EF 24-70 2.8 II quick review

[M.ST]

product quality: for weight reduction body is made out of plastic (but seems to be solid), lens connection is made out of metal with a rubber lip, zoom is very good, focus ring is excellent, the lens has a fixed filter holder, stray-light protection is only streaky, AF is a little bit faster than the AF in version one

optics: very high performance, you can use it with open aperture, yout get top values if you set the aperture to f/4, at APS-C the resolution is a little bit lower, visible vignetting at 24 mm (even if you go to f/4) on FF, lower visible vignetting at 24 mm (even if you go to f/4) on APS-C, visible distortion at 24 mm

Vignetting in stops:
24 mm on APS-C, aperture 2,8/5,6: -0,83/-0,60 / Tamron -0,66 / -0,52
40 mm on APS-C, aperture 2,8/5,6: -0,56/-0,35 / Tamron -0,56 / -0,35
70 mm on APS-C, aperture 2,8/5,6: -0,64/-0,23 / Tamron - 0,52 / -0,24

24 mm on FF, aperture 2,8/5,6: -1,91/-1,33 / Tamron -2,31 / -1,33
40 mm on FF, aperture 2,8/5,6: -1,58/-0,96 / Tamron -1,73 / -0,95
70 mm on FF, aperture 2,8/5,6: -1,52/-0,77 / Tamron -1,97 / -1,15

Distorsion
24 mm on APS-C/FF: -1,6% / -2,3 % (barrel-shaped) / Tamron -1,9 % / -3,1 % (barrel-shaped)
40 mm on APS-C/FF: 0,1 % / 0,4 % (pulvinated) / Tamron -0,1 % / 0,3 % (barrel-shaped/pulvinated)
70 mm on APS-C/FF: 0,4 % / 1,0 % (pulvinated) / Tamron 0,4 % / 1,1 % (pulvinated)

overall efficiency in percent on FF (aperture 2.8/4.0/5.6/8.0/11)
24 mm 83/92/87/85/83 - Tamron 80/82/82/81/78
40 mm 78/82/82/81/82 - Tamron 75/82/82/81/79
70 mm 82/82/85/83/82 - Tamron 74/77/78/78/81

Stars from small light sources at f/16 or f/22 in low light if you shoot landscapes
The nine blades produces 18 star spouds. I don´t like such stars. With the old lens with eight blades you get stars with eight spouds. It´s a optical fact, that you get with an uneven amount of blades the double amount of star spouds as you have blades.

Conclusion:
The EF 24-70 2.8 II is the best zoom lens in this focal range. It´s better in optics than the Tamron (Tamron has more vignetting on FF) and the AF is much faster than the Tamron AF. I don´t like the rotating direction of the zoom ring from Tamron. It drives me crazy, because it´s reverse to the Canon zoom ring direction. I like the lens hood from the version one. If you shoot into the direct sunlight with version two you have to shade the lens opening with the new hood on it with your hand or a black piece of paper or you get sunspots in your image.

I don´t put the data from the Nikkor 24-70 made with the D800E on the net, because the optical quality is far away from the EF 24-70 II. For D800E and D4 users I hope, that Nikon put a new version on the market.

If it´s worth the price for you (around 1.000 more) you have to decide for yourself. I have to work less than a day as a professional photographer for it and I can say definetely YES to the lens.

Private conclusion:
I hold the prototype and the production version as my everyday walk-around-lens for portraits, sports, events and landscapes (private use and travelling) in combination with the 16-35 2.8 II and the EF 70-200 2.8 II IS.

For business I mostly prefer the primes from Canon and Zeiss and my Hasselblad. But the lens and the EF 70-200 2.8 II IS is a great performer for business to.

 

[K-amps]

Thanks for sharing.

Any comments on sharpness @f2.8 in corners compared to the 24-105?

 

[M.ST]

I sold my 24-105 IS after three days use a few years go.

Because this I was not able to compare the EF 24-70 II at f/2.8 with the 24-105 IS at f/4.

In my personal opinion the EF 24-70 II is very sharp from edge to edge at f/2.8.

 

[Dylan777]

I sold my 24-105 IS after three days use a few years go.

Because this I was not able to compare the EF 24-70 II at f/2.8 with the 24-105 IS at f/4.

In my personal opinion the EF 24-70 II is very sharp from edge to edge at f/2.8.

This is very important to me ;D...thanks

 

[Axilrod]

In my personal opinion the EF 24-70 II is very sharp from edge to edge at f/2.8.

At all focal lengths? Does it have a strong spot? Weak spot?

 

[M.ST]

I changed my review.

New is the overall efficiency in percent on FF (aperture 2.8/4.0/5.6/8.0/11).

You can see that the lens is very good at 24 mm and good at 70 mm focal lenght. At 40 mm the lens performs inferior.

With this I end my test, because I have a lot work to do and want to earn some money.

I hope you all enjoy my test and it helps you to make your decision.

 

[cliffwang]

Hi M. ST,
Have you had chance to compare the MK2 and MK1?

 

[M.ST]

Sorry for this. I can´t compare the version II with the version I because I sold the version I in march 2012.

 

[adhocphotographer]

With this I end my test, because I have a lot work to do and want to earn some money.

I hope you all enjoy my test and it helps you to make your decision.

Thanks, we appreciate the effort...

 

[cliffwang]

Sorry for this. I can´t compare the version II with the version I because I sold the version I in march 2012.

Too bad. I believe many people want to see how different between MK1 and MK2 and than decide if they should upgrade their MK1 to MK2.
Anyway, thank you for spending time for the test and sharing the information to us.

 

[wickidwombat]

interesting that you say it is inferior at 40mm i'm looking forward to comparing it directly with the 40mm pancake myself as well as the mk1 so far though i dont think i'll be dropping that much money on this lens

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

product quality: for weight reduction body is made out of plastic (but seems to be solid), lens connection is made out of metal with a rubber lip, zoom is very good, focus ring is excellent, the lens has a fixed filter holder, stray-light protection is only streaky, AF is a little bit faster than the AF in version one



Distorsion
24 mm on FF/APS-C: -1,6% / -2,3 % (barrel-shaped) / Tamron -1,9 % / -3,1 % (barrel-shaped)
40 mm on FF/APS-C: 0,1 % / 0,4 % (pulvinated) / Tamron -0,1 % / 0,3 % (barrel-shaped/pulvinated)
70 mm on FF/APS-C: 0,4 % / 1,0 % (pulvinated) / Tamron 0,4 % / 1,1 % (pulvinated)


I don´t put the data from the Nikkor 24-70 made with the D800E on the net, because it´s an old lens and the optical quality is far away from the EF 24-70 II. For D800E and D4 users I hope, that Nikon put a new version on the market.

Why is the distortion less for FF than APS-C? That doesn't sound right.

I agree about the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G. It was very disappointing on my Nikon D800. Its not a very old lens either, nowhere as old as the Canon 24-70mm MK I.

 

[M.ST]

You are right. Thank you. Sorry for the transposed digits.

The Nikkor is not older than the version one of the lens. But in my test I compare the latest Canon lens with the latest Tamron lens.

The EF 24-70 II outperforms at 24 mm focal lenght at f/2.8 all other Canon lenses in sharpness, the primes included. Only a Zeiss prime lens seems to make the job a little bit better. At 70 mm it outperforms the EF 70-200 2.8 II IS lens a f/2.8.

In focussing speed the EF 24-70 II outperforms the EF 70-200 2.8 II IS.

 

[M.ST]

It seems to be, that Canon has the same problems with the production as in April 2012.

I recommend this lens, because my two lenses are sharp from edge to edge in all possible focal ranges.

Some photographers that I know are not happy with their lenses, because they are not sharp from edge to edge or not so sharp as my lenses.

I test their lenses and totally agree with their opinion.

My advice:
If you hold the new EF 24-70 II in your hand test it in the complete focal range and with different apertures. If you notice any problems return it to Canon and demand a perfect one.

I don´t accept drawbacks in this price class or above.

 

[philsv77]

No photo ?