# The new 24-70L II vs. 24-105L, 16-35L II, 24L II, and Sigma @ 50m (sharpness)



## asmundma (Oct 14, 2012)

I got the new lens yesterday and here is a unscientific test of the lens vs the others

Enjoy ! 

http://asmundma.smugmug.com/Testing/Lense-test-Oct-13-2012/25916112_pKM4jk


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 14, 2012)

I compared it with the 16-35mm and 24LII and it was sharper than both. The differences in distortion and vignetting between the 24LII/16-35/24-70II are interesting. I appreciate the effort with the test but even blown up it's hard to see the differences in detail, I think a closer subject might have been easier to judge.


----------



## asmundma (Oct 14, 2012)

Hi 
If you were able to load the "o" (original resoulution) it should be possible to see the difference I hope. I think my copy of the 24L II is bad, so I will investigate futher.
The problem with 16-35 is distortion espessially below 24m'ish. 
I did not put in any distortion compensation in Lightroom, and yes if you swap between to pictures you see changes. 
Never the less, the 24-70 maybe the new work horse, only thing is the impact of missing image stabilization.


----------



## ZEROrhythm (Oct 14, 2012)

I was looking through your images and I notice in the meta data that all the ISO of the images are different. maybe it would be better if all was the same ISO so we can do apples for apples. Thanks for sharing i'm on the line with the 24-70 II.


----------



## Tammy (Oct 15, 2012)

i shot a few textured walls on a tripod with manual focus through live view, same ISO etc, and my 24-70L II is sharper than my 24L II in the center and the edges at F2.8 and even F4! Just like to confirm your experience as well.


----------



## traveller (Oct 15, 2012)

Thanks for posting these test shots. I think that to a certain extent, your photos show how difficult it is to achieve the level of consistency required to form accurate judgements. I looked at the f/4 tests, as this was where all the lenses that you compared were included but where resolution differences would still be obvious. 

The 24L is so badly front focussed that you can’t tell much from the photo other than the area in focus looks pretty sharp, except for the extreme corners. The 16-35 is either a bit more front focused than the 24-105, or has big resolution issues in the top right hand corner; given that this corner is the furthest away, I would suspect the former explanation. 

Things aren’t so clear cut with the 24-70 II and 24-105; is it resolution or depth of field issues causing some of the loss of sharpness visible? Comparing these lenses at f/4 to the equivalent photos at f/8, I’d say that the 24-105 is just soft (this conclusion fits with others’ testing). As for the 24-70 II… Is the softness in the top right caused entirely by depth of field/focusing issues, or is it a bit soft in this part of the frame too?


----------



## asmundma (Oct 15, 2012)

Tammy said:


> i shot a few textured walls on a tripod with manual focus through live view, same ISO etc, and my 24-70L II is sharper than my 24L II in the center and the edges at F2.8 and even F4! Just like to confirm your experience as well.



I am aware of that, but if I kept the Iso locked, then the shutter speed will drop and it was a slight wind that caused unsharpness. The ISO would not affect the sharpness too much, right ?


----------

