# Roger at LensRentals impression of 24-70 II



## bchernicoff (Sep 11, 2012)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests


----------



## LensRentals-Drew (Sep 11, 2012)

If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask them here or in the comments to the blog post. We are pretty responsive!

-Lensrentals


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 11, 2012)

I guess I'll have to reconsider upgrading my version 1.


----------



## bchernicoff (Sep 11, 2012)

To me the numbers make a strong argument for the Tamron. People have sworn by the Canon 24-70 Mk I, yet the Tamron beats it in resolution and adds IS.

I don't own a 24-70, but am looking for a faster alternative to my 24-105. Hmm... My concerns would be AF speed and build quality.


----------



## bchernicoff (Sep 11, 2012)

LensRentals-Drew said:


> If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask them here or in the comments to the blog post. We are pretty responsive!
> 
> -Lensrentals



Any chance we could see comparisons at 35 and 50mm too?


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 11, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> To me the numbers make a strong argument for the Tamron. People have sworn by the Canon 24-70 Mk I, yet the Tamron beats it in resolution and adds IS.


I'm afraid that Tamron's glass glue isn't going to cut it in many photographers' work environments —
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

And the original Canon 24-70 was sometimes a lens to swear at rather than swear by —
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation


----------



## distant.star (Sep 11, 2012)

.
OK, I was going to have another child...

but I guess I'll take this lens instead!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2012)

Much better than I expected. I guess I'll have to finally bite the bullet. After five poor mark one lenses, there is finally one worth having. 

The Tamron breaking down so early in its life does not bode well for being able to count on it when needed. using three dabs of glue to hold a large diameter element in place is really cutting corners. I'd expect them to be failing in droves before they are a year old, and as the adhesive dries out a little more.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 11, 2012)

Worse distortion at 24? 

The new Hood design makes it non-working at 70mm, bumps go straight to the barrel when extended.

Strange to me...

Equally strange is that it outresolves the ts24, that makes no sense in a great way!!

I'm very happy for those needing a 24-70 it's by far the best standard zoom ever. For me it must have been made differently to appeal..


----------



## bchernicoff (Sep 11, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The Tamron breaking down so early in its life does not bode well for being able to count on it when needed. using three dabs of glue to hold a large diameter element in place is really cutting corners. I'd expect them to be failing in droves before they are a year old, and as the adhesive dries out a little more.



I would hope they make a production adjustment to address this.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests



see now this is what I was talking about
i sooner believe this than all of the other random early reviews calling it mediocre


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 11, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The Tamron breaking down so early in its life does not bode well for being able to count on it when needed. using three dabs of glue to hold a large diameter element in place is really cutting corners. I'd expect them to be failing in droves before they are a year old, and as the adhesive dries out a little more.
> ...


I certainly hope so, but so far, they have been silent. They don't have a good record of acting quickly to such issues. Those who use the lens in temperature extremes where expansion / contraction is prevelant might be affected the most.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 11, 2012)

Wow those are some seriously impressive results, sharper than the 24 ts-e and the [email protected]?! I expected it o be good but damn that's outstanding.


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 11, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The Tamron breaking down so early in its life does not bode well for being able to count on it when needed. using three dabs of glue to hold a large diameter element in place is really cutting corners. I'd expect them to be failing in droves before they are a year old, and as the adhesive dries out a little more.
> ...



I believe they will. However, how soon? 6 months or 1 year? The good thing is Tamron give 6 year warranty. For normal users, they shouldn't worry about the glue issue. If the glue is not strong enough, the glass should fall down in 6 year. Tamron will repair that and you also can ask Tamron do adjustment for your lens at the same time.
However, for PROs you cannot afford two weeks without a 24-70mm lens because that's your tools to make money.
I believe Tamron is good enough for non-PRO, and a PRO should get Canon 24-70mm MK2. My 2 cents.


----------



## Ophthaltographer (Sep 11, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Wow those are some seriously impressive results, sharper than the 24 ts-e and the [email protected]?! I expected it o be good but damn that's outstanding.



+1


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 11, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Worse distortion at 24?


Ok, barrel distortion increased from 2.15% to 2.45%. The 0.3% increase in distortion isn't going to affect my work too badly.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 11, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Worse distortion at 24?
> ...



Yeah, the difference isn't much, but the old one wasn't very good in this respect, so worse is quite bad distortion.


----------



## libertyranger (Sep 11, 2012)

Wow! Is there any benefit to buying primes in this range? Aside from the larger aperture for more light when you need it?


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 11, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, the difference isn't much, but the old one wasn't very good in this respect, so worse is quite bad distortion.


It wouldn't be my first choice for architecture, but it's fine for many other subjects. In a design like this, distortion necessarily gets sacrificed in favor of other performance criteria.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 11, 2012)

bchernicoff said:


> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests



So.....the MTF chart provided by Canon is true? 

I'll be rich if I can come up with fixed hood for the mrk II.


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 11, 2012)

libertyranger said:


> Wow! Is there any benefit to buying primes in this range? Aside from the larger aperture for more light when you need it?


Larger aperture and lighter weight are very important benefits. So there will always be a benefit to buying primes. Also: smaller size & more discrete appearance & less distortion for architectural subjects. And finally, some photographers sometimes prefer the benefit of not being able to zoom; a prime lens has a single way of seeing and that can be a creative benefit, depending on the situation and the photographer's mindset.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 11, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> libertyranger said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! Is there any benefit to buying primes in this range? Aside from the larger aperture for more light when you need it?
> ...



Eh, and DOF... no way one can compare 2,8 to 1,4 at 24mm..or 35, 50 and almost 85..


----------



## carlc (Sep 11, 2012)

OK retailers, this is my FINAL OFFER, take it or leave it: New (USA) 5dMkIII with EF 24-70mm f2.8 MkII -$4,800. Free shipping with arrival by 9.18.12. Can't wait....


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 11, 2012)

What I'd like to know is the results across all 7 Mkii's tested. Was there much variation between them?


----------



## wopbv4 (Sep 11, 2012)

Any comments on the "focus field curvature" that is very apparent with the version 1 at 24 mm?

Thanks,

Ben


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 11, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> What I'd like to know is the results across all 7 Mkii's tested. Was there much variation between them?



"We only had 5 copies to test, but they were all very similar with little copy-to-copy variation."


----------



## DB (Sep 12, 2012)

I'd still like to see a side-by-side comparison of the same photo taken with both the original 24-70mm lens and the newer mark II. 

I trust that the LensRental review is both valid and reliable, yet I'm cognizant of the attitude of many (more knowledgeable) commentators on CR that are quick to dismiss numerical tests (DxO springs to mind) when they are loathe to accept the conclusions.

It would be interesting for many here if Roger or someone else at LensRental was to shoot a reference shot using both lenses at 24/35/50/70mm zoom levels

We now know that the mark II is a lot sharper and exhibits similar barrel distortion, but colour is the area that I'm most interested in (btw I sold my sharpest lens - the 70-200mm f/4L IS - because the colours were not as warm or vivid as my 24-70mm f/2.8L mark I) as this is a feature of 'L' glass that sets it apart.


----------



## drjlo (Sep 12, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Wow those are some seriously impressive results, sharper than the 24 ts-e and the [email protected]?! I expected it o be good but damn that's outstanding.



Assuming Lensrental meant Canon24 f/3.5 TS-E "MKII" (chart doesn't say MkI or II), that would be quite impressive for any zoom. 

I was not going to buy the 24-70 II, but I suppose I will wait a few months before biting the bullet, to shake out issues like the Tamron 24-70 VC :'(


----------



## Zlatko (Sep 12, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Assuming Lensrental meant Canon24 f/3.5 TS-E "MKII" (chart doesn't say MkI or II), that would be quite impressive for any zoom.


The chart doesn't say Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L MkII, but the article clearly says Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5L MkII (just before the chart).


----------



## Vonbon (Sep 12, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming Lensrental meant Canon24 f/3.5 TS-E "MKII" (chart doesn't say MkI or II), that would be quite impressive for any zoom.
> ...



I hope that was Mark I since I planned to buy Mark II for my first TS lens. Poisoned by Bryan DP.

I really dissapointed with 24mm result in 24-105, and I found 24-70 Mark I was worst beside I tested 4 copies. Good IQ in 24-35mm is prority when I purchase all around zoom lens.


----------

