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

pstyle1 wrote in post #15685197
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.

Yes I set the 5D3's up to zoom at 100% of the focus point and images were on large Jpeg so would have had some processing/sharpening applied in camera.
Again it's my opinion of 5 lenses I tried, its not ideal conditions but the 35L handled it just great.
Oh my friend who was with me had the same opinion and was expecting better which just backed me up not purchasing it today, maybe next time!!

Jermainek wrote in post #15685227
Did anything else catch your eye up there?

Yes, loads of good stuff, not much good to me being a wedding photographer but had a play with a 200-400 on a 1DX in the CPS lounge....that was very nice, 6D looks a good little body too.
Thing is I'm not a newbie to photography as I have earned my living through taking pictures on Canon equipment for the last 4 years and I shoot in every type of lighting you can imagine and for these reasons and after spending a hour+ swapping and comparing I felt the 24-70 didn't match up to the cost today so I didn't buy, hopefully my opinion will change when I another chance to try it out.

Hey, pstyle1, I see you have the 85/1.8 - - could you comment on the fast AF comparison between those two??

I'd like to use the 24-70 for baseline basketball (poor light, max 6400 ISO) shots.

I love my 85, but sometimes I'd like a bit more FOV flexibility with a zoom.

bubbygator wrote in post #15685327
Hey, pstyle1, I see you have the 85/1.8 - - could you comment on the fast AF comparison between those two??

I'd like to use the 24-70 for baseline basketball (poor light, max 6400 ISO) shots.

I love my 85, but sometimes I'd like a bit more FOV flexibility with a zoom.

The two would be very similar in AF speed. The 24-70mm would benefit from more depth of field though, making it easier to achieve relative focus.

Thanks, Staszek - - I'm not sure that I want more DOF, though. The action isolates better with a bit of blur in the background.

I took a quick look at about 6 pages worth of the photo thread, and only saw one action shot (in B&W).

Don't feel bad ,, I've known a few guys that have come to the same conclusion and they had the lens for a couple of weeks,, I personally think the 35l and 70-200 is a hard to beat combo,, good call,,, don't be a sheep ,, go with your gut and eyes,,good for you

I think you really have to view the images on a computer to appreciate the sharpness of the 24-70 II. It's more uniformly sharp than any prime I've ever used.

That said, I get what you're saying about the lack of contrast though. I don't own the 35L anymore, but I have been on shoots where I swapped back and forth between the 24-70ii and the 85L and 50L. Straight out of the camera, these two primes have noticeably more color depth and micro contrast than the 24-70ii. The 24-70ii is comparatively flat and washed out. I've sung a lot of praise for the 24-70ii, but it hasn't replaced my primes in that regard. Not that the 24-70ii is bad. It's fantastic, and probably canons best zoom. It's just that the canon L primes are THAT good.

Compared to the 70-200 though....I'd say they're even from an IQ standpoint. The 70-200 is a direct extension of the 24-70 ii (and vice versa).

The 24-70 II maybe sharper than the mark I a little bit, but after all it is still a f/2.8 lens, therefore, it can not be compared to the 35L at f/2.8 (which is sharp already at f/1.4 and only get better with smaller f stops).
It also can not be compared to the 70-200 IS ii because lacking IS and different focal lengths, therefore, does not give a wow factor bokeh.
Maybe when the 24-70 ii price goes down to $1500 - 1600 brand new, many people will like it more, but as of right now I don't think it is worth its price, either.

murkeywaters wrote in post #15685312
Yes, loads of good stuff, not much good to me being a wedding photographer but had a play with a 200-400 on a 1DX in the CPS lounge....that was very nice, 6D looks a good little body too.
Thing is I'm not a newbie to photography as I have earned my living through taking pictures on Canon equipment for the last 4 years and I shoot in every type of lighting you can imagine and for these reasons and after spending a hour+ swapping and comparing I felt the 24-70 didn't match up to the cost today so I didn't buy, hopefully my opinion will change when I another chance to try it out.

Mmmmm my dream combination - that lens would complete my zoom trinity and the 1DX would satisfy my camera body lust! How did the big lens feel, heavy?

Well if it didn't feel right for you or it isn't worth the cost, again for you, then that's what you have to go by - there is validity in most of the comments so far, i.e. comparing a zoom to a wider aperture prime (although I wouldn't expect the zoom to be "soft", maybe softer in comparison) and even on the other camp to some people i.e. not worth the high cost right now, I guess only you can decide. For what it's worth, I personally took all of those factors into consideration and decided that the flexibility of the zoom and the fact that it was sharper than my original 24-70 outweighed the overall sharpness & wider aperture advantage of both my 24 & 35 primes, you might well end up thinking differently.

What was the shutter speed you used for the 2 lenses? I imagine the lighting of a trade show isn't that great.

The OP's brief experience doesn't reflect what I have seen with my 24-70 II. I would say it is among my sharpest lenses. You really need to look at RAW images in the computer to appreciate its IQ. I can tell if an image is in focus using 100% view on the LCD, but I certainly wouldn't use that approach to make any serious conclusions about IQ.

This tells me more about the OP than it tells me about the lens.

bubbygator wrote in post #15685464
Thanks, Staszek - - I'm not sure that I want more DOF, though. The action isolates better with a bit of blur in the background.

I took a quick look at about 6 pages worth of the photo thread, and only saw one action shot (in B&W).

Are you shooting on full frame or a crop sensor? Your golden ticket may be a 50mm. For most of my basketball assignments, I use the 70-200mm to blow out the background. Feet don't add much for publication use.

Let me pull up some of my under the hoop basketball with my 24-70mm. Hang on just a bit.

If the OP thinks the 24-70ii doesn't compare in the same league to his 70-200ii in terms of sharpness and contrast, then something is not at all right. Both these lens are super sharp. Perhaps the camera he used needed some MA and the 35mm happens to pair with that camera better.

Latest review:
http://www.dpreview.co​m …-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm

kasey wrote in post #15685670
What was the shutter speed you used for the 2 lenses? I imagine the lighting of a trade show isn't that great.

I used 1/160 @1600iso which I know on a 5D3 will give very clean images even at 100% of the focus point, again the 35L coped with this just as I would expect and produced images as expected

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #15685883
This tells me more about the OP than it tells me about the lens.

Ditto, this also tells me a lot about you...sorry if I have rained on your parade and god forbid mentioned a critical word of the amazing 24-70 f2.8 MK2.
My assumption on the day was the lens wasn't what I was expecting so I didn't buy it...would you have bought it if you came to the same conclusion or do you just buy on positive reviews.
If you have something constructive to say like the other posters great, if not what's the point in typing and wasting your time??