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

DarthMTS47 wrote in post #15064506
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

Have you had a chance to test it outside vs the 35L in regards to CA? I love the 35 but the purple fringing just gets to me outdoors.

DarthMTS47 wrote in post #15064506
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

Glad to hear this. For the price though, I'm going to have to see this lens in person before issuing a verdict.

dadgummit wrote in post #15064809
Have you had a chance to test it outside vs the 35L in regards to CA? I love the 35 but the purple fringing just gets to me outdoors.

My test shots were outside. I'll have to see if I kept them and check for fringing. I don't recall seeing any with the 24-70, but I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it without double-checking first.

-Mike

Just gonna follow.

After reading all of this. And going over to lensRentals. Found a link here http://www.markcareyph​otography.com …0mm-f2-8-ii-usm-l-review/
For someone like me the cost is ^^^^ for backyard, Grand kids,and what ever i think would be a ok shot.Makes me want to save up to get one.

Well I got my 24-70mm f/2.8L II today and trying desperately to find time to work it out to see
A) If it has no issues
B) How much better than the 24-105mm f/4L IS is it
C) Will I be able to lighten my prime collection

I've had two Mk I 24-70L that I sold in anticipation of getting this lens so I can't do a head-to-head with those.

The first dozen shots compared to the 24-105L have not blown me away yet but it's too early to tell.
I'm looking for some advice on the best way to make this comparison. I'll do some tripod assisted comparisons for IQ but AF accuracy, speed, and my ability to get a tack sharp image without a tripod is critical to my usage model.

Please lend a hand and recommend some methodology for this comparison. Thanks.

Well the only thing I can say is take a shot @ 24 wide open with both lenses where there is a lot of detail on the other edges. You shall see.

Here is my verdict compared to the 24-105:

Its cost is kind of hard to swallow but I am keeping it and selling my 24-105. It produces the same colors and slightly sharper results than the 24-105, much better corners and slightly more contrast. Less flare and CA as the 24-105. It auto focuses faster and more accurately. Basically the same weight and size. BUT it has 2.8 which I think I would rather see at this point than an F/4 lens. I will miss the 71-105mm...

I owned and never liked the MKI. Too heavy, didn't like the reverse zoom and it wasn't any better than my 24-105 while pixel peeping.(which I dont do much of)

I can say the 24-70 is better in every way than the 24-105. Except for price and the 71-105mm. I see limited supply for the time being so Canon can keep the too high price tag as long as possible. If you can wait six months you will probably save a few hundred dollars.

Kronie wrote in post #15074151
I can say the 24-70 is better in every way than the 24-105. Except for price and the 71-105mm.

...and the lack of IS....and the odd filter size...and the massive lens hood

ZachOly wrote in post #15074386
...and the lack of IS....and the odd filter size...and the massive lens hood

You really dont need IS under 50mm with a 2.8 and the lens hood is smaller than the 24-105. 82mm filters? Well that did kind of suck... you got me there.....but I bought a 9 stop ND and a UV, both Hoya and with a step ring I can use them on my other 77mm lenses.

swldstn wrote in post #15067727
Well I got my 24-70mm f/2.8L II today and trying desperately to find time to work it out to see
A) If it has no issues
B) How much better than the 24-105mm f/4L IS is it
C) Will I be able to lighten my prime collection

I've had two Mk I 24-70L that I sold in anticipation of getting this lens so I can't do a head-to-head with those.

The first dozen shots compared to the 24-105L have not blown me away yet but it's too early to tell.
I'm looking for some advice on the best way to make this comparison. I'll do some tripod assisted comparisons for IQ but AF accuracy, speed, and my ability to get a tack sharp image without a tripod is critical to my usage model.

Please lend a hand and recommend some methodology for this comparison. Thanks.

This may sound like a strange test but I have found that if you take a picture of a person and zoom in on their hair (100%) the differences in contrast really stand out. In my opinion contrast and far borders/ corners are the only weakness of the 24-105.

Also if you do not have a model willing to sit patiently while you switch lenses a teddy bear works too.

ZachOly wrote in post #15074386
...and the lack of IS....and the odd filter size...and the massive lens hood

Filter size never bothers me. If a lens is really better, I will gladly buy a new filter. I don't want my existing filter to dictate which lens I buy. Likewise, I don't want a manufacturer to make a worse lens because they have to match a filter size.

I was lucky. A few years ago I rented the Zeiss 21 and purchased a B+W polarizer which I put away for a rainy day. Hit was not so big when I purchased the 24-70.

I've still not had a chance to run any target tests, but I have shot "real" photos and for what its worth have reached a provisional conclusion:

The mark 2 24-70L is better than the mark 1. It is not as much of a step forward as the differences between the mk1 and 2 70-200L, where the mark 2 was staggeringly better.

It would appear that there is less sample variation, simply because if anyone had found a poor copy we would all have heard about it!

Zlatko Batistich wrote in post #15074488
Filter size never bothers me. If a lens is really better, I will gladly buy a new filter. I don't want my existing filter to dictate which lens I buy. Likewise, I don't want a manufacturer to make a worse lens because they have to match a filter size.

Yup^^

I very rarely use filters anyway except ND filters but Lee adapters are pretty innexpensive. I have the 82mm WA adapter already for the Zeiss 21 so it is a non-issue.