving us to compare the D800 to the Canon EOS..... Oh, wait, there's just the 1D X.

C'mon, Canon...make with the announcements! Please, give us a camera that will allow us to speculate on whether or not it will outresolve these new lenses...a camera the EF mount lenses will actually mount onto, I mean...

 

[K-amps]

but the focus of the development seems to have been diverted to video. The C300 and the four $40,000 CN-E lenses are where that lead went.

I didn't want a 35mp 5D MkIII I wanted a 500 mm f4 I could actually afford, nice upgrade but horrid price. Lastly, I personally, don't want any R&D going on a video orientated EOS, at least until that two generation DSLR lead is back.

No, sorry, Canon is running off the stills rails, just look at any CPS emailed product survey, it is so slanted it just asks questions in a way to get the answers they want to hear.

I agree with you on many of these fronts, I feel your pain, and that of every member here who has been waiting for an update especially a 5D update. Personally video to me is a gimmick, not the reason I buy DSLR's.... Canon should not forsake it's core support base, if it is focussing so much on Video. (I am happy for the video guys though).

Also, why is it a Taboo on this board to provide healthy criticism so that Canon can make a better product, you almost always get smitten for it... The guys that tell it like it is get hazed... sometimes I feel we have zealots lurking here, practising behaviour modification with their applaud/smite cattle prods.

 

[D_Rochat]

but the focus of the development seems to have been diverted to video. The C300 and the four $40,000 CN-E lenses are where that lead went.

I didn't want a 35mp 5D MkIII I wanted a 500 mm f4 I could actually afford, nice upgrade but horrid price. Lastly, I personally, don't want any R&D going on a video orientated EOS, at least until that two generation DSLR lead is back.

No, sorry, Canon is running off the stills rails, just look at any CPS emailed product survey, it is so slanted it just asks questions in a way to get the answers they want to hear.

Also, why is it a Taboo on this board to provide healthy criticism so that Canon can make a better product, you almost always get smitten for it... The guys that tell it like it is get hazed... sometimes I feel we have zealots lurking here, practising behaviour modification with their applaud/smite cattle prods.

Well said. You sir get an applaud for this one.

 

[briansquibb]

Perhaps we need to stop judging the performance of the D800 until full reviews are done - and compared to the Canon new line up - not the 4 year old 5DII

Compared to 'the Canon new line up' would be nice...but currently, that consists of the 1D X, and only the 1D X. That should really be compared to the D4, leaving us to compare the D800 to the Canon EOS..... Oh, wait, there's just the 1D X.

C'mon, Canon...make with the announcements! Please, give us a camera that will allow us to speculate on whether or not it will outresolve these new lenses...a camera the EF mount lenses will actually mount onto, I mean...

Patience is a virtue that sometimes has a large payback. Unless one is losing money then there is no benefit in getting stressed over comparisons of a product that has not been tested and a product that hasn't been announced.

Let us wait until we see the tested line up. Certainly no point in jumping ship and losing money on existing kit only to find the new Canon means the Nikon kit is inferior - and then what do you do?jump back again and lose another bunch of money? or suffer with inferior kit for another 2 or 3 years.

I suggest relaxing for 2 months with the existing kit, getting the best you can from it. When the new kit has been test then make a new long term plan.

Neither the 5DII nor the 1Ds3 can be considered poor.

 

[briansquibb]

"Neither the 5DII nor the 1Ds3 can be considered poor."

The 5D MkII is an embarrassing joke when compared to the D800, it is a poor stills performer when compared to the D700 unless you need the MP, and lets be honest most people don't most of the time. AF, response, customization, flash capability etc are all better on the D700, if you need your DSLR primarily for stills and web output or 14"x21" prints or smaller the 5D MkII offers nothing over the D700.

I think you have missed the point here - I said that neither the 5DII nor the 1Ds3 can be considered poor

The IQ they produce is excellent - way beyond the needs of all but a few.

Now you are trying to compare them with a D800 - a body that has not had a review yet - although already we are getting reports of unacceptable noise from the samples released.

The advantages that you list for the D700 are quite frankly nothing more than you expect from newer techology, although flash control? (that sounds dubious as it does everything that any EOS does - unless you mean a built in controller) and response?? what is that? AF we have discussed to death - most 5DII users seem to find it OK - it works happily in most situations and is still the best in class in low light (for the centre point). Seems to me that the 5DII weaknesses keep getting trotted out and every iteration makes its minor limitations sound more like a major flaw.

'unless you need the MP, and lets be honest most people don't most of the time' - have you evidence of this? I certainly use the MP - for composition onto different media sizes for example

I am suggesting relaxing for a couple of months to see what comes along from Canon - as everyone knows it will - and come to your conclusion after seeing comparative reviews.

 

[kapanak]

Field testing, anyone?

 

[D_Rochat]

Field testing, anyone?

Is that you? If so, we want details!