# The Raw Data: The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is the Sharpest Zoom Canon Has Ever Made



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 12, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/the-raw-data-the-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-is-the-sharpest-zoom-canon-has-ever-made/"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/the-raw-data-the-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-is-the-sharpest-zoom-canon-has-ever-made/"></a></div>
<p><strong>From LensRentals.com

</strong>Roger over at LensRentals.com ran the new EF 24-70 f/2.8L II through an Imatest session and found it to be a stellar performer as far as resolution goes.<strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>From Roger

</strong><em>“This is short, sweet, and simple. The resolution absolutely, positively kicks butt and takes names. It is way better than the lens it replaces. It’s better at 70mm than the best Canon zoom I know of, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It’s even better at 24mm than the sharpest 24mm prime we have, the Canon 24 TS-E. In the center, in the corners, it doesn’t care. We only had 5 copies to test, but they were all very similar with little copy-to-copy variation.</em></p>
<p><em>Resolution is not everything, of course. But it’s certainly an important thing. Unless the real lens reviewers find some dramatic problems with this lens, I’d have to lean towards worth-the-money on this one. I can’t believe I’m saying that a $2,300 standard zoom is worth the money. But then again, I can’t believe I’m seeing a zoom lens out resolve a $2,000 world-class prime, either.”</em></p>
<div id="wp-table-reloaded-id-16-no-1_length">The Imatest results are below. The higher the number, the better.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<table id="wp-table-reloaded-id-16-no-1">
<thead>
<tr>
<th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><strong>Lens</strong></th>
<th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><strong>24mm Ctr</strong></th>
<th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><strong>24mm Avg</strong></th>
<th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><strong>70mm Ctr</strong></th>
<th rowspan="1" colspan="1"><strong>70mm Avg</strong></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II</strong></td>
<td>954</td>
<td>831</td>
<td>950</td>
<td>809</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Canon 24-70 f/2.8</strong></td>
<td>730</td>
<td>605</td>
<td>705</td>
<td>570</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC</strong></td>
<td>815</td>
<td>765</td>
<td>735</td>
<td>655</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II</strong></td>
<td>xx</td>
<td>xx</td>
<td>885</td>
<td>765</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Canon24 f/3.5 TS-E</strong></td>
<td>915</td>
<td>775</td>
<td>xx</td>
<td>xx</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>As you can see, the new EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is an absolute resolution monster. It really looks like it’s the best zoom Canon has ever made optically. There is a small note that distortion at 24mm is slightly worse than version 1, but that’s what software is for. :)</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests" target="_blank">Read the full review here</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><strong>Order the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II at: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA2470.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0076BNK30/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0076BNK30&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
```


----------



## quartzie (Sep 12, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> As you can see, the new EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS II is an absolute resolution monster. It really looks like it’s the best zoom Canon has ever made optically. There is a small note that distortion at 24mm is slightly worse than version 1, but that’s what software is for.



Now if it only didn't cost both arms and a leg...


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 12, 2012)

Does it have similarly high performance across the entire focal range?


----------



## tron (Sep 12, 2012)

I wish they had evaluated the edges and corners specifically (and not only giving average numbers whatever these are). Until then it's the TS-E for me although it's an apples to oranges comparison: I wonder how the 24-70 performs shifted and tilted, oh wait 
Now that does not mean I am not tempted... (I had a nice 24-70 version I which was stolen :-\ )


----------



## Etienne (Sep 12, 2012)

I'm starting to get interested


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 12, 2012)

wow! they did evaluated the center and edges. out-resolving a prime? wow! (I said that twice already.  ). WTH, even coming close to one is a dream.


----------



## AdamJ (Sep 12, 2012)

quartzie said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see, the new EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS II is an absolute resolution monster. It really looks like it’s the best zoom Canon has ever made optically. There is a small note that distortion at 24mm is slightly worse than version 1, but that’s what software is for.
> ...



If it makes you feel any better, it costs all four limbs here in the UK - £2,300 (US$ 3,697).


----------



## crunchy (Sep 12, 2012)

Is it wrong that my first response to those numbers is excitement over the tamron?

That much better than the *excellent* mark I? With stabilisation? For me it's a no-brainer (unless Canon decide to release a mark III with IS any time soon)


----------



## preppyak (Sep 12, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> Does it have similarly high performance across the entire focal range?


I'd imagine its as good if not better at 50mm, since that would be the easiest part of the zoom. I think determining it at 24 and 70 makes sense, since that is when the lens has to do the hardest work, so to speak.


----------



## peederj (Sep 12, 2012)

Enjoy your onion rind bokeh with the Tamron.

I am very interested in this lens. In fact if they give a very good kit deal with the 1DX I could even see myself upgrading from the 5D3.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Sep 12, 2012)

I always imagined going down the prime route when i get a FF... have the 24-105, but then buy a nice set of primes... this certainly explains the price-tag! If you can get better then prime res. on a zoom... 

Do you think the cost of the primes might fall as a result of this?


----------



## spinworkxroy (Sep 12, 2012)

adhocphotographer said:


> I always imagined going down the prime route when i get a FF... have the 24-105, but then buy a nice set of primes... this certainly explains the price-tag! If you can get better then prime res. on a zoom...
> 
> Do you think the cost of the primes might fall as a result of this?



No because good primes are F1.2-F1.4 range..
This is f2.8 so this is something a zoom can never match a prime…and sometimes that's why people buy a prime.


----------



## victorwol (Sep 12, 2012)

Can't wait to get mine....


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 12, 2012)

+1. prime has its uses. Zoom is when you need to change your focal length fast. I personally prefer primes but for wedding photography, I'd choose zoom most of the time.



spinworkxroy said:


> adhocphotographer said:
> 
> 
> > I always imagined going down the prime route when i get a FF... have the 24-105, but then buy a nice set of primes... this certainly explains the price-tag! If you can get better then prime res. on a zoom...
> ...


----------



## RichATL (Sep 12, 2012)

I don't believe these findings at all...

One... claiming the 24 TS/e is the sharpest lens canon has created....
two... they forget that canon made a 28-70mm 2.8 that consistently beat the 24-70I in all tests...but neglected to track down a copy and compare.

I think this is promo-hype to try and sell an overpriced piece of glass.
$1800 sure...
but 2300 is obscene.


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 12, 2012)

I find it hard to believe these "test results"
Partly because i love primes. And if they can make a zoom lens that good they better update every single prime lens they make to be much better cos' they seem to have better technology than before to design lenses.

If canon made a zoom lens that good it's fine with me but it should not be possible to beat primes.
I'm voting for this one to be a hoax! IT IS POSTED ON A RUMOR WEBSITE. It's not really official info.
I can make my own tests and say the 50mm 1.8 is sharper than the new 400mm 2.8L IS II USM.


----------



## dave (Sep 12, 2012)

RichATL said:


> I don't believe these findings at all...
> 
> One... claiming the 24 TS/e is the sharpest lens canon has created....
> two... they forget that canon made a 28-70mm 2.8 that consistently beat the 24-70I in all tests...but neglected to track down a copy and compare.
> ...



The author claimed the 24mm TS-E ii (in the original blog post) was the sharpest *24mm* - which it is.

You can take an awful lot of different types of photos between 24mm and 70mm. We'd all like to pay less, but there'll be plenty of takers at 2300 if it is that good. Canon is a business - it's supply and demand. There are still plenty of people stumping up similar cash for the 70-200mm is ii and this will be the same.

If you don't want to spend that much then the Mark i version, 24-105, and 28-135 fill various price points.

The price makes complete (but painful) sense.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 12, 2012)

*Re: The Raw Data: The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is the Sharpest Zoom Canon Has Ever Mad*

Y'all hopin' this lens was delayed so much to make the tweaks needed to bring it up enough to match the rumored high MP FF body?..


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 12, 2012)

Specs seem to be true, this baby will have great sales...just like the 70-200 2.8II.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 12, 2012)

Picking this thing up in the morning, we'll see if these results are indeed accurate.


----------



## victorwol (Sep 12, 2012)

Cannon Man said:


> I find it hard to believe these "test results"
> Partly because i love primes. And if they can make a zoom lens that good they better update every single prime lens they make to be much better cos' they seem to have better technology than before to design lenses.
> 
> If canon made a zoom lens that good it's fine with me but it should not be possible to beat primes.
> ...



The link is on a rumor site, and a very respectful one, the author is from a rental house, which as far as I know, it does not sell lenses and does not need a silly hoax to rent them. You can make your tests of course, but who know you? Which reputations have you built for people to believe you? This guy have a reputation and very good reviews and posts about equipment and knows what is talking about. Yiu might disagree, but for that I believe you should have the lens on your hand to call him a liar.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 12, 2012)

RichATL said:


> I don't believe these findings at all...
> 
> One... claiming the 24 TS/e is the sharpest lens canon has created....
> two... they forget that canon made a 28-70mm 2.8 that consistently beat the 24-70I in all tests...but neglected to track down a copy and compare.
> ...



One, you didn't read that correctly, they said the TS-E is the sharpest _24mm_ Canon has ever produced, which it absolutely is. Two, the EF 28-70mm is long discontinued, why compare it to a lens that no one can easily get and hasn't been in production in 10 years?

And whether or not the price is "obscene" or not is totally subjective, this lens is backordered into oblivion so obviously not everyone feels the same way as you. And the last of the 24-70mm v1's were being sold at $1599, I don't see how you can expect such massive improvements to a lens to only be worth $200.


----------



## dave (Sep 12, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Picking this thing up in the morning, we'll see if these results are indeed accurate.



Will you be able to sleep?


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 12, 2012)

Did you notice that Roger Cicala did not say if the new lens has the magic magnetic rotation detector? You know, the little part that allows the 5D3 and 1DX to have a closed loop autofocus system.

In the comments after the article, Roger hints that he's holding out on us. I'm watching his blog like a hawk until he reveals this critical piece of information! 

Fun.


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 12, 2012)

It sounds like a perfect rental lens.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 12, 2012)

I can fully agree to Rogers test. Thank you very much for testing.

If you are a professional photographer get the lens.

In my opinion it´s not to expensive. If you have only to work a day or less as a professional photographers to buy the lens, the price is not a big problem.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 12, 2012)

*Re: The Raw Data: The EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is the Sharpest Zoom Canon Has Ever Mad*



peederj said:


> Enjoy your onion rind bokeh with the Tamron.



really only a problem with large OOF highlights from what I've seen so far.
The IS is a major selling feature.
-


----------



## pwp (Sep 12, 2012)

If multiple reviewers come up with similar results and conclusions, Canon has a very welcome winner on it's hands. A single, gushing review generally makes me inclined to wait on verification from other reputable independent reviewers, plus real world photographers feedback.

When the 24-70 f/2.8 replaced the admittedly awful 28-70 f/2.8, the first reviews gushed in a similar tone. But it sure looks like a very strong first impression.

-PW


----------



## pj1974 (Sep 12, 2012)

That is sure one impressive lens from the data that Lensrentals has produced. I didn't expect it to be THAT sharp!! 

Canon has in recent years really raised the bar with zoom lenses, some of those with great sharpness include:
EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6
EF 24-105mm f/4 L
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L 

Then it appears this lens which came out with an even more exceptional standard in terms of sharpness:
EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L mk II
and this new 
EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L mk II continues (or even exceeds?!) that standard. 
I had a decent copy of the 28-135mm, but at the long end it needed to be stopped down 1 EV to increase sharpness, saturation and contrast.

Well done Canon with these new lenses. It's definitely a shame for non-pros about the prices... but often one truly does get one pays for. I have the Canon 15-85mm and Canon 70-300mm L, and a bunch of other lenses. The 15-85mm and 70-300mm L that I have are both great, sharp copies. As I'm not looking to go FF at any stage soon, these 2 will do me for a long time to come! 8)

If I was a pro with a FF, I can imagine I'd probably get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L zoom.... it would be great for many applications... along with a few nice 'big glass' primes! 

Paul


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2012)

peederj said:


> Enjoy your onion rind bokeh with the Tamron.



Well, the Canon mk2 has it too (but to a lesser extent), ye know? But don't let get facts in the way.



pj1974 said:


> Canon has in recent years really raised the bar with zoom lenses



Canon probably knows that the future brings higher mp sensors, and that on both ff and crop very sharp lenses are needed to outresolve the sensor. So while the 24-70ii should be great on 22mp, it'll show its true potential and the difference to the mk1 on a 40mp sensor.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 12, 2012)

For those calling shenanigans because the 24-70 beats the primes you guys gotta remember that Canon is consistently developing it's products.

The 24mm TS-E is now three years old. The Mk1 of the 24-70 is what? 10 years old?

These are results perfectly in line with expectations. The 70-200 MkII for example is prime sharp as well. So I expected the 24-70 MkII to be as good if not better as a result.

Do you guys remember just how bad the 24mm TS-E mk1 was? That is a prime but even a kit zoom lens is sharper than that.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> For those calling shenanigans because the 24-70 beats the primes you guys gotta remember that Canon is consistently developing it's products.



... and "updating" the price tag, so if a successor is much more expensive it really is to be expected to have better performance, not just because of technological advance. If Canon had targeted $2000+ when they designed the 24-70mk1 or older primes they would have probably have designed them differently, too.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 12, 2012)

can't wait to receive my copy. pre-ordered back in march. based on the MTF data and my experience with the really really nice 70-200 f/2.8 II (the MTF data of the 24-70 f/2.8 II is even more impressive) this should be a wonderful lens. i am perfectly aware of the fact that MTF charts don't tell the whole story, but roger's test data seems to be perfectly in line with what the MTF data suggests.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 12, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > For those calling shenanigans because the 24-70 beats the primes you guys gotta remember that Canon is consistently developing it's products.
> ...



What Canon lists their price and and what actually gets charged is completely different.

Example. Speedlite 600EX-RT - List price RRP is what? £629?
But I can buy it in the UK, with a VAT receipt for £429.99

The list price of the 70-200 mkII on launch was £2499, I paid £1349 - UK purchase, VAT receipt given.

The estimated price in the UK from my supplier is £1800 for the 24-70 MKII, which is a £500 increase over the Mk1 but it's only just came out.

Digital Rev are price scalping by charging £2499 which is £200 more than the RRP.

I wish everyone would stop bitching about pricing. Like the RRP means a damn thing.

It's the same as how a lot of guys in the UK complain about Ipads being cheaper in the states. The fools look at the prices less sales Tax. Account for that and the prices are almost the same as the UK.


----------



## infared (Sep 12, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> Cannon Man said:
> 
> 
> > I find it hard to believe these "test results"
> ...



and yes...some people need to be in denial. LOL! Roger is MUCH respected in the Canon community. Rightly so. He also always gives us the great insight he has in handling MANY samples of the same lens. Which is invaluable and is information that I can RARELY get elsewhere.


----------



## Peter C Photography (Sep 12, 2012)

I don't have any new numerical data to add to the discussion for sharpness etc, but I will say that after checking one out at my local camera shop this afternoon (I was a little stunned that they still had one as they only got one copy and no one had jumped on it yet), the "user experience" is absolutely fantastic. I admit that I haven't shot with the mk1 version of this zoom but the new version is lightning fast while focusing (and that's on a 5d mark II, the shop didn't have a 5dIII out for me to try with). The balance and feel are both wonderful and I ended up across the street scouring through Lightroom on my laptop to see what % of pictures i've taken with my 24-105 f/4L that were at a low enough shutter speed that they would have benefited enough from the IS to make a real difference. I've been wishing I had a bigger aperture on the 24-105 for a while and I think I'm probably going to pull the trigger on this one and sacrifice the extra reach on the zoom for the bigger aperture and what most data point to be a sharper lens.

- I haven't shot at 70mm on a non IS lens before, can anyone provide any feedback on how slow they liked shooting on the mk1 version of this lens?
- When Canon has released lenses that have technical flaws or faults that they eventually fix, how long after the release are these typically discovered? In other words, how much of a danger is there in being a first mover here? I know we don't know until we know, but there are a lot of smart people on this forum with far more experience than me, so I'm always looking to learn off you guys.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> What Canon lists their price and and what actually gets charged is completely different.



I don't know about the US, but in Germany the street retail price of current Canon products unfortunately is near the list price, maybe a couple of €100 or so off depending on how shady the dealer is - but certainly not "completely different" :-o


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 12, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > What Canon lists their price and and what actually gets charged is completely different.
> ...



In Switzerland official list price and effective street price are very different, in this specific case > 25%


----------



## dstppy (Sep 12, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> peederj said:
> 
> 
> > Enjoy your onion rind bokeh with the Tamron.
> ...



I think you're spot-on here; I think the *real* news is that the Tamron is so dang sharp.

Anyone with a hair of faith (maybe gullibility) could have believed the part about the Canon II being the sharpest, since that's pretty much what they said. Yes, yes, we shouldn't blindly believe it, but now that we have confirmation, it's sort of obvious 

Honestly, I think the Tamron is going to be an excellent candidate for the "only own one lens" crowd, even with it's price.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 12, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > For those calling shenanigans because the 24-70 beats the primes you guys gotta remember that Canon is consistently developing it's products.
> ...



Don't expect to drive Benz S500 series at KIA price.


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Sep 12, 2012)

Some RAW files from a 5D mk III and the new 24-70/2.8L II to let you make your own opinion.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9336.0


----------



## xtaski (Sep 12, 2012)

Any ideas when the prices may come down? Very compelling optics, but you could buy a decent used car for the price...


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 12, 2012)

crunchy said:


> Is it wrong that my first response to those numbers is excitement over the tamron?
> 
> That much better than the *excellent* mark I? With stabilisation? For me it's a no-brainer (unless Canon decide to release a mark III with IS any time soon)




I have been using the Tamron 24-70 for the past week, including one wedding - I am not happy with it. Need serious AF micro adjustments, it is now better but still seems softer than it should be, yes I do know the Mark I was pretty soft. But this Tamron is getting beat(at some focal lengths) by it's own 28-75 that I have and still use. Rather than an arm or a leg I think I am going to sell my Kidney  For the Canon. 

Disclaimer- My data is ancedotal- Roger has three copies that he tested and all were better than mark I- he also mentioned the front element falling off. . . and did you see the tear down of the Mark 2 - his words "built to last" 

Finally some scums are selling the old version at the new version's price on Amazon. Be careful, I almost pushed the buy button in my excitement of seeing IN STOCK!


----------



## K-amps (Sep 12, 2012)

crunchy said:


> Is it wrong that my first response to those numbers is excitement over the tamron?
> 
> That much better than the *excellent* mark I? With stabilisation? For me it's a no-brainer (unless Canon decide to release a mark III with IS any time soon)



I bought a Tammy 2 weeks back and returned it next day, the AF is no good. 

The glass is not bad though. With MF I could get it to be very sharp, however at f2.8 and AF, it was pretty much useless... I would had to stop it to f5.6 to get much in focus , this was with an AFMA value of +10 (didnt get better at +15/20 but got worse at 0), but since I am not buying the lens for f5.6, it was no good for me.

This was painful since I did not want to pay an extra $1000 and lose IS... so I really hope the EF Mk.ii blows me away and that I get a great copy!


----------



## unadog (Sep 12, 2012)

xtaski said:


> Any ideas when the prices may come down?



Two parts to that question:

1) When the Yen is not so strong, and returns to a normal range, and

2) When they are sitting on the shelves and shops need to move them.


As for #1: Since 2008, the Yen has gone from 120 to the US Dollar (and similar for the Euro, etc.) to 80 to the dollar.

That means that a $1,000 item in 2008 would now cost $1,500 in 2012. That is one reason why this lens is so expensive. If Canon get $2,300 for this now, that is equivalent to getting $1,518 in 2008. Sound familar? 


For #2: Speciality shops only discount items that are not selling well. 

When you have a hot item like this, the only real way to get a discount is to find a retailer that gives a "blanket" percentage off for Black Friday,, etc.

Like Dell, with 15% off all SLR camera & lenses, that type of thing. Or speciality discounters, like Buy.com, or Beach on eBay, etc.

Canon will offer rebates around Xmas, but not on the newest and hotest items.

It is a balance between having something and using it, and waiting until you can buy it a little more cheaply.



Remember that for a business the real "Cost" of a lens like this is not the sticker price. It is the "Purchase Price" minus the "Residual Value."

Take the 70-200 2.8 II, for example. It is selling used for about $1,900. If you bought that at $2,300 2 years ago, your "Net Cost of Ownership" is $400, or about $200 per year.

If you are a pro doing weddings, etc. for $5,000 per wedding, that is a small "Cost of Doing Busines." Definitely well worth the investment.

If you are an enthusiast, it really doesn't matter much if you use the lens now, or in the spring on vacation. Especially if you will not be doing a lot of work in the winter. Then again, you might have to wait 6 months to save $200. Really up to you ... how much will you use it, and how soon ...

Sorry for the "Capitalization." I just wanted to hightlight the business concepts and terms for those who make money at photography - it is a differnt way of thinking. They may or may not apply to how you do photography.

Good luck!

Best,
Michael


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 12, 2012)

unadog said:


> xtaski said:
> 
> 
> > Any ideas when the prices may come down?
> ...



+1... agree


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 12, 2012)

K-amps said:


> crunchy said:
> 
> 
> > Is it wrong that my first response to those numbers is excitement over the tamron?
> ...


I did different decision. After I got my Tamron, I sold my Canon 24-70mm MK1 in a week. Tamron is better than Canon MK1 in any point except for AF speed. However, the AF speed is still acceptable for me.
The argument between Tamron / Canon 24-70 has always a big gap. Some people like Tamorn, Some people like Canon. Actually, people has different needs. If AF is more important than IQ and VC feature for you, I believe I will stay with Canon. Especially if you shoot a lot of events. For me, the walkaround lens is only for family, Tamron is much useful than Canon.
People need to spend your money smartly. Buy whatever the best for yourself.


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 12, 2012)

xtaski said:


> Any ideas when the prices may come down? Very compelling optics, but you could buy a decent used car for the price...


I feel another topic of 5D3 price. Many people think the price is too high and expect the price will drop. However, you see that on camera bodies, but won't see that on lens often. You may expect Canon will have rebate program plus seller discount for 400-500 price different. However, you won't see the official price drop on this lens.
I got my 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2 from beach camera for about 1900 after rebate and seller discount. You can wait for good deals if you are not in rush to get this new lens.
Try to use the deal alert feature on slickdeals website, you can get a lot good deals. Of cause that's only for people who can WAIT for deals.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 12, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> I feel another topic of 5D3 price. Many people think the price is too high and expect the price will drop.



I think the 24-70ii will get more praise even considering the price. Lenses last longer than camera bodies, and the zoom might replace a couple of primes if you're not shooting wide open but want primes for sharpness only. The problem with the 5d3 is that Canon is living in Canon universe, while Nikon and Sony are a tough competition with their sensors - but they have nothing to offer like this lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 12, 2012)

Late to the thread, but a few points:

1) Boo to people describing Roger's data as conjured or impossible to achieve. +1 to anyone who backs Roger, who is an absolute nerd/enthusiast who very transparently shared his perspective, methods, etc. This guy is a friend to photogs. Further, being at LR gives him the chance to test 5, 10 of the same lens at once, which many 'experts' on line do not do. My trust factor with his data is therefore very, very high.

2) To the 'it can't be better than a prime' folks, you are correct in principle, but throw the latest tech, design and (as an engineer, I'm assuming) spectacularly tight tolerances at the problem, and yes, a zoom can beat a prime. It just happened.


To that end, in theory with that same level of tech/design/tolerance we should see *even sharper* primes down the road. As I am moving from zooms to primes, I find this attractive, though daunting for what the price might be.

As a side comment, that same thinking has seen Canon recently produce _non_-L lenses that rival or beat their L counterparts. The new 24mm IS and (especially) 28mm IS lenses are right up there -- again, just with sharpness -- as the L glass of similar length. They aren't weather-sealed, or produce the same bokeh, but the sharpness is there.

3) Sharpness is great, but it isn't everything. We also need to consider AF, carrying weight, size in the bag, the color this thing produces, the new hood size (refreshingly smaller despite reversing the telescoping), the #$!# decision to go to 82mm filters (though I'm sure that's part of the math to get the sharpness we want), etc. The user experience should be about more than just sharpness, or we'd all be carrying howitzers around as our walkarounds.

In all, I expected Canon to pants the Mk I as it's 10 years old. I was not, however, expecting it to be _this _doggone sharp. 

I'm not drinking any Kool Aid here -- it's unbelievably pricey and we as consumers need to weigh purchasing decisions carefully. But on a core metric of sharpness, kudos to Canon. Now make me a super small wide L lens, dammit!

- A


----------



## K-amps (Sep 12, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> I rented this thing this morning and I have to report that it is _amazing_. Super sharp at f/2.8, ridiculously sharp at f/3.5 and f/4. 24, 28, 35, 50, 70, it's sharp all the way across. Color rendition is beautiful and very accurate, AF is ridiculously fast, and the bokeh is beautiful.
> 
> Anyone have any pic requests with particular settings/focal lengths?



Corner sharpness at 24mm please


----------



## dadgummit (Sep 12, 2012)

ahsanford said:


> Late to the thread, but a few points:
> 
> 1) Boo to people describing Roger's data as conjured or impossible to achieve. +1 to anyone who backs Roger, who is an absolute nerd/enthusiast who very transparently shared his perspective, methods, etc. This guy is a friend to photogs. Further, being at LR gives him the chance to test 5, 10 of the same lens at once, which many 'experts' on line do not do. My trust factor with his data is therefore very, very high.
> 
> ...



Technology marches on. Of Course someone who just spent thousands on a couple of L Primes is going to dismiss the Prime-sharpness claim right off the bat. Personally I would have thought the fact the 70-200 2.8 IS II beats out most all primes in it's focal range would have made it easier to accept the same from the 24-70 II but the human nature to hate what you don't havde to make your-self feel better is too strong for reason to overcome.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 12, 2012)

And, for fun, brand new from Kai on this very lens:
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-ef-24-70mm-f/NDA4MTk1OTc_A


----------



## art_d (Sep 12, 2012)

Wow. Impressive.

Now if only I had a 46mp camera to mount it on....

8)


----------



## woollybear (Sep 12, 2012)

Maybe to take this in another direction...

What technological advances make for a sharper lens. I would think optical designs, and their various compromises are pretty well known at this point. With that as an assumption, then the only technological advances that would improve sharpness (as well as other lens parameters) really come down to manufacturing tolerances. Glass composition (purity, etc.) Grinding the glass to the specified shape consistently (are we talking nanometers here?). Lens barrel tolerances (again, what scale?). At some point (don't know where) you could design and build a "perfect" lens but it would only function at some given environmental standard. The movement caused by temperature and humidity changes would be greater than the tolerances achieved.

Any thoughts?


----------



## well_dunno (Sep 12, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > I rented this thing this morning and I have to report that it is _amazing_. Super sharp at f/2.8, ridiculously sharp at f/3.5 and f/4. 24, 28, 35, 50, 70, it's sharp all the way across. Color rendition is beautiful and very accurate, AF is ridiculously fast, and the bokeh is beautiful.
> ...


+1  

I was considering a TSE 24mm, mainly for its sharpness, so the mk 2 came in a very convenient moment pour moi... ;D


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 12, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Corner sharpness at 24mm please



I'm on it, any particular settings?


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 12, 2012)

How is the price an issue to anyone???? If its as good as it now seems it should be more expensive!
If it's sharper than 2500$ primes then a 24-70 zoom lens with similar performance A BARGAIN!

If you dont like the price get the old 24-70! you get performance for every cent you spend for this lens!

I wish all L lenses were 5000-8000$. They would be sharper and better all around. It is only because we are poor that they are this cheap.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 12, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Corner sharpness at 24mm please
> ...



f/2.8 ofcourse!

and if you have time f4, f8, f11 and f22

Thanks Axil!


----------



## K-amps (Sep 12, 2012)

Cannon Man said:


> How is the price an issue to anyone???? If its as good as it now seems it should be more expensive!
> If it's sharper than 2500$ primes then a 24-70 zoom lens with similar performance A BARGAIN!
> 
> If you dont like the price get the old 24-70! you get performance for every cent you spend for this lens!
> ...



Bro... you are not on an island by yourself. 

Really, you are not.


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 12, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Bro... you are not on an island by yourself.


However, there is a valid point here: that you get what you pay for. Lenses are designed from the start with a selling price in mind. The design brief goes something like this: "Design the best lens you can with these characteristics and for this price point." The price point always limits the design. Always. They can't build a lens better than its price point; if they did, they would lose money on every lens. So, whatever price point they set, that's the lens that is produced. A 24-70 lens will be a _different_ lens at $500, $1.3K, $2.3K, $5k, $10K, $15K, and so on. Thankfully, a large manufacturer like Canon can make something for a wide range of price points, such as the much less expensive 24-105L, whereas a small manufacturer like Leica builds fewer products and in a more narrow price range (outside of most photographers' budgets). 

The new 24-70 isn't more expensive because it's better than the old 24-70; rather ... the new 24-70 is better than the old 24-70 because it's more expensive. The improvement in quality is a result of the increase in price, which was determined before the lens was designed. Everyone expects better products at lower prices, but that's not realistic for many products.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2012)

Still can't believe it is not Image Stabilized. This walking-around lens will be handheld 90% of the time, and inside in dim light half the time, yet they put no IS on it? 

Then you look at some of the recent supertelephotos. There they are weighing 827 pounds at 400, 500, 600mm, mounted on their tripods and monopods a lot, outside in the sunshine shooting sports at 1/2000, and yet they are all sporting IS bling.

Seems off.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 12, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Bro... you are not on an island by yourself.
> ...



[rant]

Respectfully disagree on a couple of assumptions you made.

I am willing to bet that the mk.ii costs less than the mk.i to manufacture. (Cost to manufacture, not fully loaded Overheads), since productivity in process manufacturing helps out a lot here. Plastic vs. metal machining etc.

The mk.ii is not pricier, since both were made in Japan, the local price in Yen is almost the same as the mk.1 was 10 years ago, taking inflation into consideration, it is actually cheaper than the mk.1. The price increase in US$ is a result of the devaluation of the dollar more than anything else.. not becuase making mk.ii was more expensive.


Price is determined by what the market can bear also, not only the price to manufacture. If no product comes close to the 24-70 in performance, then a premium will be assigned to it... and the market will pay, if not then you will see a drop in price... yet they will still sell at a profit.

I am willing to bet also that the price to manufacture a 24-105 f4 might be close or even higher than the 24-70 ii on a purely material and assembly cost basis. Is Canon losing money on either? No... it is just loading overheads differently to each product... This fuzzy accounting is what I deal with everyday catering to both Finance and marketing as I provide solutions to both of them to manage profitability.

At the end it depends how R&D costs are spread over products... different companies do it differently..

To surmise, the improvement in quality is due to newer design technologies available, not because they sprinkled magic fairy dust into mk.ii...

[/rant over]


----------



## Matthew19 (Sep 12, 2012)

you NAILED it K-AMPs.



Its the same reason why some kindle books cost more than the physical versions on amazon.

Austrian school economist have always known this.


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 12, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Respectfully disagree on a couple of assumptions you made.
> 
> I am willing to bet that the mk.ii costs less than the mk.i to manufacture. (Cost to manufacture, not fully loaded Overheads), since productivity in process manufacturing helps out a lot here. Plastic vs. metal machining etc.
> 
> ...


I respectfully disagree with almost all of your assumptions. I'm willing to bet the opposite of all of the things you mentioned you're willing to bet. Specifically, I'd bet the new 24-70 is significantly costlier to manufacture than the old one, and that it's significantly costlier to manufacture than the 24-105. You really think they would make this product significantly better in almost every way, but with lower production costs? That would require some magic fairy dust indeed — magic fairy dust that boosts worker productivity, lowers material costs, improves quality control, provides outstanding engineering, etc., ... all for less money. No doubt newer design technologies help, but newer design technologies don't suddenly appear for free. A manufacturer typically has to make a significant investment in order to make newer design technologies pay off. Building or re-equiping a factory isn't exactly cheap.

You may deal with fuzzy accounting everyday, but I don't think you're in the camera & lens business (and neither am I). You're probably correct that they load overheads [somewhat] differently to each product, but I suspect the differences are not very dramatic and that the ultimate selling price has a fairly predictable relationship with the manufacturing cost.

Canon's new 24-70 is 18% or so more expensive than Nikon's 24-70, and that may be partly due to it being new (and thus having premium for early users) but the price will likely drop 10% or so in the next year and then it will be closer in price to Nikon's — and then it will not seem so extreme. Nikon users have long been able to say (correctly) that their 24-70 offers better in sharpness and reliability than Canon's, but that never surprised me as Nikon's was about $500 more expensive. Of course, that extra $500 bought _something_. Now, it is evident that the extra $1,000 in the new 24-70 (vs. the old one) also buys _something_ ... namely, quality and durability. I really don't understand how people believe that a lens manufacturer will deliver a significantly better lens but at the same or lower cost to manufacture, and with a massive jackup in selling price just because they can. I suppose it can happen, but it's not very likely.


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 12, 2012)

Much like Canon L lenses, crack cocaine is also considered too expensive by many of its users.


----------



## dadgummit (Sep 12, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> Much like Canon L lenses, crack cocaine is also considered too expensive by many of its users.



Ironic thing is, L lenses are almost as addictive. 

If I never heard of this lens I would be perfectly happy with the 24-105L but knowing there is something out there that is as sharp as the 24-70 II makes me think silly things like I need to sell my 24-105L and 35L so I can be ready for this.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 12, 2012)

K-amps said:


> f/2.8 ofcourse!
> and if you have time f4, f8, f11 and f22
> Thanks Axil!



http://www.flickr.com/photos/rsinghatl/

I did 24mm from f/2.8-f/6.3 just on part of the brick of my house (only thing I could think of that was completely flat and big enough to fill 24mm). In the 100% crops the edges are a little soft, but not abnormally soft by any means, I feel like the center sharpness more than makes up for it. The distortion is a little more apparent on this lens and vignetting is pretty noticeable wide open.

All of these were taken on a 5D3 with faithful picture profile (Sharpness 1, Contrast -2, Saturation -2), which are actually video settings, but oh well. I fixed the white balance on the stork images just a tad, but no other adjustments aside from that, just RAW to JPEG from Aperture. Then I also have pics from 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 70mm at f/2.8 and f/4. I have to say I think this lens really shines at 70mm, very very sharp. 

Like I said I do video mainly so I don't really know what I'm doing with stills. I noticed after shooting for a bit that it seemed like it was back focusing just a hair in certain situations, so it's possible some of these might be a touch out of focus. Also the shots of the car wash were taken shooting upwards at an angle vs head on with the bottle, so parts of it may be out of focus.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 13, 2012)

All Hail, Sir Axilrod!

:-*

Pretty good sharpness at 24mm f2.8. Amazing at 70mm f2.8. Very nice Bokeh @ 70mm too.

Thanks for taking the time man!


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 13, 2012)

K-amps said:


> All Hail, Sir Axilrod!
> 
> :-*



Lol I just know that I really wanted someone to do this before I got my hands on it. Plus I only have it for 3 days so I'm trying to take as many samples as I can. But I'm definitely leaning towards picking one up. As a prime guy having a zoom in this range with this performance is just too damn convenient. 

I just added a few more of all focal lengths at f/2.8 and f/5.6, but they have text so it's a bit easier to judge sharpness.

PS, I just realized that the shots of the bottle of carwash were taken kind of upwards at an angle, which means at f/2.8 there are probably going to be some spots that look out of focus, so just look for the sharpest part and judge based on that.


----------



## well_dunno (Sep 13, 2012)

Thanks Axilrod!


----------



## K-amps (Sep 13, 2012)

Yes the barcode portion of the carwash was a bit off focus... first I thought mushy corner sharpness but this looks good!


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 13, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Yes the barcode portion of the carwash was a bit off focus... first I thought mushy corner sharpness but this looks good!



Yeah that was definitely it, I was short on time when I shot those and didn't feel like raising the tripod, didn't think about the effect it would have. Also, I think the camera was tilted left slightly on the f/2.8 pic of the brick wall, I think I straightened it up after that. So f/2.8 may look a bit worse on the edges than it actually is.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 13, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the barcode portion of the carwash was a bit off focus... first I thought mushy corner sharpness but this looks good!
> ...



I was trying to look for the name of the cable manufacturer on the Black Coax on the wall.. but there was not name, but it is so sharp, I bet we could have seen one


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 13, 2012)

K-amps said:


> I was trying to look for the name of the cable manufacturer on the Black Coax on the wall.. but there was not name, but it is so sharp, I bet we could have seen one



Haha I'm sure. I take it you're feeling pretty good about your purchase?


----------



## K-amps (Sep 13, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > I was trying to look for the name of the cable manufacturer on the Black Coax on the wall.. but there was not name, but it is so sharp, I bet we could have seen one
> ...



Yes... I am probably one of the few "idiots" that paid in advance for my pre-order, hoping I will be bumped up at my local camera store  But I pre=ordered 2 weeks ago, so i am not expecting one anytime soon... 

by the way do you live in the Atlanta region? My bro lives in Lawrenceville and sis in Duluth... I come there once a year. We always goto Helen, GA


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 13, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Yes... I am probably one of the few "idiots" that paid in advance for my pre-order, hoping I will be bumped up at my local camera store  But I pre=ordered 2 weeks ago, so i am not expecting one anytime soon...
> 
> by the way do you live in the Atlanta region? My bro lives in Lawrenceville and sis in Duluth... I come there once a year. We always goto Helen, GA



Lol yeah but the charts looked very promising and were apparently very accurate. Yes I'm very familiar with the areas you mentioned, Helen is a beautiful place. You go for Oktoberfest? Man an idiot like you sure could get some great pics there with that 24-70 II


----------



## AdamJ (Sep 13, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> What Canon lists their price and and what actually gets charged is completely different.
> 
> Example. Speedlite 600EX-RT - List price RRP is what? £629?
> But I can buy it in the UK, with a VAT receipt for £429.99
> ...



Not bitching, just saying that the cheapest advertised UK (not grey) prices I can find today are:
24-70mm II - £2,299 (Wex) = $3,706, or $3,089 ex VAT
70-200mm II - £1,824 (MBP)

I tend to wait until product prices reach their market level and I'm sure the 24-70 II will eventually fall below £1,800 but if you have a dealer offering £1,800 on day one (or a 70-200mm II for £1,349), please could you let me know who they are - they could interest me in a few other lenses.


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 13, 2012)

dadgummit said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > Much like Canon L lenses, crack cocaine is also considered too expensive by many of its users.
> ...



Not silly at all, go for it. I've been selling other gear getting ready for this.


----------



## xthebillx (Sep 13, 2012)

M.ST said:


> I can fully agree to Rogers test. Thank you very much for testing.
> 
> If you are a professional photographer get the lens.
> 
> In my opinion it´s not to expensive. If you have only to work a day or less as a professional photographers to buy the lens, the price is not a big problem.



Couldn't agree more.
Only those who are hobbyist gear hounds would gripe about price. The rest of us will bump fees or line items a bit to accommodate the capital investment (or just draw from the capital investment fund ). If the tool does its job and the results equal a perceived (to the client) improvement in the technical quality of your work (read: sharpness), then it's a no-brainer.
The formula I was taught was: COST/avg # of working days in a year/36 (three years) +10% markup.
This way, over three years, the lens will pay for itself and furnish you with a 10% return for your trouble. $2300 winds up being a nominal increase in fees, and better results equal happier clients who won't question the marginal increase.
Not to mention it's 100% DEDUCTIBLE!


----------



## AdamJ (Sep 13, 2012)

xthebillx said:


> Only those who are hobbyist gear hounds would gripe about price.



To be fair, the price-related comments in this thread are largely to do with the US / UK price difference (a recurring theme) rather than the price per se.

Since I'm a hobbyist whose primary pursuit is the craft rather than the paycheck (accepting, of course, that the two pursuits are not mutually exclusive), I wouldn't gain any creative benefit from this lens so I won't be a customer for it. My view of the price is therefore an observation rather than a gripe.

Edit: Forgot to say that I can understand how amortisations and tax write-offs lessen the price-sensitivity of any equipment. Perhaps Canon's recent pricing policies are aligned to this thinking.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 13, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> To be fair, the price-related comments in this thread are largely to do with the US / UK price difference (a recurring theme) rather than the price per se.



I've seen plenty of people in the US complaining about the price, the same thing happened with the 5d3 too. All I've heard is "it's $1000 more than the first one blah blah blah, waaaaaahhhhhh, waaaaaahhhhhhhh."(sniffle, sniffle). I don't know remember stuff like this happening back in the day, professional products get released and consumers cry about how expensive they are. Then they go all over the internet marginalizing the product (that they've never used) and telling everyone/themselves "oh it's not really better than the last version" to make themselves feel like they're not missing out on anything. Happened with the 5D3, is happening with the 24-70 II now and I guess will continue to happen, but it's terribly annoying. If the 24-70 I is just as good to you just go get a 24-70 I and shut the f*(% up.

Edit: for the record this wasn't directed at AdamJ or anyone here in particular, I posted this right after reading a bunch of ridiculous stuff on YouTube, then again YouTube is a giant cesspool of ignorance so I probably shouldn't take it too seriously.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 13, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, the price-related comments in this thread are largely to do with the US / UK price difference (a recurring theme) rather than the price per se.
> ...



"Back in the day" there was no internet. People still complained, but it wasn't recorded anywhere.
Most people expect value for their hard earned dollars, and they should. Some gear is over-priced in the market, time will tell with this lens.

Personally I want one, but it's not an easy decision at the release price.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 13, 2012)

Etienne said:


> "Back in the day" there was no internet. People still complained, but it wasn't recorded anywhere.
> Most people expect value for their hard earned dollars, and they should. Some gear is over-priced in the market, time will tell with this lens.
> Personally I want one, but it's not an easy decision at the release price.



This is true, and at least you admit that you want one and it's not an easy decision, instead of saying "oh well it's not any better than the original even though I've never used it." I just hate the whole "I personally want it so therefore it must be in my price range or it's a ripoff" attitude. It is an expensive lens and I was torn about it too, but after using it for a day I think it's worth it. I have it for 2 more days and have a feeling I'm really going to miss it after I return it.


----------



## AdamJ (Sep 13, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > To be fair, the price-related comments in this thread are largely to do with the US / UK price difference (a recurring theme) rather than the price per se.
> ...



I'm not crying about how expensive it is.

I haven't been all over the internet marginalising the product.

I haven't told myself that it's not really better than the last version. I am not delusional.

I was merely defending myself against a charge possibly aimed at, among others, me, of griping about the price, which I wasn't because I don't intend buying it.

What is it that has prompted you to tell me to "shut the f*ck up?" Last time I looked, this was a public forum. But the rudeness that is infecting it is shocking, frankly.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 13, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> dadgummit said:
> 
> 
> > dirtcastle said:
> ...



agree with Razor2012... I like to have the best & latest gear in my bag that I can afford. It does help my photo alot. 

Others might find this as "false" statement - but I don't give a SHSSS....it's my money and I can spend on whatever I want, as long the wife approved it ;D


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 13, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> I'm not crying about how expensive it is.
> 
> I haven't been all over the internet marginalising the product.
> 
> ...



Dude I absolutely wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the general sentiments I've seen on the web outside of CR (youtube in particular). I'm sorry you took that personally, but you weren't complaining about the price, you mentioned why you thought people were complaining and I expanded on that. I sincerely apologize.


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 13, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > dadgummit said:
> ...



True Dylan, a guy can buy anything he wants if it has the wife's approval, lol. I agree, if a person wants to buy a 1DX or a 400 2.8 that's cool. There are alot of amateurs or hobbyists who get the best money can buy. Sure there will be some that will gripe and say there's no reason to be getting such professional gear. Well I'm sorry but like you said, I can spend my money how I like. I'm pretty sure there's been a person or two on here that picked up a 1DX or 5DIII as their first DSLR, good for them. They'll have a creative tool they can use for a lifetime. Sure the learning curve might be alittle steep in the begining, but that's what makes it fun and makes you a better photographer.


----------



## AdamJ (Sep 13, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not crying about how expensive it is.
> ...



I misinterpreted your post - thank you for clarifying.

While I'm here, allow me to clarify my view. This is plainly a superb lens. I would love to count it in my modest kit bag and will congratulate anyone who buys one. Most of us have to prioritise our needs and, just as you said a few days ago that you couldn't justify the outlay for a TS-E 24mm but the Samyang might interest you (I said the same thing), that position is true for me with the 24-70mm II also. It's horses for courses. My photography is unpaid - there is nobody to complain about the resolution of the images I make with my 24-105mm, least of all me. If I need something faster, I have the unholy trinity (non-L 28mm, 50mm, 85mm) and still there will be nobody to complain about image resolution. To anyone fretting about the new lens's price, all I would say is that your existing glass is just as good as it was last week. To everyone who buys one, I say with all sincerity, congratulations.

Peace.


----------



## kennykodak (Sep 13, 2012)

got mine yesterday, holy cow!


----------



## Tov (Sep 13, 2012)

I am a current ( and not unhappy ) owner of the mark 1 and have been griping about the price, as in 'it has to be ff-ing good for that kind of cash', when it was annouced. Now it turns out it is that ff-ing good. I'm really thinking of getting the new version. Its only money.


----------



## JEAraman (Sep 13, 2012)

If you have the cash.. do NOT hesitate.. I'm loving this lens!


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 13, 2012)

Tov said:


> I am a current ( and not unhappy ) owner of the mark 1 and have been griping about the price, as in 'it has to be ff-ing good for that kind of cash', when it was annouced. Now it turns out it is that ff-ing good. I'm really thinking of getting the new version. Its only money.



Exactly, you can't take it with you. Seriously though, a lens of that caliber isn't going to be cheap.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 14, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > "Back in the day" there was no internet. People still complained, but it wasn't recorded anywhere.
> ...



Why does it have to go back, did you rent it? 
My most used lens is the 16-35 2.8L II. It's my walk around most of the time. I have the 24-105, but don't use it much. I like f2.8 and wider, thinking I might take a liking to the new 24-70, particularly if it's cracking good at 24-35.


----------



## ellas (Jun 15, 2015)

Hello,
I find my lens a bit soft when I am close to the subject (closer than 0.7 meter) and shooting 70 mm at 2.8. It´s a huge difference if I compare it against stoping down to F4. At f4 it´s very sharp.
If I compare f2.8 and f4 at longer distances than 0.7 all images are razorsharp. Can´t see any difference. This issue with the sharpness are only at 70mm. Anyone else who got this on their lens?


----------



## bholliman (Jun 15, 2015)

ellas said:


> Hello,
> I find my lens a bit soft when I am close to the subject (closer than 0.7 meter) and shooting 70 mm at 2.8. It´s a huge difference if I compare it against stoping down to F4. At f4 it´s very sharp.
> If I compare f2.8 and f4 at longer distances than 0.7 all images are razorsharp. Can´t see any difference. This issue with the sharpness are only at 70mm. Anyone else who got this on their lens?



I think this is typical for this lens. Mine is a little less sharp close to MFD, but I would not call it "soft" anywhere.


----------



## ellas (Jun 15, 2015)

Ok, thank you for you reply. Here are two pictures taken at 40 cm. First is f2.8 and the second f4. Do you think there is something wrong with my lens or is this normal? These are 100 % crop.


----------



## ellas (Jun 15, 2015)

F4


----------

