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

I picked one up a week or so ago and must admit I haven't been blown away by it in the same way I was the 70-200 is II. I haven't had much of a chance to give it a good go yet and it's been pouring down raining here for four weeks.

I also think being accustomed to the great quality shots produced by the 70-200 has reduced the initial wow factor that the 24-70 may have given had I not been shooting the big brother first.

According to the very glowing lens test that DPReview posted yesterday the lens does suffer from low contrast when shot wide open at 24mm.
Its not a perfect lens by any means.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #15686659
Ok. Im not going to disagree with what your eyes saw, but how do you explain all the glowing professional reviews, and the huge amount of people praising this lens?
Would you say your eyes are more critical? Could it possibly the situation you were shooting in?
Id just like to know your thoughts on how a very highly praised lens can actually produce poor enough results to put a pro off from buying it.

Again. no offence or criticism meant, im just asking.

No worries and no offence taken, well that's the thing I have read the reviews and trolled though the 24-70 MK2 lens thread on here and had high hopes for it - probably too high maybe, yes I have very critical eyes but that is probably because I spend most of my life shooting and editing pictures all from Canon L lenses, recently I started a thread about about my 70-200 mk2 and 5D3 getting soft after use on about 50 weddings, CPS said send it back as it will need a service by now, when it returned I was blown away by the images as the camera and lens had been set up together so maybe this is what would be needed if I purchased a 24-70 f2.8 MK2.
What done it for me was trying out 5 different copies and they all looked the same + the CPS tech agreeing that the images should be sharper even though he also shot a few frames.
Perhaps it was because I was shooting at f2.8 that the contrast dropped so knocked the edge off the sharpness, for me I would be using this lens at F2.8 a lot so would need to perform at this aperture.

Thanks for the reply. I went and edited my post to add the bit about low contrast and must have messed things up as i deleted most of it so glad you saw it.

Did you check the picture style? maybe someone had messed around with that. Just a thought.

Im surprised the CPS guys didnt want to do anything about the softness.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #15686694
Thanks for the reply. I went and edited my post to add the bit about low contrast and must have messed things up as i deleted most of it so glad you saw it.

Did you check the picture style? maybe someone had messed around with that. Just a thought.

Im surprised the CPS guys didnt want to do anything about the softness.

All cameras were set up in standard picture style as I like to shoot, CPS guy couldn't really do anything as they never had any tools there.

My 24-70 is just like my 70-200 in sharpness, colors, contrast. Same look just different focal lengths. I think yours is the first truly negative post/review of the 24-70 I have seen.

Kronie wrote in post #15686894
My 24-70 is just like my 70-200 in sharpness, colors, contrast. Same look just different focal lengths. I think yours is the first truly negative post/review of the 24-70 I have seen.

What you say is just what I was expecting to see when I tried it out, I'm not saying I will not buy this lens based on what I seen yesterday as I really want it but my initial first impressions were not good so I just couldn't drop the money on it....back to the 24-70 mk2 thread for more pixel peeping!!!

I am sure someone will flame me for this but go buy one from a retailer with a good 30 day return policy, like Amazon. Test the lens in real world conditions and see if you like it. If its a dud, then return it. Its why those stores have a return policy like that. The hope is that you keep the product, they want to give you the ability to return it if your not satisfied....

Staszek wrote in post #15685209
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."

+1

Kronie wrote in post #15686925
I am sure someone will flame me for this but go buy one from a retailer with a good 30 day return policy, like Amazon. Test the lens in real world conditions and see if you like it. If its a dud, then return it. Its why those stores have a return policy like that. The hope is that you keep the product, they want to give you the ability to return it if your not satisfied....

Yeah I know what your saying but at this price it sticks in my throat a bit that I might have to go though several copies to find a good example, I'v been down this road and its a pain in the rear going back and forwards when you have just spent out ££££..

Staszek wrote in post #15686063
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.

I shoot with a crop T2i. I have a 50/1.8, but it's AF was a bit flakey on moving subjects, so I got the new 40/2.8 ... and it was OK, but too wide (and right on the edge of my 6400 ISO in some gyms).

Maybe I should get a T4i with 12500 - 25600 max ISO.
(or maybe I should just stick with 40 + 85 and PP)

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 !

Agreed~!

Not to discount your results at the trade show you attended, but my 24-70 II is tack sharp at all FL's and wide open. I've used this lens extensively since it was released and can agree with all the reviews that the lens, while expensive, is all that the reviews say it is.

davidc502 wrote in post #15687132
Agreed~!

Again my experience not yours and I'm not here to try to change peoples opinions of this lens, just saying I was disappointed with its performance and I cant see a logical reason to spend a serious amount of money on something that was obviously lacking in the lenses I looked at.

Just had a look over on the 24-70 mk2 thread and it seems some people are going through 7 lenses to find a good copy, if your copy is perfect then great I want one too but I will not accept anything less for this cost even if it has a red ring..

murkeywaters wrote in post #15687196
Just had a look over on the 24-70 mk2 thread and it seems some people are going through 7 lenses to find a good copy, if your copy is perfect then great I want one too but I will not accept anything less for this cost even if it has a red ring..

People or person? Ive only seen one, maybe two people (might be the same person using different user names on different forums) mention 7 copies on the web, and ive seen no images to back these claims up.

I'm just pointing that out. The web can be like a game of he said, she said, and before long it becomes viral and people think the issue its bigger than it is.