Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here

[DerStig]

I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

 

[K-amps]

Isn't this post kind of cruel ?

 

[87vr6]

Here I am fresh out of my time machine. The lens is sharp. It's so sharp that I actually cut a picture in half with it. It doesn't even need IS because though it's advertised as a 2.8 lens, it's really a .95, but it is razor sharp wide open, so there's no need for the IS.

Also, I was shooting with it on my 3DX...

 

[K-amps]

Here I am fresh out of my time machine. The lens is sharp. It's so sharp that I actually cut a picture in half with it. It doesn't even need IS because though it's advertised as a 2.8 lens, it's really a .95, but it is razor sharp wide open, so there's no need for the IS.

Also, I was shooting with it on my 3DX...

;D ;D ;D

 

[bdunbar79]

I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

It will certainly for the 35L, considering the mark I already did that. The 24 and 50 are yet to be seen, I highly doubt at the 24 end, but the 50 maybe. However, the 50L's strengths are where the 24-70L II can't go. So that is really not a contest truly.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

It will certainly for the 35L, considering the mark I already did that. The 24 and 50 are yet to be seen, I highly doubt at the 24 end, but the 50 maybe. However, the 50L's strengths are where the 24-70L II can't go. So that is really not a contest truly.

MTF charts for the 24-70 II are actually better than the ones for the 24 1.4 II.

 

[bdunbar79]

That could be true yes. I wasn't going by charts I suppose, but rather, experience. However, wouldn't that be amazing if it were sharper than the 24L? I still won't sell it because I shoot wider than f/2.8 with that lens. But if I can have the 16-35L, 24L, and 24-70L, that will more than cover me for what I shoot. Now, suppose we saw a 35L II and 50L II come out later. Boy, will Canon have a superb lens lineup by then or what, not that they don't already??

 

[M.ST]

I am very happy with my EF 24-70 II (non production version).

But I don´t waste my time and money reading charts, looking at tests from magazines or test self the lens against a lot of primes.

 

[Cannon Man]

I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

I say primes are always better for anything. If i used the 24-70 to shoot weddings in dimmed light i would get much more noise than at 1.2 or 1.4 with primes. If you compare mtf charts look at the f/8 results to compare.

I use TS-E 24mm 3.5 II, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 II, 135mm 2.0 ,so i won't be buying any zoom lenses anytime soon on those focal lenghts.

 

[DerStig]

I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

It will certainly for the 35L, considering the mark I already did that. The 24 and 50 are yet to be seen, I highly doubt at the 24 end, but the 50 maybe. However, the 50L's strengths are where the 24-70L II can't go. So that is really not a contest truly.

Sorry, I'm quite confused. I rented 24-70 a few times, the images were nowhere near sharp and there is no way it comes even close to 35L in any aperture. The only thing that comes close to 35L, but does not beat it is the 70-200 IS II. I have both lenses so I am not making this up. I don't know what aperture that MTF chart is posted there at, but I'd highly doubt they made a lens that beats all of their primes. A lot of people buy the primes not only for their low light capabilities but also for their sharpness.

Please also see:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

 

[photogaz]

I am very happy with my EF 24-70 II (non production version).

But I don´t waste my time and money reading charts, looking at tests from magazines or test self the lens against a lot of primes.

How long have you had it and how comes you've got a non production version?

 

[fanfan]

I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

70-200 IS II sharper then 85L II and 135L ??? Really??? I think you need some good glasses, not for your camera, but for your eyes !!!

 

[96Brigadier]

I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

It will certainly for the 35L, considering the mark I already did that. The 24 and 50 are yet to be seen, I highly doubt at the 24 end, but the 50 maybe. However, the 50L's strengths are where the 24-70L II can't go. So that is really not a contest truly.

Sorry, I'm quite confused. I rented 24-70 a few times, the images were nowhere near sharp and there is no way it comes even close to 35L in any aperture. The only thing that comes close to 35L, but does not beat it is the 70-200 IS II. I have both lenses so I am not making this up. I don't know what aperture that MTF chart is posted there at, but I'd highly doubt they made a lens that beats all of their primes. A lot of people buy the primes not only for their low light capabilities but also for their sharpness.

Please also see:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

This isn't a discussion about the 24-70 Version I, it is about the 24-70 Version II that has just started to hit stores. Totally different lens.

For the record though I have Version I and I'm quite happy with the results I get out of it.

 

[Quasimodo]

In this post I posted a shot (bike) I took with the new II version, that I was lucky enough to get to play with for 24 hours the 16th of August. To me it is very sharp
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8766.0

 

[scarbo]

I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

70-200 IS II sharper then 85L II and 135L ??? Really??? I think you need some good glasses, not for your camera, but for your eyes !!!

I think you're underestimating how sharp the 70-200 IS II is. Take a look.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[K-amps]

I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

70-200 IS II sharper then 85L II and 135L ??? Really??? I think you need some good glasses, not for your camera, but for your eyes !!!

I think you're underestimating how sharp the 70-200 IS II is. Take a look.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Compared to the 85L ii, both stopped to F4, the 70-200ii is actually sharper and has less light loss. Didnt expect this. In the 135 vs mk.ii, the 70-200mk.ii is sharper @ f2.8 in the mid to corners. About the same at center. Again.. the 70-200mk.ii raises the bar and competes with primes. The only area is loses is the extra stops of light compared to the uber large aperture primes. But with high ISO capabilities, that need is somewhat compensated for.

 

[fanfan]

I think you're underestimating how sharp the 70-200 IS II is. Take a look.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

I have the 70-200 IS II, 85L II and 135L and in real life shooting, the 85L II and 135L are way more sharp compared to my 70-200 IS II and it's not a bad copy, I could compare with half a dozen similar zoom.

The test shot like the one you show me are nothing like real life shooting

Take by exemple the 24L II, it looks incredibly sharp on the test on that site, but in real life, almost 30% of the pictures are out of focus, so it make that lens useless in some situation

Always keep in mind that you won't be shooting number and line when you will be in studio doing fashion or outside doing landscape or street photo

Look also at the 50 1.2L on that website, It looks awful but go find some real pictures in real life situation taken with the same lens and you will see it can be crazy sharp

Black on white test shot are really killing some good lens, they look awful on such test but in real life situation they look awesome

It's all about personal preference, both can be good, it all depend of your shooting style, but I will never use my 70-200 in the studio if I have my 85 or 135. I will use the 70-200 if I'm outside doing sport or something that is too fast for me to change lens between shot.

And keep in mind something, 30 years ago some amazing photographer were able to take amazing pictures that many of us will never be able to make, and they did with lens that look completely awful on these test chart

And if you think it's all about that kind of test, I know people here hate DXO but what about this :

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF85mm-f-1.2L-II-USM
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM

2 different site, 2 different result, 2 different stories

I don't want to bash what you said, but have you ever tried all 3 lenses before or you just tell your conclusion by looking at some test shot on that website?

If you buy a lens just by looking at that website, you got it all wrong my friend
Rent the lens and zoom, go shooting for a day or a weekend and choose what's best for you

In my case, I don't need a zoom for what I do, I need sharpness, and for my own personal taste I really believe the 85L II and 135L are a lot sharper then the 70-200 IS II

But in the end it's all a matter or personal preference... I just wish you tried all 3 lenses before commenting on their performance, have you tried all 3 ?

 

[Quasimodo]

Here is one straight out of camera jpg. I wish I could post Raw here, but they are too big. I have reduced it to to be able to upload it here. They are both shot with the 1D X

 

[Quasimodo]

Here is the second.

If the pictures are bad, I IMHO its the photographers fault and not this excellent lens

 

[well_dunno]

any images where we can see to what extent there is distortion on the wide end?

Cheers!