Is this guy full of it? (24-70 shootout)

A friend (a videographer, not a photographer) shared this video with me.

http://youtu.be/xat-cF1Aess

Maybe it's my friend's rather rough edged agreement with the video, or the fact
that the host in the video clubs a 24-70 f/2.8L lens at the end of it (@#$%^#$!!!!), but it's really rubbing me the wrong way.

The L may be overpriced, but isn't the f/2.8 all the way through, and the sharpness worth something?
The video showed one scenario where the lenses might be closer in similarity, but in a real world setting (and lighting) wouldn't
it make a bigger difference in quality?
I do video and photo, and for video I kinda like fast lenses for the shallow DOF, hence I'd prefer the L-series lens.
Counting the used values, is the L-series still such a sub-par deal like this video suggests?

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just a noob at this.
You guys are the experts....what say ye?

It's a fair call, for the price the 24-70 should have IS.

I think he was overselling the IS feature, yes. And he did not do comparisons with the various lenses stopped down. That would have differentiated IQ among them much more substantially.

All that said, I much prefer the improved optical quality and IS feature of my EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS, for a 7D, over that of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (original) on a 1Ds Mark II. I do understand, and to your point, the sharpness on the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is much improved. But I find it just too heavy for work-a-day use.

I think though, he did not really test the maximum sharpness of any of the lenses present, because he didn't examine other apertures. And in that sense, the maximum value out of the Canon was not even demonstrated; but so too the relative weight of the others was not likewise under test.

He makes a point. The Canon is the most expensive of them all. The Canon does not have IS. For the price, many folks want it all.

That being said, I've stated it before, IS would be nice to have, but not a necessity for me at this range. Had Canon released the new 70-200 2.8 without IS, I probably would have stuck with the version 1, but here, I would rather have the sharp corner to corner image than IS. It's a compromise, but so is much of photography gear.

Holy bokeh batman, the Tamron is down to 960$ here in Japan..! For that price it's hard to refuse.

This is inevitbly going to turn into an IS vs no IS debate.....

My take is that it depends on what your priorities are. If you have an absolute need for IS (ie videographers), then the lack of IS in the Canon is pretty detrimental, as it can be the difference between making and missing shots.

For those who want uncompromised image quality, the resolution tests don't lie:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=3

When you also factor things like color rendition and minimal CA, the 24-70 MKII is easily the best medium length zoom in the market. ( Heck, I'd say that optically, its one of the best Canon lenses out there...period.) Take price and the lack of IS out of the equation, and I don't think anyone can objectively deny that.

The cost is subjective. It's extremely expensive to someone who just enjoys photography as a hobby, but not to some who will recoup the costs using the lens. Also, I found the value of IS when I was doing street photography and landscapes in the city in dusk/early evening conditions. All the sharpness in the world won't do a thing when you're trying to balance aperture and ISO to avoid having to use a 0"3 shutter speed with no tripod present (and it would have been impractical even if present). Sometimes you do get a period of lighting where shutter speeds go well under hand holdable and that's when IS is nice.

I can agree with the guy to an extent, but I also understand the crticisms of IS from people who don't do what I do.

it comes down to your priorities. No doubt the 24-70mk2 is the sharpest, but truthfully, I was happy with the sharpness of the 24-70mk1. Tamron improved on the the 24-70mk1 and added VC.... Optically I thought the tamron was excellent, and mk2 super optics. At some point, VC/IS is more important than overall sharpness IMO... I've been picking up on video, and cant do without VC at this point.

sometimes you need more light, more DOF, to create blur, or to shoot without worrying about some silly 1/FL or 1/2FL rule.... that's where VC saves the day.

Good video.... Till the end when he started smashing lenses... I big over board if you ask me.

I don't have a problem with him smashing lens cups (you can quite easily see them roll away in the distance, with just a cap popped off).

Review wise, at least he showed them side by side, and you can quite clearly see the Canon is sharper, and the Tamron has VC.

I normally make these decisions by myself, without the need for YouTube guys to give me all the info, but if I was a 40-something business man having a mid life crisis and had just bought a 5D3, I could see videos like this being useful.

Yeah...the end pissed me off--if he really did smash an L series lens.
I would have gladly taken that lens off his hands and let him smash my 17-85 instead! (Not that the 17-85 is bad, but just sayin'.)

Perhaps a better counter argument is the 24-105L?
It's probably not as sharp as the 24-70, but used the 24-105s are about $700, they've got a great zoom range, and IS to boot.
Is that a trump card to this comparison?

mystik610 wrote in post #15627067
When you also factor things like color rendition and minimal CA, the 24-70 MKII is easily the best medium length zoom in the market. ( Heck, I'd say that optically, its one of the best Canon lenses out there...period.) Take price and the lack of IS out of the equation, and I don't think anyone can objectively deny that.

This fact is hard for some to swallow. Isn't it? The 24-70 f2.8 Mk II and the 70-200 f2.8 Mk II is a tough combo to beat in anybodies book.

ebiggs wrote in post #15628123
This fact is hard for some to swallow. Isn't it? The 24-70 f2.8 Mk II and the 70-200 f2.8 Mk II is a tough combo to beat in anybodies book.

If I didnt have the canon 70-200 IS2, id have gone medium format by now...

answer = Yes he is full of it.

bob

MrWho wrote in post #15627087
The cost is subjective....

Actually, the cost is the only OBJECTIVE thing in this whole thread!