Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

Tommydigi wrote in post #14982457
Yep, most just talk about background blur and overlook this.

Also I would guess the prime might be more distortion-corrected than the 24-70 II at 24mm. Keep your 1.4 and go ahead get the 24-70 II and use it as a 25-70 lens.

I've used my 24-70L mkI for loads of landscapes. It's an excellent performer and it's just so versatile, although I think the 24-105L is a slightly better suited lens for landscape work. It's a bit more versatile and stopped down, all of it's IQ issues at 24mm are resolved.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #14982693
I've used my 24-70L mkI for loads of landscapes. It's an excellent performer and it's just so versatile, although I think the 24-105L is a slightly better suited lens for landscape work. It's a bit more versatile and stopped down, all of it's IQ issues at 24mm are resolved.

Except the distortion...I probably lost 1/3rd of my image after making the necessary adjustments in Photoshop. I'll post an example shortly.

Pre-distortion correction

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/mmannetti21/7​974796097/

I'm interested in this lens -- but not very impressed with what I am seeing so far. Not seeing anything much sharper than what I get with my 50 1.8!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/48388​85538/

mannetti21 wrote in post #14983016
Except the distortion...I probably lost 1/3rd of my image after making the necessary adjustments in Photoshop. I'll post an example shortly.

Pre-distortion correction

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

Post-correction

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/mmannetti21/7​974796097/
First Church of Christ est. 1652 - Farmington, CT by mmannetti21, on Flickr

The reason you lost so much of your image is due to perspective distortion, caused by the focal plane angle. This in not a issue with the lens

YankeeMom wrote in post #14983046
I'm interested in this lens -- but not very impressed with what I am seeing so far. Not seeing anything much sharper than what I get with my 50 1.8!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/48388​85538/
100% crop by Kristin Small Photography, on Flickr

How does your 50mm 1.8 perform at 24mm, 35mm, and 70mm?

DamianOz wrote in post #14983058
The reason you lost so much of your image is due to perspective distortion, caused by the focal plane angle. This in not a issue with the lens

touché sir, touché

ChrisGorabPhotography wrote in post #14983187
How does your 50mm 1.8 perform at 24mm, 35mm, and 70mm?

I'll take a few steps and let you know, but it looks sharper to me.

ChrisGorabPhotography wrote in post #14983187
How does your 50mm 1.8 perform at 24mm, 35mm, and 70mm?

And how does the 24-70 look at f/1.8?

Can go both ways...

Invertalon wrote in post #14983343
And how does the 24-70 look at f/1.8?

Can go both ways...

Good point!

I, actually, don't use the 1.8 anymore -- maybe I should dig it out.

Canons 50/1.8 is a very very sharp lens. It has its bad points but sharpness isnt one of them.

RobDickinson wrote in post #14983779
Canons 50/1.8 is a very very sharp lens. It has its bad points but sharpness isnt one of them.

Yes -- and, ultimately, isn't that the most important thing? Isn't that what pretty much every photographer is on the quest for?

(For crying out loud, that was taken on my old XS, too.)

"There's nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy idea" A.A.

Sharpness is only one measure of a lens, one that seems to get the most press because its the most obvious.

Excellent ^

YankeeMom wrote in post #14983046
I'm interested in this lens -- but not very impressed with what I am seeing so far. Not seeing anything much sharper than what I get with my 50 1.8!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/48388​85538/
100% crop by Kristin Small Photography, on Flickr

ChrisGorabPhotography wrote in post #14983187
How does your 50mm 1.8 perform at 24mm, 35mm, and 70mm?

Well, it is a choice we have to make.
I know a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II can beat my 135L at f/2.8 (and it can produce similar results at other focal lengths too), but it cannot do this at f/2.0. But still, it is an easier replacement. At 200mm even an f/4 zoom can produce enough bokeh (or too shallow DOF at times), but wider focal lengths allow us to go wider with the aperture without loosing too much depth of field while shooting people in a low lit room. So, this lens does have to beat my 50mm f/ 1.4 and a potential 35mm f/1.4, otherwise I have my 24-105mm f/4 anyway. Confusing? but that's how it is. Going by the initial reviews, this lens does seem to have the potential to replace many lenses for me, but I will wait for more pictures in this thread.