- Status
well_dunno said:
Not sure if this helps or not. I have a problem knowing which pictures that are taken with the 24-70 II since my software does not recognize the lens (as far as I can see in the exit info), and that day I only shot with two lenses; 24-70 II and the 70-200 II, so I have gone for pictures that are below 70mm
as with the three previous one, this one is also straight from camera without any editing or cropping.
Attachments
Upvote
0
I have had each of these lenses. I no longer own the 135L or 85L. I was never disappointed in the 135, ever. The 85 when it hit it hit with impact. The 70-200L II never fails me either and there isnt much real world change to the impact of my images compared to the 85 and 135 other than larger apertures but at 200mm the dof is extremely shallow. the 70-200LII F2.8 at 135mm .3ft, at 10ft F2.8 is .1 ft dof. The 85L 10ft F2.8 is .7ft dof, even at F1.4 it is still .3ft in focus. So if blurred effects are what you are after the 70-200 is no slouch, however the bokeh of the 85L is legendary. The CA on the 85L is really bad in some situations. The 70-200LII flare and CA are pretty much close to eliminated. For me the 50L takes care of my 85L lust and the 70-200 takes care of my need for 85 focal length. Not sure why 85mm it isn't a marking on the 70-200LII, i have considered locating the 85mm spot on the lens and marking it myself. Sharpness is nothing left to be desired on the 70-200L II either. Can't say why you don't talk it up more than you do. I shoot Primes as my primary but the 70-200 is a cut above any zoom and if the next 24-70 is anywhere similar it will bang out wedding images to perfection. The benefit of the newer model will be the metal bearings inside the lens zoom portion. When those wear out as mine have the zoom doesn't lock focus correctly. They replaced this in my lens as well as the zoom barrel and it was back to one of my most reliable lenses. Honestly though the 70-200 never fails me whereas my primes often do. Can't brag louder about that kind of performance!fanfan said:
Upvote
0
I apologize for getting off topic. In looking at the images below there isn't anything that shows the performance of the lens here. This thread should have started when people actually had production lens samples not pre production imho.
Upvote
0
Bosman said:
You might be right about the pictures being bad examples, but it is not a per-production version.
Upvote
0
Not sure who you were referring to but I have tried all 3. I don't know how one can measure value, but price aside... the utility of a lens should carry a lot of weight.fanfan said:
How do you measure utility... perhaps by usage? So unles syou are in a studio in a controlled environment where the Primes could do a better job, In the rest of the situations, the 70-200 mk.ii will be my goto lens. It is amazing that it can compete with steller primes.
If one devised a 20 point criteria and compared all 3 lenses... I am willing to bet the 70-200 mk.ii would outshine the other two; 2 times out of three... Maybe more.
When it comes to the strengths of the primes, i.e. Sharpness, bokeh, the Zoom can compete with them head to head. Granted it is a tad slower, but it is not slouch. When it comes to versitility and utility, it smokes the primes, no competition. Then there is IS... and ability to match the primes focal lengths (reverse is not true)...
Overall the 70-200 mk.ii commands not only respect, but admiration... it is spoken in the same breath as the mighty 85L 1.2 and the Amazing 135L.
To each one his tool.
Upvote
0
DerStig said:
Interesting. My 24-70L I was just as sharp, or sharper at all apertures f/2.8 and up than my 35L.
Upvote
0
D
DerStig
Guest
To the people who think 24-70 mk1 was as sharp OR the mk2 is sharper, when you post sample images, posting a bike that merely takes %20 of the image at 2.8 aperture makes no sense. Please put your camera and lens on a tripod, using a minimum focus distance and largest aperture, take pictures of one of the ISO charts and post a 100% crop image. The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless, even the crappy 18-55 kit lens for a crop camera will look as sharp.
There is no way this lens will be sharper than 35L or 50L.
There is no way this lens will be sharper than 35L or 50L.
Upvote
0
DerStig said:
yes, more pictures of charts. that really helps me see if a lens is worth buying...
i say, take pictures with the lens in real world settings, because thats how i'm going to use my lenses. i'm not going to take shots of a stupid chart all day long so i can pixel peep. if that's what you want, look at the MTF charts.
i understand that charts have their value, and they show some important things. however, i never look at that crap. when i want to get something i usually see if there is a group on Flickr for the gear in question. Then, I look at real world shots taken by real world people in the real world - really.
if you look at the 5d3 in terms of charts and 400% blow ups of little lines it doesn't look that impressive. what makes it impressive are all the features that charts can't capture (the feel, the weight, the AF, the ease of use, etc.). those are the things that make it so i can take a shot and not worry about all the trivial garbage. what use is a lens with superb resolution if it needs to be on a tripod all the time in controlled settings to get a good shot? taking real world shots, especially action & low light shots, shows what the lens is capable of in actual situations. not to mention how it shows colors and distortion around the edges.
so please, keep the real world shots coming. i'm not a professional studio chart photographer, so I can care less about that stuff.
Sidenote - How is it that there can be no way that its sharper than the 35L or 50L? i understand that it might not be very likely, but how is it impossible?
Upvote
0
Quasimodo said:well_dunno said:
Not sure if this helps or not. I have a problem knowing which pictures that are taken with the 24-70 II since my software does not recognize the lens (as far as I can see in the exit info), and that day I only shot with two lenses; 24-70 II and the 70-200 II, so I have gone for pictures that are below 70mm
as with the three previous one, this one is also straight from camera without any editing or cropping.
hei!
Thanks for sharing the pictures!
I find it hard to say anything about the distortion, without having lines in the image - landscape is quite good at hiding the distortion while architecture shows it most I guess. By the way, are f/2.8 zooms fast enough in winter conditions over there? I would be happy if I could use f/2.8 zooms, though I recall Kernuak saying he used fast primes in his visit to northern norway...
Cheers!
Upvote
0
keithfullermusic said:
I have the 24-70ii on pre-order, I am confident it will be good, I hope it makes Canon go and re-design the 35L & the 50L to separate them from the amazing Zoom...... here's to hoping DerStig backtracks.
Upvote
0
fanfan said:
I shot with the 135L and 70-200 one day and when I was going through the images there were some that I thought for sure HAD to be the 135L and they were actually the 70-200, and this was the V1 and the V2 is much, much better. And I love my 85L/135L. But if I shot stills primarily I'd definitely grab the 70-200, it's arguably the best zoom lens in the world. And even if the 85L and 135L are sharper, it definitely isn't by much and you'd really have to pixel peep to see the difference. Of course the bokeh is better on the 85 and 135, but that's to be expected.
Upvote
0
The 85 f1.2ii and the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii are 2 lenses that make Nikon guys wanna switch... So I hear 
Upvote
0
DerStig said:
Except Bryan Carnathan already did this, and you're wrong. This is nothing personal by any means. Read his reviews of the 24-70L I and the 35L. Then review the ISO charts. Then look at your own photos of both lenses at say, f/4, everything else equal. This is why this statement is being made.
Upvote
0
D
DerStig
Guest
Do you even know what you are talking about? How else can you measure the sharpness of a new lens, any lens? When you spend $2300 on a lens and it gets home, what do you do, just put it on and shoot bikers and farms infinite focus distance and measure sharpness, CA, distortion? Do you even listen to yourself?
When you buy a sports car, do you look at the factory figures of horse power or do you look at dyno test results at the crank and wheels that magazines perform?
I cannot believe you actually said this, for all intents and purposes, MTF charts are the theoratical charts, an ISO chart and a flat sharpness test is what every sane person should/will do at home with any lens that costs over $500. Your human eye won't be able to pick the differences in sharpness in those shots and if that's your way of measuring quality then a Sigma or Tamron would suit you better because you are wasting your money.
It is far easier to produce a lens in tele (hint 70-200) that is sharper than prime lenses in that focal range. If you took basic physics and optics, you'd know this. The wider the focal range gets, the more difficult, and in fact impossible, it gets. You will have to stop down the mk2 to most likely 4-5.6 to get close to the primes. It doesn't matter which "mk" this lens will be.
When you buy a sports car, do you look at the factory figures of horse power or do you look at dyno test results at the crank and wheels that magazines perform?
I cannot believe you actually said this, for all intents and purposes, MTF charts are the theoratical charts, an ISO chart and a flat sharpness test is what every sane person should/will do at home with any lens that costs over $500. Your human eye won't be able to pick the differences in sharpness in those shots and if that's your way of measuring quality then a Sigma or Tamron would suit you better because you are wasting your money.
It is far easier to produce a lens in tele (hint 70-200) that is sharper than prime lenses in that focal range. If you took basic physics and optics, you'd know this. The wider the focal range gets, the more difficult, and in fact impossible, it gets. You will have to stop down the mk2 to most likely 4-5.6 to get close to the primes. It doesn't matter which "mk" this lens will be.
keithfullermusic said:
Upvote
0
@DerStig
Believe it dude, because I said it.
First off, someone was nice enough to post pics from the new lens for everyone to see - these are some of the first pics I've seen from this lens, so I was pretty pumped. Your response to those was basically, don't waste my time with this bs, I want shots of charts on a tripod!!! (your exact words "The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless").
This guy bought the lens for HIMSELF - not to take test shots for YOU - so stop demanding other people run tests for you.
So my response to you is, do you even listen to yourself? If you want to see pictures of straight lines so bad then buy the lens, print out a bunch of straight lines and take a bunch of pictures. The title of the thread is "Post your 24-70 II Experience Here" not "Run Chart Tests of the New 24-70 for DerStig so he Can Make a Decision on Whether or Not He Wants to Buy It"
Believe it dude, because I said it.
First off, someone was nice enough to post pics from the new lens for everyone to see - these are some of the first pics I've seen from this lens, so I was pretty pumped. Your response to those was basically, don't waste my time with this bs, I want shots of charts on a tripod!!! (your exact words "The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless").
This guy bought the lens for HIMSELF - not to take test shots for YOU - so stop demanding other people run tests for you.
So my response to you is, do you even listen to yourself? If you want to see pictures of straight lines so bad then buy the lens, print out a bunch of straight lines and take a bunch of pictures. The title of the thread is "Post your 24-70 II Experience Here" not "Run Chart Tests of the New 24-70 for DerStig so he Can Make a Decision on Whether or Not He Wants to Buy It"
Upvote
0
There are a lot of northern lights shots with the 16-35 or even the 10-22 (as well as Sigma equivalents), so wider isn't vital, but f/2.8 is generally recommended as the minimum in maximum aperture if you see what I mean. Basically, the faster the better (as well as wideangle) to limit the exposure time and mimimise the ISO, unless you also want to get a lit foreground in as well, then depth of field starts coming into play. Because Aurora move, to get the best definition, you want to try to freeze the motion.well_dunno said:Quasimodo said:well_dunno said:
Not sure if this helps or not. I have a problem knowing which pictures that are taken with the 24-70 II since my software does not recognize the lens (as far as I can see in the exit info), and that day I only shot with two lenses; 24-70 II and the 70-200 II, so I have gone for pictures that are below 70mm
as with the three previous one, this one is also straight from camera without any editing or cropping.
hei!
Thanks for sharing the pictures!
By the way, are f/2.8 zooms fast enough in winter conditions over there? I would be happy if I could use f/2.8 zooms, though I recall Kernuak saying he used fast primes in his visit to northern norway...
Cheers!
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
