Reikan FoCal EF 24-70L version comparison

[Micko]

Just read a very interesting blog post on the Reikan website comparing aperture sharpness and focus consistency across a sample of original and new versions of the EF 24-70 f2.8L lens.

http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/2012/11/ef-24-70-vs-ef-24-70-ii-aperture-sharpness-comparison/

Cheers,
Mick

 

[Loswr]

Good read, thanks!

 

[Crapking]

I also tested 2 copies of the Mark II, as well as comparing to my Mark I, and did these same tests at 50 and 70 mm on all 4 of my bodies (7d, 5dM3, 1DIV and 1D-X). My results were very similar in that 1 copy of the Mark II consistently had considerable dropoff during the AP sharpness from 2.8 to 4.5 on every body!! I repeated these test several times, and at different focal lengths, and concluded that that copy of the Mark II had issues and returned it. On the good copy, sharpness from 2.8 to 8 was maintained at a high level, thus reassuring me that stopping down on this lens adds no 'real life' improvement in sharpness/quality.
I also found the same improvements/consistency in the Mark II AF 'consistency' over my Mark I.
Sure glad this more comprehensive analysis confirmed mine.
I could not be more pleased with the improvements in Mark II performance, so for those wondering if it is 'worth it' (over the Mark I), I would say emphatically yes.

 

[Dylan777]

This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L

 

[Random Orbits]

This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L

Different horses for different courses: f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

 

[PackLight]

This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L

Different horses for different courses: f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

Which 2.8 effect is that, the terrible IQ that you get at f/1.4 from the 35mm L or the narrow DOF?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L

Different horses for different courses: f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

Which 2.8 effect is that, the terrible IQ that you get at f/1.4 from the 35mm L or the narrow DOF?

I haven't seen any terrible f/1.4 images from my 35mmL. One of the points made in the article and demonstrated is that lenses can vary, and so can the cameras. If you get a bad result, get it fixed rather than assuming that everyone has the same result.
Certainly the 35mmL is not as sharp at 1.4 as a new model like the 24-70 is at f/2.8, but thats true for all f/1.4 lenses. In extreme low light, f/2.8 is just not fast enough to capture some images, but f/1.4 makes the cut.

 

[Random Orbits]

This is why I will NOT trade my 24-70 f2.8 II for 35L+50L

Different horses for different courses: f/2.8 can not replicate f/1.2 or f/1.4 effects.

Which 2.8 effect is that, the terrible IQ that you get at f/1.4 from the 35mm L or the narrow DOF?

I'll assume that is a rhetorical question, although you can never tell on the internet...

Haven't had problems shooting 24/35/50/85Ls wide open, but then I'm not shooting at brick walls wide open either....

 

[wayno]

"Terrible" IQ at 1.4 for the 35? Have you used it? Mine is sharp at 1.4 where it counts. It allows for gorgeous images at 1.4.

 

[PackLight]

"Terrible" IQ at 1.4 for the 35? Have you used it? Mine is sharp at 1.4 where it counts. It allows for gorgeous images at 1.4.

Yes have had one for four years now. Both the 24mm f/1.4L II and 35mm f/1.4 L image quality falls off rapidly below f/2. See TDP ISO charts link.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It doesn't mean its a bad lens, the 35mmL is a great lens. The biggest mistake I see owners of the lens make is that they think that because it can shot at f/1.4 they should be shooting at f/1.4.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

"Terrible" IQ at 1.4 for the 35? Have you used it? Mine is sharp at 1.4 where it counts. It allows for gorgeous images at 1.4.

Yes have had one for four years now. Both the 24mm f/1.4L II and 35mm f/1.4 L image quality falls off rapidly below f/2. See TDP ISO charts link.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It doesn't mean its a bad lens, the 35mmL is a great lens. The biggest mistake I see owners of the lens make is that they think that because it can shot at f/1.4 they should be shooting at f/1.4.

I buy a f/1.4 lens because I need f/1.4. Otherwise, I'd get f/2.8 or f/4 and save a ton of $$$.
Of course, not every image is at f/1.4, but many are at wider apertures than f/2.8.
of the 2437 images I've kept, 1027 are wider than f/2.8. Thats 42%, and 580 of them are at F/1.4.

 

[wayno]

Charts aside, I know from both the 24L and 35L I get great 1.4 images. May not be as textbook sharp as at F2 but in real life shooting I have found 1.4 to be impressively sharp. The 24 is a whisker sharper too at least on my copy.
I don't dispute the charts but I don't care to dwell on them too much. I don't need to. My point is that calling the 35 terrible at 1.4 is IMO inaccurate. But granted what's terrible to me may be quite different to you.

 

[gmrza]

Thanks - very interesting read.

While I haven't used the the original 24-70, my experience with the version II lens is consistent with what what is described. When I used it the first time, mysubjective reaction was really "OMG, this is sharp!".

 

[PackLight]

Charts aside, I know from both the 24L and 35L I get great 1.4 images. May not be as textbook sharp as at F2 but in real life shooting I have found 1.4 to be impressively sharp. The 24 is a whisker sharper too at least on my copy.
I don't dispute the charts but I don't care to dwell on them too much. I don't need to. My point is that calling the 35 terrible at 1.4 is IMO inaccurate. But granted what's terrible to me may be quite different to you.

"terrible" is a relative term and depends on what you are trying to do. The 35mm f/1.4L is one of my favorites.
My copy of the 24mm II is the same, just a shade sharper and a bit better color. But you have to look real hard for it.

 

[PackLight]

I buy a f/1.4 lens because I need f/1.4. Otherwise, I'd get f/2.8 or f/4 and save a ton of $$$.
Of course, not every image is at f/1.4, but many are at wider apertures than f/2.8.
of the 2437 images I've kept, 1027 are wider than f/2.8. Thats 42%, and 580 of them are at F/1.4.

What if you like the IQ between f/2 and f/2.8? Or the fact it will have less lens distortion and chromatic aberration than the new 24-70mm? Lots of reasons to buy the 35mm f/1.4 other than it just being a f/1.4 lens.

 

[wayno]

Charts aside, I know from both the 24L and 35L I get great 1.4 images. May not be as textbook sharp as at F2 but in real life shooting I have found 1.4 to be impressively sharp. The 24 is a whisker sharper too at least on my copy.
I don't dispute the charts but I don't care to dwell on them too much. I don't need to. My point is that calling the 35 terrible at 1.4 is IMO inaccurate. But granted what's terrible to me may be quite different to you.

"terrible" is a relative term and depends on what you are trying to do. The 35mm f/1.4L is one of my favorites.
My copy of the 24mm II is the same, just a shade sharper and a bit better color. But you have to look real hard for it.

Yes agreed. I don't wish to labour the point any further - each to their own etc... But i reckon as has been suggested that if you're into photographing brick walls and other flat surfaces then the 35 1.4 would be a disappointment at the 1.4 end. However in my experience in using it for portraiture, I've found the 35 1.4 helps to make lush and gorgeous images and the centre is surprisingly sharp. Sharp enough for me and those who purchase my images and blow them up large.

I have the 24-70 MKI and I've never really taken a shine to it. Convenient and still very sharp but I just find the 2.8 a bit 'meat and potatoes'. Practical but not 'magical'. I'm guessing, despite the improvements, I'd still feel similarly about the Mk2 version. But I've only quite recently been bitten seriously by the prime bug.

 

[PackLight]

I have the 24-70 MKI and I've never really taken a shine to it. Convenient and still very sharp but I just find the 2.8 a bit 'meat and potatoes'. Practical but not 'magical'. I'm guessing, despite the improvements, I'd still feel similarly about the Mk2 version. But I've only quite recently been bitten seriously by the prime bug.

Kind of like the article linked showed, the old version of the 24-70 wasn't very sharp wide open. With the new version it is almost at its sharpest wide open. I think you would be getting very similar results at f/2.8 and above that you get with the 35mm. For the 35mm f/1.4L I always thought that separation of background and subject that makes the 35mm great starts at about f/2.8 then wider.

I never liked the old version of the 24-70 either, that is why I have always covered this range with primes.

 

[wayno]

Yeah... and I've used my 35L over 2.8 about 10% of the time !