24-70 f2.8 MK2...VERY DISAPPOINTED.

Today I visited Focus on imaging (big trade show in the UK) Canon had a huge stand there as usual and a CPS lounge for us members.

On having a coffee in the CPS lounge there was a few cameras and lenses to have a play with (1DX's, 5D3's, 35L's, 24-70 MK2 L's etc) the 24-70 f2.8 MK2 took my fancy especially as it was on offer at the show for £1490.00 and has been in my thoughts about replacing my 24-105 as a standard lens.
After having a play with it getting exposure correct I was quite surprised to see it looked quite soft and lacking contrast at f2.8 unlike my 70-200 2.8 mk2 that on the same camera looked tack sharp, cut a long story short I tried 5 different copies at the show and none of them gave the "WOW I need to buy this lens feeling" the Canon staff also said the lenses and cameras are checked for front/back focus before they go on show so will be correct, I was then told "if you buy this lens perhaps send it to us with your body and well set it up for you" not sure what I thought about that really...what I did try and thought this is what I'm getting is a 35L...now that is nice.

So for me the 24-70 f2.8 MK2 isnt happening and I left quite disappointed about it.

"soft and lacking contrast" is exactly how I would describe the lighting of the typical trade show floor.

tkbslc wrote in post #15684955
"soft and lacking contrast" is exactly how I would describe the lighting of the typical trade show floor.

Sorry, explain to me how tungsten lighting can make a image soft???

Side by side with 2 5D3's 1 with a 24-70 f2.8 MK2 and the other with a 35L both set at 2.8 with with same exposures, same subject/distance the 35L was so much sharper with much much better contrast,
I did expect the 35L to be slightly better but not that much difference..the annoying thing is I really wanted to like the 24-70 f2.8 MK2 as I had the money and it was at a very good price for this lens...maybe I looked at 5 duff copies but at the end of the day I kept my ££££ in the pocket as I couldn't justify this much money for the quality I was looking at.

IMO, you probably didnt have enough time to play with it. Could be a micro adjust issue, or unfamiliar gear, and/or noisy images.

murkeywaters wrote in post #15684988
Sorry, explain to me how tungsten lighting can make a image soft???
.

low contrast lighting makes low contrast images.

Charlie wrote in post #15685006
IMO, you probably didnt have enough time to play with it. Could be a micro adjust issue, or unfamiliar gear, and/or noisy images.

Well I thought the same thing but I use the 5D3 day in day out so I know a sharp image when I see one on this camera body, even a CPS tech agreed it didn't look really sharp and couldn't explain it and that was using 2 different 24-70 MK2's

tkbslc wrote in post #15685009
low contrast lighting makes low contrast images.

Well the 35L contrast was great in the same conditions, I agree its not the best environment to try out a lens but even so I was expecting better from this lens.

I am surprised to hear that, because from what I have read, its Canon's second third best zoom lens behind the two 70-200s. Obviously a wide angle lens comes with its own downsides, vignetting being one but this is still surprising.

Although I can't make much out of the image thread, it seems to be filled with stub nose pets, babies and spouses. LOL I guess that's what its most popular for.

murkeywaters wrote in post #15684912
Today I visited Focus on imaging (big trade show in the UK) Canon had a huge stand there as usual and a CPS lounge for us members.

On having a coffee in the CPS lounge there was a few cameras and lenses to have a play with (1DX's, 5D3's, 35L's, 24-70 MK2 L's etc) the 24-70 f2.8 MK2 took my fancy especially as it was on offer at the show for £1490.00 and has been in my thoughts about replacing my 24-105 as a standard lens.
After having a play with it getting exposure correct I was quite surprised to see it looked quite soft and lacking contrast at f2.8 unlike my 70-200 2.8 mk2 that on the same camera looked tack sharp, cut a long story short I tried 5 different copies at the show and none of them gave the "WOW I need to buy this lens feeling" the Canon staff also said the lenses and cameras are checked for front/back focus before they go on show so will be correct, I was then told "if you buy this lens perhaps send it to us with your body and well set it up for you" not sure what I thought about that really...what I did try and thought this is what I'm getting is a 35L...now that is nice.

So for me the 24-70 f2.8 MK2 isnt happening and I left quite disappointed about it.

your brief trade-show "experience" is more credible than all the reviews i've read and my own experience in the six months i've owned the lens. hey it's POTN afterall !

murkeywaters wrote in post #15684988
Side by side with 2 5D3's 1 with a 24-70 f2.8 MK2 and the other with a 35L both set at 2.8 with with same exposures, same subject/distance the 35L was so much sharper with much much better contrast,
I did expect the 35L to be slightly better but not that much difference..the annoying thing is I really wanted to like the 24-70 f2.8 MK2 as I had the money and it was at a very good price for this lens...maybe I looked at 5 duff copies but at the end of the day I kept my ££££ in the pocket as I couldn't justify this much money for the quality I was looking at.

When I compare my 24-70 to my 70-200/2.8L IS II, 35L, and 24-105, I can easily generate pictures where it looks like the 24-70 isn't worth its huge price difference. But, shooting them for a while --- especially making sure I got my hand holding skills working correctly --- I can see the worth of the 24-70 as my main standard zoom. Especially in more interesting lighting conditions where the newer optical coatings come into play.

I personally think the 24-70/2.8L II is a great zoom lens, but, not worth the price for a lot of photographers. If the 24-70/4L IS was out when I bought my 24-70/2.8L II, I might have bought it instead.

I recommend renting a 24-70 and use it for a few days before making the decision.

Having owned both the 35L, 24-70 II, 70-200 II for an extended period of time, I can say that all three lenses are excellent. It is the photographer holding them that makes a difference.

ed rader wrote in post #15685110
your brief trade-show "experience" is more credible than all the reviews i've read and my own experience in the six months i've owned the lens. hey it's POTN afterall !

I never said my thoughts on the lens are more credible than the glowing reviews on the various forums/blogs and I wouldn't have stated my thoughts on it based on 1 lens but after trying out 5 different lenses I was disappointed as I genuinely would like to have purchased that lens today.
I will try it out again and not give up on it as I'm more inclined to believe the great reviews but you have to trust your own eyes, especially when you take and edit thousands of images every week and know your equipment inside out.

How dare you have an opinion....

Did you come to this conclusion by taking snap shots of the tradeshow booth area and zooming all the way in on the rear LCD jpg preview?

My 24-70 II is every bit as sharp as my 70-200 2.8 II. With that said, the 35L was a major dissapointment for me, and I sold it, but it may just have been a bad copy.

You just have to get that lens into real world situations, not a trade show floor, and bring the results back to a computer. It's a great lens but it may not be "$2,000 great."

Hey bud,

It could be a number of things to be honest - I appreciate you used both the 35L and the 24-70 II back to back, perhaps you're simply not used to the feel of the lens, some lenses do that to you, you have to get used to holding them and performing with them and everybody is different. I had the opposite result when comparing exactly those lenses, with the 35L also showing a lot more Chromatic aberration and I found the 24L II which I had at the time as well to be the same maybe a tad better than the 24-70 II. Did anything else catch your eye up there?