Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 29 Sep 2012 (Saturday) 13:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

So what is the verdict for the 24-70 II?

 
agv8or
Goldmember
Avatar
2,150 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 363
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
     
Sep 30, 2012 01:10 |  #16

jwhittaker wrote in post #15059784 (external link)
Do you think there is any chance they might bring out an IS version in a year or something?

OR SOMETHING! With Canon more like closer to 10 years. They made their decision to go non IS and they'll stand by that for many years to come. They'll keep upgrading lenses. like the 24mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.8, to IS rarther than release another 24-70mm variant with IS. Hopefully when they do they'll make it a 24-105 f/2.8L IS then we'll all be happy and have nothing to complain about other than the price. Right now I would pay $3500 for that lens if they made it but in 10 years it will probably be at least $5000 so let the moans begin.


Rand

Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Sep 30, 2012 01:14 |  #17

Invertalon wrote in post #15059768 (external link)
I have been using it for the last week...

Equally as awesome as the 70-200 II... Sharpness is amazing end to end with no CA to be seen. Sharpness and contrast is unreal. For those judging without trying one, don't. This lens IS that good.

There seems to be field curvature variance in which the left or right side at times may be sharper than the other depending on focus distance. I have heard of three people so far reporting this. About the only fault thus far. I may send mine to Canon Monday to let them take a look and calibrate it to my body just for the hell of it. I will have it back by Friday so no real loss to me :)

Overall I am extremely happy. Amazing duo with the 70-200 II. Happy I have up the 24-105 and 35L for it.

So you've heard someone beside us also note that weird field curvature thing at or near 24mm? I'm still trying to figure out what it means.

It sure focuses well indoors, only 2 misses out of 73 test shots at f/2.8! (maybe on a non-5D3/1DX AF system it would be as impressive though, perhaps it has the new super precision mode that can be used both those bodies, as per Lens Rentals findings about many new Canon lenses and the new bodies).

Also fights PF exceedingly well it seems. At least in terms of say bright white sky, dark forest, where the sky shows through, many lenses make tons of purple crap appear, some like the 24 1.4 II make a little, but this one, I think it makes absolutely none! Have to test it more but it might be a full apochromatic like the supertele where the longitudinal CA is all fixed (it has some of the typical side to side lateral, but almost all wider lenses do other than a few zeiss or the 24mm T&S II). I was shooting at f/8 though which usually reduces LoCA to almost nothing, but in this extreme scenario even at f/8 most lenses show at least a little and many a ton.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zlatko ­ Batistich
Member
Avatar
56 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: New Jersey, USA
     
Sep 30, 2012 01:53 |  #18

Eyal wrote in post #15059780 (external link)
Hmm what is the point comparing it to the 17-55? ??? Not to mention a crop vs FF?
Its like comparing a Lamborghini to a Mazda 6 and saying "see? the lambo is better!"...

So I'm not sure if you are sarcastic or not, but its just wrong.

The point is in the quote that I included in my post. You must have missed it. I was quoting dadgummit where he/she specifically asked why doesn't Canon make a standard zoom for full frame that is as good as the 17-55 zoom for crop cameras? Here it is again:

dadgummit wrote in post #15059481 (external link)
The thing that gets me is why cant canon come up with something for full frame with as good IQ as the 17-55? Why is the best standard zoom in canon's inventory only for crop cameras?

It sounded as if dadgummit was already bummed that the new 24-70 II would be worse than the 17-55. So, I was saying, don't be so convinced that the new 24-70 II is worse than the 17-55. The charts suggest that the 24-70 II is indeed better, as it should be for the price.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 238
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Sep 30, 2012 02:46 |  #19

No sure about the verdict but I say, When you have the money, buy it. Best all around lens made by Canon.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eyal
Senior Member
569 posts
Joined May 2011
     
Sep 30, 2012 10:20 |  #20

Zlatko Batistich wrote in post #15059883 (external link)
The point is in the quote that I included in my post. You must have missed it. I was quoting dadgummit where he/she specifically asked why doesn't Canon make a standard zoom for full frame that is as good as the 17-55 zoom for crop cameras? Here it is again:

It sounded as if dadgummit was already bummed that the new 24-70 II would be worse than the 17-55. So, I was saying, don't be so convinced that the new 24-70 II is worse than the 17-55. The charts suggest that the 24-70 II is indeed better, as it should be for the price.

Because they want you to pay for it.
You want standard zoom for FF? Get a 24-105?
Oh you want 2.8? Well pay up.

Same reason why the 70-200 F/4 cost as much as it cost, and the 70-200 F/2.8 cost as much as it cost, and the aftermarket alternatives cost about as much as the F/4.

The 17-55 is there to give someone who bought a lower-level body, something standard at 2.8, and it doesn't cost so much because it also cost less to make.


5DMarkIII+Grip | Extender 1.4x III / 2x III
16-35mm F/2.8L II | 24-70mm F/2.8L II | 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II
Σ 50mm F/1.4 | 85mm F/1.2L II | 100mm F/2.8L IS Macro | 135mm F/2L | 300mm F/2.8L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GooseberryVisuals
Goldmember
Avatar
1,045 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2010
     
Sep 30, 2012 10:59 |  #21

It's basically a ho-hum mid range lens, be it VR1 or 2.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dadgummit
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2008
     
Sep 30, 2012 11:34 |  #22

Eyal wrote in post #15060847 (external link)
Because they want you to pay for it.
You want standard zoom for FF? Get a 24-105?
Oh you want 2.8? Well pay up.

Same reason why the 70-200 F/4 cost as much as it cost, and the 70-200 F/2.8 cost as much as it cost, and the aftermarket alternatives cost about as much as the F/4.

The 17-55 is there to give someone who bought a lower-level body, something standard at 2.8, and it doesn't cost so much because it also cost less to make.

Sorry we must not have been clear. If the 24-70 has the same near perfection as the 70-200 ii then it will do great. Unfortunately canon forgot IS so the optics would have to be better since they are the same price (not to mention less material cost). If canon can do it with a 70-200 telephoto range then why not with a wide to standard zoom?

My point about the 17-55: i understand many full frame shooters out there look down their noses at people who use crop cameras but please put that aside just long enough to understand that those poor lowly croppers have a standard zoom that has 4 stop IS, sharp corner to corner and a constant f 2.8. And it costs less than than half of canon's current offering for full frame. I know ff has a larger image circle but for twice the cost they should have room in the budget to come close.


My Humble Gear List
I shutter to think how many people are underexposed and lacking depth in this field.Rick Steves

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zlatko ­ Batistich
Member
Avatar
56 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: New Jersey, USA
     
Sep 30, 2012 12:33 |  #23

Eyal wrote in post #15060847 (external link)
Because they want you to pay for it.
You want standard zoom for FF? Get a 24-105?
Oh you want 2.8? Well pay up.

Same reason why the 70-200 F/4 cost as much as it cost, and the 70-200 F/2.8 cost as much as it cost, and the aftermarket alternatives cost about as much as the F/4.

The 17-55 is there to give someone who bought a lower-level body, something standard at 2.8, and it doesn't cost so much because it also cost less to make.

There must be some serious miscommunication here. Your statements have nothing to do with what I was writing. I wasn't questioning Canon's pricing or other decisions, so I really don't know what you're arguing about. I don't "want" anything and I wasn't asking a question. I was just addressing dadgummit's apparent disappointment based on his/her belief that Canon had not made a lens for full-frame that is as good as the 17-55 for crop. Sorry if I couldn't make it clearer.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gordholio
Senior Member
294 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Sep 30, 2012 16:54 |  #24

Partly because of Invertalon and all his pics (!!), yesterday I found a local place with the lens in stock and I bought it. Last night, I covered a charity gala and this morning a marathon. In both cases, I exclusively used my 5D Mk III with the 70-200 2.8 II and the 24-70 II lenses. Besides the obvious difference in focal lengths, I'm seriously hard pressed to tell the difference in PQ, focus accuracy, color/contrast, or general wonderfullness of pictures. Granted, I'm not pouring over the photos looking for similarities or disimiliarities. But still.

And I find I'm not missing IS either. I shot at some pretty slow shutter speeds last night during the gala, and all was good. I will try to find some time to post photos after the weekend (and after I've processed and submitted them to the newspaper).

The bonus is that I don't know if I need primes for low light anymore. Changing lenses when you're shooting stuff for a paper is a total hassle, no doubt about it, and the 5D Mk III really deals beautifully with high ISOs. And you know, you can get some prety decent background blur with this lens. So I may be selling off some primes soon (to help cover the really, really high cost of the 24-70).

I know, I know, a post like this is nothing without pics. But I'm off to shoot more stuff right now, and don't have the time. Hopefully soon.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mannetti21
Goldmember
Avatar
3,105 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 352
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Connecticut
     
Sep 30, 2012 17:47 |  #25

I think the "verdict" is that it is better than the version 1. That shouldn't surprise anyone. I know many people disagree for various reasons, but for me, the lack of IS gives me a strong nudge towards the Tamron 24-70 VC. I'm usually very good at convincing myself that "need" a particular lens when I "want" it, but I'm still finding it difficult to justify the cost over the Tamron which has IS. In my humble opinion, I feel that IS adds a bit of versatility.

I'm a big supporter of the "buy right and buy once" mentality, but I'm very close to going with Tamron and seeing if there is really a need to spend the extra $1000 for a bit more sharpness and contrast.



My Buyer/Seller Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swldstn
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Maine
     
Sep 30, 2012 18:17 |  #26

dadgummit wrote in post #15061038 (external link)
If canon can do it with a 70-200 telephoto range then why not with a wide to standard zoom?

I'm not an optical engineer but the larger field of view I'm sure makes a huge difference in how well you can achieve the min to max performance. You can see that by the increased size of the elements to 82mm. Your statement is like saying going to Mars is as easy as going to the Moon, and isn't it the same problem? Well mine arrives Monday so I will see for my self how well the did. Wish me luck.


Steve Waldstein
---------------
Love to Shoot - a Digital SLR (and now a Mirroless ILC) are my weapons of choice
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YunusEmre
Member
Avatar
211 posts
Joined Mar 2006
Location: Los Gatos, CA
     
Oct 01, 2012 01:56 |  #27

Isn't it too early to reach a verdict? I have not followed the release of 24-70 II, I see that some people already have it yet you cannot find it in stock anywhere to order one. It seems it is not even released yet.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rusty.jg
Senior Member
855 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Cornwall, UK
     
Oct 01, 2012 06:41 as a reply to  @ YunusEmre's post |  #28

Check out the teardown on lensrentals. Looks like it has superb resolution, is built/designed well and is a major improvement on the previous version. If you need a 24-70 lens I would say this one was the one to get.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …he-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii (external link)


to be OR NOT to be = 1 (which is "to be" so that one's cleared up at last ;-)a)
www.VividCornwall.co.u​k (external link) (external link)
Sony Nex-5n (x2) / Metabones EF-NEX Smart Adapter / Canon 10-22mm / Canon 100mm Macro / Sigma 18-50mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DarthMTS47
Senior Member
Avatar
547 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Oct 01, 2012 08:50 |  #29

2ndviolinman wrote in post #15058218 (external link)
I'm still curious to see if it is equal to the 40mm/2.8 pancake! I'm not kidding, either.

I compared my 24-70II to my 35L and 40mm pancake. At equivalent apertures, the 24-70 was too close to call against the 35L, but was noticeably sharper than the 40mm pancake. However, the 40mm has less distortion.

-Mike




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dadgummit
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2008
     
Oct 01, 2012 09:58 |  #30

swldstn wrote in post #15062342 (external link)
I'm not an optical engineer but the larger field of view I'm sure makes a huge difference in how well you can achieve the min to max performance. You can see that by the increased size of the elements to 82mm. Your statement is like saying going to Mars is as easy as going to the Moon, and isn't it the same problem? Well mine arrives Monday so I will see for my self how well the did. Wish me luck.

Sorry Man, I am not an engineer either so I may be wrong but I do know that there are some very simple lenses out there that cover the wide to normal ranges. If you look in alt forums at the little pancake Zuiko 21mm f3.5 it has amazing full-frame corner to corner IQ in a tiny/ simple package, I was also thinking that all 50mm primes are some of the smallest, simplest and sharpest lenses in most line ups and for decades the 50 (or 55) was the only lens you got and they only had like 5 or 6 elements. Telephoto lenses have always been more of a specialty lens, they are huge with lots of glass and other expensive materials. Same reason why a 600L prime is much more expensive than a 24L so I was thinking the opposite:

If you can go to mars why not the moon?

I truly hope that some forum member's hypothesis of larger-than-normal sample variation is true and some of the early reviewers just got their hands on imperfectly calibrated lenses. An f2.8 standard zoom would be perfect with the 5D3's high ISO performance, I would almost never need a flash again.

Good Luck with your lens and please let us know how the boarders are at 70mm. :D


My Humble Gear List
I shutter to think how many people are underexposed and lacking depth in this field.Rick Steves

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,104 views & 0 likes for this thread
So what is the verdict for the 24-70 II?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is jovenbiinz
340 guests, 368 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.