Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here

[risc32]

first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage. today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good. from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use. BTW- what happened to this thread? and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

 

[DerStig]

35L is the sharpest non tele prime canon makes, there is no way 24-70 MKII will be sharper at 2.8, period.

first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage. today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good. from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use. BTW- what happened to this thread? and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

 

[dave]

first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage. today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good. from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use. BTW- what happened to this thread? and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

It's what happen when someone starts a thread about experiences with a lens that they (or almost anyone) doesn't actually have... And then promptly complains about the photos posted by someone that has actually used the lens.

Where else I there to go but to a debate about primes versus zooms?

 

[dave]

35L is the sharpest non tele prime canon makes, there is no way 24-70 MKII will be sharper at 2.8, period.

first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage. today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good. from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use. BTW- what happened to this thread? and i'm only making it worse, sigh...

At what aperture? And whereabouts on the image?

on full frame the borders and corners of the 35mm f1.4 are not great, even stopped down to f2.8. As just one example Photozone records the borders and extreme corners of the 40mm pancake as having higher resolution at the aperture that you nominated.

As for the 24-70mm I'll wait and see before making such a baseless statement.

 

[keithfullermusic]

@dave

don't bother, DerStig will tell you that it's impossible, you're ignorant, and "If you took basic physics and optics, you'd know this."

 

[dave]

That's true. My education did suck a bit. ;D

...but

I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.

I thought it could not happen, period. That guy started the whole thread with that very proposition.

 

[keithfullermusic]

@dave

I know, that's my favorite part about this entire thread - proposing the question of whether or not the new 24-70 could match or beat the other L primes in resolution/sharpness. Then, he tells people they are crazy for thinking that it's possible. Why ask the question if you feel that you already know the answer?

 

[tx8koibito]

un-box

 

[Axilrod]

un-box

Lucky! When did this come in and where did you order it from? What do you think so far?

Edit: Saw you're other post, thanks for the info! Can you post some samples from 24, 35, 50, and 70 when you get a chance? I (and I'm sure everyone else) would greatly appreciate it!

 

[well_dunno]

Can you post some samples from 24, 35, 50, and 70 when you get a chance? I (and I'm sure everyone else) would greatly appreciate it!

+1

 

[Axilrod]

Read this review on B&H:
Superbly Sharp Lens
By Denis EOL
from Atlanta
About Me: Pro Photographer
What a welcome update to the prior 24-70. This one is razor sharp throughout the range, fast focusing, too. I have tested a pre-production copy of this lens extensively and find it to be the sharpest zoom lens I have ever used... maybe tied with the 70-200mm f/2.8L II for outstanding IQ.

The single, ultimate wedding/event lens ever from Canon? I'd say yes.

 

[M.ST]

I can fully agree with that what Axilrod wrote.

Use the prototype of this lens from december 2011 and like the outstanding fast AF and the outstanding image quality through the focal lenght the lens delivers.

But I don´t like the aperture stars.

 

[Marsu42]

But I don´t like the aperture stars.

Well, what *are* the aperture stars like? From the tech data sheet 9 rounded blades certainly should produce a nice bokeh, though the sunstars might look less spectacular?

 

[M.ST]

I mean the quality and amount of star spouts the nine blades produce in low light at f16 or f22 from small light sources.

No problem with the bokeh. Bokeh is fine.

 

[K-amps]

M . ST Since the lens is now available retail, hopefully your NDA is lapsed. Can you share a crop of the star you are referring to... not the whole shot but just the crop of the star you are referring to?

Axilrod, thanks for posting that... helps the rest of us to wait patiently for it !

 

[Axilrod]

M . ST Since the lens is now available retail, hopefully your NDA is lapsed. Can you share a crop of the star you are referring to... not the whole shot but just the crop of the star you are referring to?

Axilrod, thanks for posting that... helps the rest of us to wait patiently for it !

You're welcome, granted it is just someone on B&H but I don't see why they'd speak highly of a lens if they didn't actually feel that way. The review from ThatNikonGuy shows much better color and sharpness than the original 24-70mm, and from what I can tell he was comparing it to an excellent copy of the original (which aren't always easy to come by). Either way the improvement is noticeable and I think it'll be even more obvious once we get some more good samples.

PS. I just realized you may have been confused and under the impression that I posted the unboxing pics, but that wasn't me, it was this guy: tx8koibito

 

[K-amps]

Thanks Axilrod, however I was requesting MST to post a pic of the star flare/ bokeh that he did not like in the new lens.

Looking at the sun pattern of the nikon guy review, it just seemed like the starburst was better controlled and if someone needed the effect, they could apply a star filter... This is what I can surmise form the limited information I have.

 

[Marsu42]

Thanks Axilrod, however I was requesting MST to post a pic of the star flare/ bokeh that he did not like in the new lens.

I'd be interested, too, but he also wrote that it concerns f16-f22 - and the 24-70 is an open aperture event lens, not a replacement for the 24mm tse landscape lens...

 

[Bosman]

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.

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.

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?

7 posts in and you are already flaming people for being stupid...Not good.

 

[jpjeff]

Wow got my 24-70mkii on Thursday in Singapore, shop only received two copies so those months of wait were well worth it.

It is much sharper than my current 24-70 miki

I feel that it is as good as my 70-200 and sharper than my 50L 2.8 vs 2.8

But the thing that blow me away is wow quickly it focuses on my 5dmkiii zero hesitation it feels instant. I found myself pressing the button twice as it focuses so quick!