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 24 Apr 2014 (Thursday) 10:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM - am I expecting to much from this lens?

 
xrayhead
Member
Avatar
186 posts
Joined Sep 2005
     
Apr 24, 2014 10:17 |  #1

Hi All

Bit of a dilemma ATM, just got the new 24-70mm f/2.8L ii a couple of weeks ago and I've been doing some testing with it up against my MKi. So far I'm yet to see any significant difference and if anything the MKii isn't as good the the smaller apertures!

At around f4 to f11 the MKii has a very, very slight advantage in the sharpness but it's minimal. When I first got the lens it was front focusing so I sorted that out with some AF Micro Adjustment but after the latest batch of testing I'm not seeing any reason to sell on my MKi.

Has anyone else had any similar issues or had to take the lens back for a replacement?

I can post some 100% crops or example images to Flckr if that helps?

Xray


Gear List
Flickr (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
xrayhead
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
186 posts
Joined Sep 2005
     
Apr 24, 2014 10:37 |  #2

Ok I've prepared some reference files if anyone is interested in taking a look.

It would be good to also get some feedback from anyone else who has upgraded from the MK1 lens!

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7249/13992998051_7020594134.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/njvL​P6  (external link) refrence 3 - MK2 at f4 (1 of 1) (external link) by xray-dev (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5522/13996177105_f35b93681f.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/njN4​Qn  (external link) refrence 3 - MK1 at f4 (1 of 1) (external link) by xray-dev (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2935/13992999271_80c6f4e92e.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/njvM​b8  (external link) refrence 2 - MK2 at f11 (1 of 1) (external link) by xray-dev (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2901/13996178745_afe03054c4.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/njN5​jD  (external link) refrence 2 - MK1 at f11 (1 of 1) (external link) by xray-dev (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2901/13993000401_00209c6aec.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/njvM​vB  (external link) refrence 1 - MK2 at f4 (1 of 1) (external link) by xray-dev (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5233/13996180085_cfec30c8ca.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/njN5​HK  (external link) refrence 1 - MK1 at f4 (1 of 1) (external link) by xray-dev (external link), on Flickr

If anyone wants a link to ~DROP BOX let me know and I'll upload the full size images.

Looking at them now on the web there is a clear difference to be seen, but still not 100% convinced :confused:

Xray

Gear List
Flickr (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WhyFi
Goldmember
Avatar
2,766 posts
Gallery: 237 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 804
Joined Apr 2008
Location: I got a castle in Brooklyn, that's where I dwell.
     
Apr 24, 2014 10:48 |  #3

Just upload the full res to flickr - even the free accounts have a full TB of storage and access to the original size, now.

As far as the differences... don't know what to say other than that yours is the only opinion that matters. Your MkI photos look pretty nice to me and I don't think that I'd be able to justify $1k on the difference, but again, it's your photos, your lens and your money.


Bill is my name - I'm the most wanted man on my island, except I'm not on my island, of course. More's the pity.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
VirtualRain
Senior Member
Avatar
541 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 13
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 24, 2014 10:49 |  #4

I don't think you'll see any difference at web sizes. You'll need to compare 100% crops.


Sony a7rII / 24-240 / Zeiss 25, 55, 85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
Apr 24, 2014 10:54 |  #5

What your not $2,300 impressed? Honesty there are so many variables your dealing with its hard to say. Are these handheld? Raw? caffeine intake? You might want to do more controlled tests and see whats up. Stopped down the difference is probably minimal. What about at 2.8?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xrayhead
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
186 posts
Joined Sep 2005
     
Apr 24, 2014 10:55 |  #6

WhyFi wrote in post #16858066 (external link)
Just upload the full res to flickr - even the free accounts have a full TB of storage and access to the original size, now.

As far as the differences... don't know what to say other than that yours is the only opinion that matters. Your MkI photos look pretty nice to me and I don't think that I'd be able to justify $1k on the difference, but again, it's your photos, your lens and your money.

This is what I'm thinking, my MK1 sells for around £800 and the MK2 weighed in at £1590 so a big difference.


Gear List
Flickr (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xrayhead
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
186 posts
Joined Sep 2005
     
Apr 24, 2014 11:03 |  #7

Kronie wrote in post #16858097 (external link)
What your not $2,300 impressed? Honesty there are so many variables your dealing with its hard to say. Are these handheld? Raw? caffeine intake? You might want to do more controlled tests and see whats up. Stopped down the difference is probably minimal. What about at 2.8?

All on a tripod with remote release, I have some at 2.8 (full size)..

I know I'm being picky, just trying to justify this lens :confused:

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7411/13996945364_10a668e787.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/njS1​dd  (external link) refrence 4 - MK2 at f2.8 (1 of 1) (external link) by xray-dev (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5013/14016504273_0291feb590.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nmAf​oM  (external link) refrence 4 - MK1 at f2.8 (1 of 1) (external link) by xray-dev (external link), on Flickr

Gear List
Flickr (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,579 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 352
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Apr 24, 2014 11:40 |  #8

If you are going to see any difference, it will be at the corners at f2.8.

The Brick did not automatically become a bad lens when the MarkII came out...

Your castle photos at f4 will do nothing as far as differences are concerned. The corners are probablu OOF if you focused on the castle.

You need to shoot something, flat, parallel to your sensor, with a lot of detail. Like a weathered brick or stone wall...

That may also show any excessive distortion...

To be pefectly honest with you, if you werfe happy with the Brick, you will not see a lot of difference. There is also copy variation to consider...


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xrayhead
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
186 posts
Joined Sep 2005
     
Apr 24, 2014 12:08 |  #9

MakisM1 wrote in post #16858225 (external link)
If you are going to see any difference, it will be at the corners at f2.8.

The Brick did not automatically become a bad lens when the MarkII came out...

Your castle photos at f4 will do nothing as far as differences are concerned. The corners are probablu OOF if you focused on the castle.

You need to shoot something, flat, parallel to your sensor, with a lot of detail. Like a weathered brick or stone wall...

That may also show any excessive distortion...

To be pefectly honest with you, if you werfe happy with the Brick, you will not see a lot of difference. There is also copy variation to consider...

Thanks for the input, as they say "a problem shared is a problem halved" :)

Don't think I knew how happy I was with my MK1 till now..


Gear List
Flickr (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2011
     
Apr 24, 2014 12:11 |  #10

I see better detail sharpness in the Mk II shots, even in your web sized versions. That would be enough for me right there. But I've had two copies of the 24-70 Mk I and I was never impressed with it. Both copies seemed rather off on the focus.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tntadroit
Junior Member
21 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Oct 2013
     
Apr 24, 2014 12:57 |  #11

To me, from your photos, the II has better contrast, better detail (sharper) and better saturation. Look at the clouds. Look at the trees.

The II seems like it was shot with a polarizer and still sharper. It may not be worth the extra $$$ but imagine if you shoot 30,000 photos and needing to correct even half of them to make it like the II, I would say, it's worth it for me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xrayhead
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
186 posts
Joined Sep 2005
     
Apr 24, 2014 13:15 as a reply to  @ tntadroit's post |  #12

Thanks for all the comments, really helps with everyones different spin on things. I must say I just did an export in LR with some of my favourite settings and the result is pretty dam good :-)


IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5295/13997848725_7b7f4cec74_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/njWC​Kp  (external link) Caldicot Church (external link) by xray-dev (external link), on Flickr

Gear List
Flickr (external link)
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
14,832 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 8135
Joined Oct 2009
     
Apr 24, 2014 13:25 |  #13

You won't see a significant difference. All subtle in the areas mentioned in the responses. So you need to weigh the following - is the subtle difference worth the cash to get it. Some people are willing to spend the money and others won't come close to it, for that subtle difference. There are several threads on this and it really comes down to a personal choice. If are happy with the 24-70 V1 and don't think V2 is worth it then just return it.


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
14,832 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 8135
Joined Oct 2009
     
Apr 24, 2014 13:26 |  #14

xrayhead wrote in post #16858453 (external link)
Thanks for all the comments, really helps with everyones different spin on things. I must say I just did an export in LR with some of my favourite settings and the result is pretty dam good :-)


QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/njWC​Kp  (external link) Caldicot Church (external link) by xray-dev (external link), on Flickr

The corners really make a huge difference with the 24-70II.


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,113 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6182
Joined Sep 2007
     
Apr 24, 2014 13:33 |  #15

the problem is that your testing @ F4-11, where differences will be minor. If that's you're normal shooting habits, then you may be better off with a slower 24-105.

If you like having a fast zoom, then test it wide open, that's where the differences are.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

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

4,466 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM - am I expecting to much from this lens?
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 Ckort66
838 guests, 312 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.