Photozone's review of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is up

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I must admit I didn't think that sample variation in lenses was so large. For two reviewers to produce such differing results is an eye opener for me.

If you are talking near perfect lenses, particularly a zoom, then 2300 is dirt cheap. You are not going to get it for less than 30-40K

 

[Loswr]

Kinda glad I didn't preorder one.

 

[g3act]

My point, I suppose, is that if there is so much sample variation between lenses, it kind of makes lens reviews completely pointless. They are reviewing that particular copy ( or batch ) or a lens, rather than the product as a whole. Maybe, we expect everything we buy to be perfect, or maybe those of us who prowl these forums are just perfectionists ( count me in )

I struggle to believe there is that much sample variation. My hunch tells me that maybe one of the reviewers may be off the mark with their testing. I think I will reserve judgement until the next set of reviews come through.

 

[Aglet]

Ha! The Onion Rings!

I've read a lot of bashing against the poor cheap Tamron in this forum for that very reason. I would lilke to know what those people have to say now.

+2

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Klauss isn't overly impressed for the price:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff

Yeah and he even says the tamron is as good on the wide end, but really? His numbers don't say that and his samples sure do not. Just compare the 24mm samples of the building take with both and look at how much crisper the trees on the left and building edge on the right look with the canon (granted who knows how he focused those).

And look at this, just as the MTF charts predicted more or less (the extreme corner is worse than expected but that doesn't matter so much really, so I ignore his extreme numners, far bits of each corner, not THAT big of a deal, it's the center, mid-frame and extreme side edges that matter most):

For f/8 24mm center/border/CA:

24-70 II - 3580 and 3175 and 0.86
24 1.4 II - 3494 and 3104 and 0.82
24 T&S II - 3543 and 3053 and 0.43
16-35 II - 3340 and 2882 and 0.92 (26mm)
24-70 I - 3386 and 3060 and 0.69
24-105 - 3309 and 2891 and 1.4
Tamron 24-70 - 3346 and 2997 and 0.74
17-40 - 3292/3225 and 2998/3027 and 0.87/0.34 (20mm/28mm)
Samyang 24 - 3409 and 2952 and 0.64
Zeiss 21 - 3235 and 3006 and 0.70
Zeiss 25 2.8 - 3278 and 2777 and 0.66
Zeiss 25 2 - 3548 and 3274 and 0.20
Tamron 28-75 - 3255 and 2866 and 1.84 (28mm)

My Tamron 28-75 is better than his for sure, he must have a bum copy.
Man that Zeiss 25 2 whoaaaa.
But that 24-70 II sure looks good though, no?

As expected looking at 24mm, f/4 and f/8, center, edge and CA and distortion the 24-105 basically comes in last of everything. The 24-70 II comes in best of the zooms and even better than primes at times.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Looking at those graph it's hard to justify the hype for its sharpness either, and the bokeh is probably a tad worse than the previous version.

Even though they show it to be sharper at the center and edge than all the other zooms and even some of the primes? (yeah maybe it is behind the primes mostly on his extreme corner test and barely better than the other zooms there at times, but again, we are not talking even extreme edge but extreme far corners where the eye is least likely to bother looking at an image)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Check out these two images, you are going to tell me that one isn't a lot better than the other near the edges?:
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/1874375857_cC7dStc-O.jpg
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/2099376767_rBhGTrX-O.jpg

download the full images, save, flip between them in a viewer, the edges look noticeably better to me from one of them (hint: the canon )

(to be fair, we don't know exactly how he focused these and that can affect things, but still in a quick real world pop snap one certainly did better)

 

[well_dunno]

Klaus stated in photozone forums that if the money was not an issue, he would go with the Canon mk2. He does not seem to find a legitimate reason for the price difference it seems. Border sharpness at 70 mm is a bit concerning though. I understand sample varience is inevitable but paying over 2K for a lens that might underperform a 1K lens (which also has IS) in certain settings?.. :-\

I think wait a while with the 24-70 f/2.8 purchase...

Cheers!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I struggle to believe there is that much sample variation. My hunch tells me that maybe one of the reviewers may be off the mark with their testing. I think I will reserve judgement until the next set of reviews come through.

Here is a video from a few years back about Canon manufacturing a 500mm f/4 lens. You get a idea about whats involved. THere are three parts, this links to part 1. You can easily find the others.

Canon Lens Production 1

 

[pwp]

I received my 24-70 2.8L II copy yesterday. I don't know what this bad review is all about. Mine is razor sharp on all the frame, at all focal lengths. Very minimal aberrations, and superb fast auto focus. I am comparing it to a 24-70 2.8L I, a 24-105 4L, a 50 1.2 L, a 24 1.4L, a 35 1.4L.

I really believe that the bad review guy got a defective copy.

The cold hard light of a Photozone review is a useful perspective, but it is best balanced against real world feedback from working photographers. The lens is selling quickly so there should be a flood of user feedback coming in to help inform out purchase decisions. This review doesn't put me off, but it is a sobering counter to the gushing early feedback.

-PW

 

[Dylan777]

I received my 24-70 2.8L II copy yesterday. I don't know what this bad review is all about. Mine is razor sharp on all the frame, at all focal lengths. Very minimal aberrations, and superb fast auto focus. I am comparing it to a 24-70 2.8L I, a 24-105 4L, a 50 1.2 L, a 24 1.4L, a 35 1.4L.

I really believe that the bad review guy got a defective copy.

It is an amazing lens, a little expensive honestly for what it is, a lot of plastic in the construction, no IS (for whoever find that a letdown), but probably the best "normal" zoom around. I used the word "probably" because I haven't tested ALL normal zoom around, so I cannot speak for the Tamron or others.

+1....received the lens before my trip to Hong Kong. I will have some pics after I get back. So far, this lens is SHARP end to end.

I will visit Lantau Island and Victoria Peak in Hong Kong today. Kinda miss my 16-35 II for landscape though

 

[GLPhotographic]

I think there may be some slight variation in the first batch, based on my experience, which isn't conclusive - (could be a one off).
First lens I received #(000061) was soft at 70mm f/2.8, had a hazy appearance on focus area. even once calibrated with lens align2 I wasn't blown away
(I had the Tamron 24-70 vc and returned it because of back focusing and poor AF quality & speed).

Even though I wasn't wowed by the first copy it, it was better than the tamron, in every way. I still returned the canon the following day, considering the price, I wanted AMAZING.
I was lucky that my store had a second copy of the lens yet to be sold (000063) which they kindly exchanged.

Now I am super impressed, amazingly SHARP @ F2.8 at every zoom length across the entire frame, which is inline with what Roger at Lens rentals reports. no micro adjustment required. (after doing the usual lens align procedure).
DID all sorts of exhaustive tests, and real life shots, I am wrapped with the build quality, operation, and images which come from the lens....I don't know if there is slight variation between copies, but this is my experience (first copy compared to second) and could reflect the photo zone findings.

The onion bokeh is there under certain circumstances, but its allot cleaner than that of the Tamrons, and isn't noticeable unless pixel peeping. doesn't concern me in the slightest. I think the bokeh is wonderful, very similar characteristics to the 50L1.2.
lack of fringing and CA is great. colour and contrast is wonderful.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And for all the talk about how it is a total portrait failure and awful at 70mm well look at the actual numbers:

70mm f/2.8 (center/far edge/CA):
24-70 II: 3343 and 2505 and 0.61
24-70 I: 2775 and 2262 and 0.57

70mm f/4:
24-70 II: 3459 and 2654 and 0.62
24-70 I: 3001 and 2725 and 0.63
24-105: 3363 and 2318 and 0.76

yeah really tragic there, it merely blow the other two zooms away hah

ok sure the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and f/4 IS and 2.8 IS II and 70-300L beat it (and maybe blow it away at far edges) at 70mm but none of the standard zooms (that are harder to build) do, maybe for $2300 it should also match those in every way at 70mm, I don't know, but it gives the best wide side (and even long side wide open) from a standard zoom....

 

[Albi86]

I don't doubt that this is the best 24-70/2.8 zoom ever.

That said, the edge over other iterations and the sample variability make it a highly disputable purchase at this price.

 

[traveller]

Check out these two images, you are going to tell me that one isn't a lot better than the other near the edges?:
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/1874375857_cC7dStc-O.jpg
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/2099376767_rBhGTrX-O.jpg

download the full images, save, flip between them in a viewer, the edges look noticeably better to me from one of them (hint: the canon )

(to be fair, we don't know exactly how he focused these and that can affect things, but still in a quick real world pop snap one certainly did better)

My observations:

I'd say that the Canon has the resolution advantage in the centre, the Tamron in the extreme corners (who cares?), but Canon has much better contrast. The colour balance of the lenses is very different -the Canon is more natural than the Tamron, which is quite yellow. It's difficult to tell in these photos as they are shot at different times of the day with varying cloud cover. The Tamron has noticably less distortion than the Canon.

These shots were taken at f/9; lets compare them at f/2.8: if you want to shoot at f/9, buy a 24-105 F/4L. Sadly, Photozone doesn't have any f/2.8 shots at the same focal length. [This is something that I always find strange considering the purpose of the site, surely they'd be better to have some standard outdoor test setups for various focal length/aperture combinations?] Until some more real world samples appear, we're left with The Digital Picture's ISO 12233 chart tests:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Fine, but I always find it difficult to relate this sort of test shot to the real world and they are taken at quite close distance, which some lenses don't perform well at [see Bryan's comments about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, which every user raves about (including Bryan) but underwhelms on these charts].

 

[AndreeOnline]

...well look at the actual numbers...

Where do you get detailed specs on all the lenses?

Thanks,

A

 

[Mika]

It is interesting to hear about the performance of 24-70 mk I and 24-70 mk II in real life testing. So far I have been very satisfied with the Mark I myself (bought last year), and wondered what could be coming up next.

When Mark II was announced with very high MTF, I thought Canon may have shifted the weighing of some characteristics during the design of this lens to accomplish the drawing capability design goal.

Apparently, the older lens traded field curvature at 24 mm for comparatively small amount of distortion. Additional changes in the drawing capability of the new lens seem to have caused the maximum reproduction ratio to decrease actually substantially from the old one, and also bokeh seems to be worse on the new lens.

What it comes to investing in the new lens, I don't know as it does not have exactly the same performance in other areas. Mark I for me seems to be a bit more all-rounder, so I do think there might be some interest in the second hand markets for this lens for a relatively long period due to aforementioned properties.

 

[Marsu42]

Ha! The Onion Rings! I've read a lot of bashing against the poor cheap Tamron in this forum for that very reason. I would lilke to know what those people have to say now.

I'd really like to know how many people who'd never gotten the Tamron because of the horrible onion rings now will say that it's actually not that bad, that a zoom can never be a prime and the problem occurs only in specific shots :->

Kinda glad I didn't preorder one.

The mk2 may be more worthwhile on a high mp camera due to increased sharpness, and for heavy-duty event photogs that need the fastest af and more durability (which the mk2 has over the mk1 due to lensrentals).

For the rest of us, Canon should be renamed as the "$500 too much company" (5d3, 6d, 24-70ii) :-o

EDIT: removed mixup

 

[risc32]

What? The 70-300L has a reversed focus/zoom direction? Really?

 

[tnargs]

I guess I can't comment because I am perfectly happy with my EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. Which, BTW, PZ rated more highly for optics than the new 24-70. (strictly being mischievous here :)