# Post your 24-70 II Experiences Here



## DerStig (Sep 4, 2012)

I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 5, 2012)

Isn't this post kind of cruel ?


----------



## 87vr6 (Sep 5, 2012)

Here I am fresh out of my time machine. The lens is sharp. It's so sharp that I actually cut a picture in half with it. It doesn't even need IS because though it's advertised as a 2.8 lens, it's really a .95, but it is razor sharp wide open, so there's no need for the IS. 

Also, I was shooting with it on my 3DX...


----------



## K-amps (Sep 5, 2012)

87vr6 said:


> Here I am fresh out of my time machine. The lens is sharp. It's so sharp that I actually cut a picture in half with it. It doesn't even need IS because though it's advertised as a 2.8 lens, it's really a .95, but it is razor sharp wide open, so there's no need for the IS.
> 
> Also, I was shooting with it on my 3DX...



;D ;D ;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 5, 2012)

DerStig said:


> I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.



It will certainly for the 35L, considering the mark I already did that. The 24 and 50 are yet to be seen, I highly doubt at the 24 end, but the 50 maybe. However, the 50L's strengths are where the 24-70L II can't go. So that is really not a contest truly.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 5, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> DerStig said:
> 
> 
> > I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.
> ...



MTF charts for the 24-70 II are actually better than the ones for the 24 1.4 II.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 5, 2012)

That could be true yes. I wasn't going by charts I suppose, but rather, experience. However, wouldn't that be amazing if it were sharper than the 24L? I still won't sell it because I shoot wider than f/2.8 with that lens. But if I can have the 16-35L, 24L, and 24-70L, that will more than cover me for what I shoot. Now, suppose we saw a 35L II and 50L II come out later. Boy, will Canon have a superb lens lineup by then or what, not that they don't already??


----------



## M.ST (Sep 5, 2012)

I am very happy with my EF 24-70 II (non production version).

But I don´t waste my time and money reading charts, looking at tests from magazines or test self the lens against a lot of primes.


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 5, 2012)

DerStig said:


> I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.



I say primes are always better for anything. If i used the 24-70 to shoot weddings in dimmed light i would get much more noise than at 1.2 or 1.4 with primes. If you compare mtf charts look at the f/8 results to compare.

I use TS-E 24mm 3.5 II, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85mm 1.2 II, 135mm 2.0 ,so i won't be buying any zoom lenses anytime soon on those focal lenghts.


----------



## DerStig (Sep 5, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> DerStig said:
> 
> 
> > I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.
> ...



Sorry, I'm quite confused. I rented 24-70 a few times, the images were nowhere near sharp and there is no way it comes even close to 35L in any aperture. The only thing that comes close to 35L, but does not beat it is the 70-200 IS II. I have both lenses so I am not making this up. I don't know what aperture that MTF chart is posted there at, but I'd highly doubt they made a lens that beats all of their primes. A lot of people buy the primes not only for their low light capabilities but also for their sharpness.

Please also see:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0


----------



## photogaz (Sep 5, 2012)

M.ST said:


> I am very happy with my EF 24-70 II (non production version).
> 
> But I don´t waste my time and money reading charts, looking at tests from magazines or test self the lens against a lot of primes.



How long have you had it and how comes you've got a non production version?


----------



## fanfan (Sep 5, 2012)

DerStig said:


> I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.



70-200 IS II sharper then 85L II and 135L ??? Really??? I think you need some good glasses, not for your camera, but for your eyes !!!


----------



## 96Brigadier (Sep 5, 2012)

DerStig said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > DerStig said:
> ...



This isn't a discussion about the 24-70 Version I, it is about the 24-70 Version II that has just started to hit stores. Totally different lens.

For the record though I have Version I and I'm quite happy with the results I get out of it.


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 5, 2012)

In this post I posted a shot (bike) I took with the new II version, that I was lucky enough to get to play with for 24 hours the 16th of August. To me it is very sharp
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8766.0


----------



## scarbo (Sep 5, 2012)

fanfan said:


> DerStig said:
> 
> 
> > I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.
> ...


I think you're underestimating how sharp the 70-200 IS II is. Take a look.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## K-amps (Sep 5, 2012)

scarbo said:


> fanfan said:
> 
> 
> > DerStig said:
> ...



Compared to the 85L ii, both stopped to F4, the 70-200ii is actually sharper and has less light loss. Didnt expect this. In the 135 vs mk.ii, the 70-200mk.ii is sharper @ f2.8 in the mid to corners. About the same at center. Again.. the 70-200mk.ii raises the bar and competes with primes. The only area is loses is the extra stops of light compared to the uber large aperture primes. But with high ISO capabilities, that need is somewhat compensated for.


----------



## fanfan (Sep 5, 2012)

fanfan said:


> I think you're underestimating how sharp the 70-200 IS II is. Take a look.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2



I have the 70-200 IS II, 85L II and 135L and in real life shooting, the 85L II and 135L are way more sharp compared to my 70-200 IS II and it's not a bad copy, I could compare with half a dozen similar zoom.

The test shot like the one you show me are nothing like real life shooting

Take by exemple the 24L II, it looks incredibly sharp on the test on that site, but in real life, almost 30% of the pictures are out of focus, so it make that lens useless in some situation

Always keep in mind that you won't be shooting number and line when you will be in studio doing fashion or outside doing landscape or street photo

Look also at the 50 1.2L on that website, It looks awful but go find some real pictures in real life situation taken with the same lens and you will see it can be crazy sharp 

Black on white test shot are really killing some good lens, they look awful on such test but in real life situation they look awesome

It's all about personal preference, both can be good, it all depend of your shooting style, but I will never use my 70-200 in the studio if I have my 85 or 135. I will use the 70-200 if I'm outside doing sport or something that is too fast for me to change lens between shot.

And keep in mind something, 30 years ago some amazing photographer were able to take amazing pictures that many of us will never be able to make, and they did with lens that look completely awful on these test chart

And if you think it's all about that kind of test, I know people here hate DXO but what about this :

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF85mm-f-1.2L-II-USM
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM

2 different site, 2 different result, 2 different stories

I don't want to bash what you said, but have you ever tried all 3 lenses before or you just tell your conclusion by looking at some test shot on that website?

If you buy a lens just by looking at that website, you got it all wrong my friend
Rent the lens and zoom, go shooting for a day or a weekend and choose what's best for you

In my case, I don't need a zoom for what I do, I need sharpness, and for my own personal taste I really believe the 85L II and 135L are a lot sharper then the 70-200 IS II

But in the end it's all a matter or personal preference... I just wish you tried all 3 lenses before commenting on their performance, have you tried all 3 ?


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 5, 2012)

Here is one straight out of camera jpg. I wish I could post Raw here, but they are too big. I have reduced it to to be able to upload it here. They are both shot with the 1D X


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 5, 2012)

Here is the second.

If the pictures are bad, I IMHO its the photographers fault and not this excellent lens


----------



## well_dunno (Sep 5, 2012)

any images where we can see to what extent there is distortion on the wide end? 

Cheers!


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 5, 2012)

here is a third one.


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 5, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> any images where we can see to what extent there is distortion on the wide end?
> 
> Cheers!



Not sure if this helps or not. I have a problem knowing which pictures that are taken with the 24-70 II since my software does not recognize the lens (as far as I can see in the exit info), and that day I only shot with two lenses; 24-70 II and the 70-200 II, so I have gone for pictures that are below 70mm 

as with the three previous one, this one is also straight from camera without any editing or cropping.


----------



## Bosman (Sep 5, 2012)

fanfan said:


> fanfan said:
> 
> 
> > I think you're underestimating how sharp the 70-200 IS II is. Take a look.
> ...


I have had each of these lenses. I no longer own the 135L or 85L. I was never disappointed in the 135, ever. The 85 when it hit it hit with impact. The 70-200L II never fails me either and there isnt much real world change to the impact of my images compared to the 85 and 135 other than larger apertures but at 200mm the dof is extremely shallow. the 70-200LII F2.8 at 135mm .3ft, at 10ft F2.8 is .1 ft dof. The 85L 10ft F2.8 is .7ft dof, even at F1.4 it is still .3ft in focus. So if blurred effects are what you are after the 70-200 is no slouch, however the bokeh of the 85L is legendary. The CA on the 85L is really bad in some situations. The 70-200LII flare and CA are pretty much close to eliminated. For me the 50L takes care of my 85L lust and the 70-200 takes care of my need for 85 focal length. Not sure why 85mm it isn't a marking on the 70-200LII, i have considered locating the 85mm spot on the lens and marking it myself. Sharpness is nothing left to be desired on the 70-200L II either. Can't say why you don't talk it up more than you do. I shoot Primes as my primary but the 70-200 is a cut above any zoom and if the next 24-70 is anywhere similar it will bang out wedding images to perfection. The benefit of the newer model will be the metal bearings inside the lens zoom portion. When those wear out as mine have the zoom doesn't lock focus correctly. They replaced this in my lens as well as the zoom barrel and it was back to one of my most reliable lenses. Honestly though the 70-200 never fails me whereas my primes often do. Can't brag louder about that kind of performance!


----------



## Bosman (Sep 5, 2012)

I apologize for getting off topic. In looking at the images below there isn't anything that shows the performance of the lens here. This thread should have started when people actually had production lens samples not pre production imho.


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 5, 2012)

Bosman said:


> I apologize for getting off topic. In looking at the images below there isn't anything that shows the performance of the lens here. This thread should have started when people actually had production lens samples not pre production imho.



You might be right about the pictures being bad examples, but it is not a per-production version.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 5, 2012)

fanfan said:


> But in the end it's all a matter or personal preference... I just wish you tried all 3 lenses before commenting on their performance, have you tried all 3 ?


 Not sure who you were referring to but I have tried all 3. I don't know how one can measure value, but price aside... the utility of a lens should carry a lot of weight.

How do you measure utility... perhaps by usage? So unles syou are in a studio in a controlled environment where the Primes could do a better job, In the rest of the situations, the 70-200 mk.ii will be my goto lens. It is amazing that it can compete with steller primes. 

If one devised a 20 point criteria and compared all 3 lenses... I am willing to bet the 70-200 mk.ii would outshine the other two; 2 times out of three... Maybe more.

When it comes to the strengths of the primes, i.e. Sharpness, bokeh, the Zoom can compete with them head to head. Granted it is a tad slower, but it is not slouch. When it comes to versitility and utility, it smokes the primes, no competition. Then there is IS... and ability to match the primes focal lengths (reverse is not true)...

Overall the 70-200 mk.ii commands not only respect, but admiration... it is spoken in the same breath as the mighty 85L 1.2 and the Amazing 135L.

To each one his tool.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 5, 2012)

DerStig said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > DerStig said:
> ...



Interesting. My 24-70L I was just as sharp, or sharper at all apertures f/2.8 and up than my 35L.


----------



## DerStig (Sep 5, 2012)

To the people who think 24-70 mk1 was as sharp OR the mk2 is sharper, when you post sample images, posting a bike that merely takes %20 of the image at 2.8 aperture makes no sense. Please put your camera and lens on a tripod, using a minimum focus distance and largest aperture, take pictures of one of the ISO charts and post a 100% crop image. The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless, even the crappy 18-55 kit lens for a crop camera will look as sharp.

There is no way this lens will be sharper than 35L or 50L.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Sep 5, 2012)

DerStig said:


> To the people who think 24-70 mk1 was as sharp OR the mk2 is sharper, when you post sample images, posting a bike that merely takes %20 of the image at 2.8 aperture makes no sense. Please put your camera and lens on a tripod, using a minimum focus distance and largest aperture, take pictures of one of the ISO charts and post a 100% crop image. The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless, even the crappy 18-55 kit lens for a crop camera will look as sharp.
> 
> There is no way this lens will be sharper than 35L or 50L.



yes, more pictures of charts. that really helps me see if a lens is worth buying...

i say, take pictures with the lens in real world settings, because thats how i'm going to use my lenses. i'm not going to take shots of a stupid chart all day long so i can pixel peep. if that's what you want, look at the MTF charts.

i understand that charts have their value, and they show some important things. however, i never look at that crap. when i want to get something i usually see if there is a group on Flickr for the gear in question. Then, I look at real world shots taken by real world people in the real world - really.

if you look at the 5d3 in terms of charts and 400% blow ups of little lines it doesn't look that impressive. what makes it impressive are all the features that charts can't capture (the feel, the weight, the AF, the ease of use, etc.). those are the things that make it so i can take a shot and not worry about all the trivial garbage. what use is a lens with superb resolution if it needs to be on a tripod all the time in controlled settings to get a good shot? taking real world shots, especially action & low light shots, shows what the lens is capable of in actual situations. not to mention how it shows colors and distortion around the edges.

so please, keep the real world shots coming. i'm not a professional studio chart photographer, so I can care less about that stuff.

Sidenote - How is it that there can be no way that its sharper than the 35L or 50L? i understand that it might not be very likely, but how is it impossible?


----------



## well_dunno (Sep 5, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> well_dunno said:
> 
> 
> > any images where we can see to what extent there is distortion on the wide end?
> ...



hei!

Thanks for sharing the pictures!  I find it hard to say anything about the distortion, without having lines in the image - landscape is quite good at hiding the distortion while architecture shows it most I guess. 

By the way, are f/2.8 zooms fast enough in winter conditions over there? I would be happy if I could use f/2.8 zooms, though I recall Kernuak saying he used fast primes in his visit to northern norway...

Cheers!


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 5, 2012)

I think it's going to be hard to judge this lens until there are actual production units in people's hands. I'm assuming there was some kind of issue with the pre-production units otherwise it wouldn't have been delayed this long.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 5, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> DerStig said:
> 
> 
> > There is no way this lens will be sharper than 35L or 50L.
> ...



I have the 24-70ii on pre-order, I am confident it will be good, I hope it makes Canon go and re-design the 35L & the 50L to separate them from the amazing Zoom...... here's to hoping DerStig backtracks.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 5, 2012)

fanfan said:


> I have the 70-200 IS II, 85L II and 135L and in real life shooting, the 85L II and 135L are way more sharp compared to my 70-200 IS II and it's not a bad copy, I could compare with half a dozen similar zoom.
> 
> The test shot like the one you show me are nothing like real life shooting
> 
> ...



I shot with the 135L and 70-200 one day and when I was going through the images there were some that I thought for sure HAD to be the 135L and they were actually the 70-200, and this was the V1 and the V2 is much, much better. And I love my 85L/135L. But if I shot stills primarily I'd definitely grab the 70-200, it's arguably the best zoom lens in the world. And even if the 85L and 135L are sharper, it definitely isn't by much and you'd really have to pixel peep to see the difference. Of course the bokeh is better on the 85 and 135, but that's to be expected.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 5, 2012)

The 85 f1.2ii and the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii are 2 lenses that make Nikon guys wanna switch... So I hear


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 5, 2012)

DerStig said:


> To the people who think 24-70 mk1 was as sharp OR the mk2 is sharper, when you post sample images, posting a bike that merely takes %20 of the image at 2.8 aperture makes no sense. Please put your camera and lens on a tripod, using a minimum focus distance and largest aperture, take pictures of one of the ISO charts and post a 100% crop image. The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless, even the crappy 18-55 kit lens for a crop camera will look as sharp.
> 
> There is no way this lens will be sharper than 35L or 50L.



Except Bryan Carnathan already did this, and you're wrong. This is nothing personal by any means. Read his reviews of the 24-70L I and the 35L. Then review the ISO charts. Then look at your own photos of both lenses at say, f/4, everything else equal. This is why this statement is being made.


----------



## drjlo (Sep 5, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> DerStig said:
> 
> 
> > I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.
> ...



I don't know. MTF charts aside, when I had the 24-70 MkI, I far preferred the 35L at 35mm. Then again, I don't often shoot 35L at f/2.8 or higher..


----------



## DerStig (Sep 5, 2012)

Do you even know what you are talking about? How else can you measure the sharpness of a new lens, any lens? When you spend $2300 on a lens and it gets home, what do you do, just put it on and shoot bikers and farms infinite focus distance and measure sharpness, CA, distortion? Do you even listen to yourself?

When you buy a sports car, do you look at the factory figures of horse power or do you look at dyno test results at the crank and wheels that magazines perform?

I cannot believe you actually said this, for all intents and purposes, MTF charts are the theoratical charts, an ISO chart and a flat sharpness test is what every sane person should/will do at home with any lens that costs over $500. Your human eye won't be able to pick the differences in sharpness in those shots and if that's your way of measuring quality then a Sigma or Tamron would suit you better because you are wasting your money.

It is far easier to produce a lens in tele (hint 70-200) that is sharper than prime lenses in that focal range. If you took basic physics and optics, you'd know this. The wider the focal range gets, the more difficult, and in fact impossible, it gets. You will have to stop down the mk2 to most likely 4-5.6 to get close to the primes. It doesn't matter which "mk" this lens will be.



keithfullermusic said:


> DerStig said:
> 
> 
> > To the people who think 24-70 mk1 was as sharp OR the mk2 is sharper, when you post sample images, posting a bike that merely takes %20 of the image at 2.8 aperture makes no sense. Please put your camera and lens on a tripod, using a minimum focus distance and largest aperture, take pictures of one of the ISO charts and post a 100% crop image. The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless, even the crappy 18-55 kit lens for a crop camera will look as sharp.
> ...


----------



## keithfullermusic (Sep 5, 2012)

@DerStig

Believe it dude, because I said it.

First off, someone was nice enough to post pics from the new lens for everyone to see - these are some of the first pics I've seen from this lens, so I was pretty pumped. Your response to those was basically, don't waste my time with this bs, I want shots of charts on a tripod!!! (your exact words "The pictures you are showing (or comparing) are meaningless").

This guy bought the lens for HIMSELF - not to take test shots for YOU - so stop demanding other people run tests for you.

So my response to you is, do you even listen to yourself? If you want to see pictures of straight lines so bad then buy the lens, print out a bunch of straight lines and take a bunch of pictures. The title of the thread is "Post your 24-70 II Experience Here" not "Run Chart Tests of the New 24-70 for DerStig so he Can Make a Decision on Whether or Not He Wants to Buy It"


----------



## Kernuak (Sep 5, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > well_dunno said:
> ...


There are a lot of northern lights shots with the 16-35 or even the 10-22 (as well as Sigma equivalents), so wider isn't vital, but f/2.8 is generally recommended as the minimum in maximum aperture if you see what I mean. Basically, the faster the better (as well as wideangle) to limit the exposure time and mimimise the ISO, unless you also want to get a lit foreground in as well, then depth of field starts coming into play. Because Aurora move, to get the best definition, you want to try to freeze the motion.


----------



## dave (Sep 6, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> @DerStig
> 
> Believe it dude, because I said it.
> 
> ...



+1

Thanks Quasimodo, at least the horizon line doesn't look like the top of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. That's a good start


----------



## risc32 (Sep 6, 2012)

first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage. today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good. from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use. BTW- what happened to this thread? and i'm only making it worse, sigh...


----------



## DerStig (Sep 6, 2012)

35L is the sharpest non tele prime canon makes, there is no way 24-70 MKII will be sharper at 2.8, period.



risc32 said:


> first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage. today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good. from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use. BTW- what happened to this thread? and i'm only making it worse, sigh...


----------



## dave (Sep 6, 2012)

risc32 said:


> first of all 30 years ago pro photographer did not use crap lenses. they used good primes because 30 years ago zooms sucked. plus they used something at least as large as 6x6, and that is pretty large stuff(compared to the little sissy things used now) giving it a big mechanical advantage. today zooms are very good, and some are great. you are also wrong about that 35l and 50l being sharper than the 24-70mm v1. look it up, from brain's site at the digital picture, photozone, or some of the sites where they look at the 35l -vs- the 24-70 and others for astro work. the sometimes unloved 24-70 is pretty darn good. from looking at the charts and what canon is asking and saying about this lens, it'll probably be everything we can hope for. (other than IS !) BTW- i've never seen any 50l chart or photo that was very sharp. if it was, i'd own one . but my 50mm1.8 stopped down a stop is much better in sharpness and it's a 100$ lens made or plastic with a plastic mount! the 35mm was very good at it's release , now a cheap korean 35mm 1.4 is sharper. now i said sharper, not better. i don't want to fool with it's other limitations for everyday use. BTW- what happened to this thread? and i'm only making it worse, sigh...



It's what happen when someone starts a thread about experiences with a lens that they (or almost anyone) doesn't actually have... And then promptly complains about the photos posted by someone that has actually used the lens.

Where else I there to go but to a debate about primes versus zooms?


----------



## dave (Sep 6, 2012)

DerStig said:


> 35L is the sharpest non tele prime canon makes, there is no way 24-70 MKII will be sharper at 2.8, period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At what aperture? And whereabouts on the image?

on full frame the borders and corners of the 35mm f1.4 are not great, even stopped down to f2.8. As just one example Photozone records the borders and extreme corners of the 40mm pancake as having higher resolution at the aperture that you nominated.

As for the 24-70mm I'll wait and see before making such a baseless statement.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Sep 6, 2012)

@dave

don't bother, DerStig will tell you that it's impossible, you're ignorant, and "If you took basic physics and optics, you'd know this."


----------



## dave (Sep 6, 2012)

That's true. My education did suck a bit. ;D

...but



DerStig said:


> I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.



I thought it could not happen, period. That guy started the whole thread with that very proposition.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Sep 6, 2012)

@dave

I know, that's my favorite part about this entire thread - proposing the question of whether or not the new 24-70 could match or beat the other L primes in resolution/sharpness. Then, he tells people they are crazy for thinking that it's possible. Why ask the question if you feel that you already know the answer?


----------



## tx8koibito (Sep 6, 2012)

un-box


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 6, 2012)

tx8koibito said:


> un-box



Lucky! When did this come in and where did you order it from? What do you think so far?

Edit: Saw you're other post, thanks for the info! Can you post some samples from 24, 35, 50, and 70 when you get a chance? I (and I'm sure everyone else) would greatly appreciate it!


----------



## well_dunno (Sep 6, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Can you post some samples from 24, 35, 50, and 70 when you get a chance? I (and I'm sure everyone else) would greatly appreciate it!



+1


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 7, 2012)

Read this review on B&H:
*Superbly Sharp Lens*
By Denis EOL
from Atlanta
About Me: Pro Photographer
What a welcome update to the prior 24-70. This one is razor sharp throughout the range, fast focusing, too. I have tested a pre-production copy of this lens extensively and find it to be the sharpest zoom lens I have ever used... maybe tied with the 70-200mm f/2.8L II for outstanding IQ.

The single, ultimate wedding/event lens ever from Canon? I'd say yes.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 7, 2012)

I can fully agree with that what Axilrod wrote.

Use the prototype of this lens from december 2011 and like the outstanding fast AF and the outstanding image quality through the focal lenght the lens delivers.

But I don´t like the aperture stars.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 7, 2012)

M.ST said:


> But I don´t like the aperture stars.



Well, what *are* the aperture stars like? From the tech data sheet 9 rounded blades certainly should produce a nice bokeh, though the sunstars might look less spectacular?


----------



## M.ST (Sep 7, 2012)

I mean the quality and amount of star spouts the nine blades produce in low light at f16 or f22 from small light sources.

No problem with the bokeh. Bokeh is fine.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 7, 2012)

M . ST Since the lens is now available retail, hopefully your NDA is lapsed. Can you share a crop of the star you are referring to... not the whole shot but just the crop of the star you are referring to?

Axilrod, thanks for posting that... helps the rest of us to wait patiently for it !


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 7, 2012)

K-amps said:


> M . ST Since the lens is now available retail, hopefully your NDA is lapsed. Can you share a crop of the star you are referring to... not the whole shot but just the crop of the star you are referring to?
> 
> Axilrod, thanks for posting that... helps the rest of us to wait patiently for it !



You're welcome, granted it is just someone on B&H but I don't see why they'd speak highly of a lens if they didn't actually feel that way. The review from ThatNikonGuy shows much better color and sharpness than the original 24-70mm, and from what I can tell he was comparing it to an excellent copy of the original (which aren't always easy to come by). Either way the improvement is noticeable and I think it'll be even more obvious once we get some more good samples.

PS. I just realized you may have been confused and under the impression that I posted the unboxing pics, but that wasn't me, it was this guy: tx8koibito


----------



## K-amps (Sep 7, 2012)

Thanks Axilrod, however I was requesting MST to post a pic of the star flare/ bokeh that he did not like in the new lens.

Looking at the sun pattern of the nikon guy review, it just seemed like the starburst was better controlled and if someone needed the effect, they could apply a star filter... This is what I can surmise form the limited information I have.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 7, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Thanks Axilrod, however I was requesting MST to post a pic of the star flare/ bokeh that he did not like in the new lens.



I'd be interested, too, but he also wrote that it concerns f16-f22 - and the 24-70 is an open aperture event lens, not a replacement for the 24mm tse landscape lens...


----------



## Bosman (Sep 8, 2012)

DerStig said:


> Do you even know what you are talking about? How else can you measure the sharpness of a new lens, any lens? When you spend $2300 on a lens and it gets home, what do you do, just put it on and shoot bikers and farms infinite focus distance and measure sharpness, CA, distortion? Do you even listen to yourself?
> 
> When you buy a sports car, do you look at the factory figures of horse power or do you look at dyno test results at the crank and wheels that magazines perform?
> 
> ...


7 posts in and you are already flaming people for being stupid...Not good.


----------



## jpjeff (Sep 8, 2012)

Wow got my 24-70mkii on Thursday in Singapore, shop only received two copies so those months of wait were well worth it.

It is much sharper than my current 24-70 miki 

I feel that it is as good as my 70-200 and sharper than my 50L 2.8 vs 2.8

But the thing that blow me away is wow quickly it focuses on my 5dmkiii zero hesitation it feels instant. I found myself pressing the button twice as it focuses so quick!


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 8, 2012)

so what is the material of the tubus? engineering plastic like the Macro EF 100mm f/2.8 IS or metal like the 24-70 MK1?


----------



## tx8koibito (Sep 8, 2012)

Alrighty, finally got the new 5DIII, due to recent horrid weather in Melbourne, I was unable to take decent sunny photos to test this lens.

But now, I finally obtained all three Canon bodies, I will mount the new 24-70II on 1DX, 5DIII and 5DII tomorrow to see which come out best.

cant wait


----------



## spinworkxroy (Sep 8, 2012)

I got to test out this setup today.
Canon 1DX with the 24-70f2.8L II






I've used the version 1 many times before and it was a good lens.
After reading so much about the ver2..i was expecting super results from it.
Firstly, it's smaller and lighter than ver 1 and it's very noticeable.
The zoom ring is also much stiffer (maybe because it's brand new?) 
I like the new lock on the zoom...i wish all canons had that...
The material is almost identical to the macro L..very plastic.

However, one thing i was disappointed with was the focus speed...it' DEFINITELY no where near as fast as a prime lens. It's also not as fast as the 70-200f2.8 IMO.
It's not slow by any means but on a 1DX, i was expecting instant focus but it's not much faster than the old one..almost can't feel the difference actually. sharpness wise, i believe there are enough images online for you to judge yourself since i'm not too bothered about sharpness. 
Bottom line, it is better than version 1 but to me, i won't pay the difference in price...and the 82mm...that's a bummer


----------



## Aaron78 (Sep 8, 2012)

I own a 16-35 II, so to me, if the 82mm front element equals a better end result then i'm glad they used it. But for anyone not owning a lens that takes 82mm filters already, i guess it's more gear to buy (but that's what photography is about, spend spend spend...) In any event, the first impressions of this lens sound pretty good.


----------



## DB (Sep 9, 2012)

Do any of you lucky guys that now has a new 24-70mm mark II lens also still have a mark 1 lying about? Cos' if so, could you set-up your tripod and shoot a bunch of household objects (indoors) on both lenses @ various ISO levels, then post your findings here please.

I think a lot of us would really like to see a proper side-by-side comparison of mark I vs mark II


----------



## tx8koibito (Sep 9, 2012)

ok finally the sun is up,

flare control is extremely well....sharp and clear happy with the lens performance so far

5DIII + 24-70II





Tomorrow 1DX + 24-70II


----------



## DerStig (Sep 9, 2012)

DB said:


> Do any of you lucky guys that now has a new 24-70mm mark II lens also still have a mark 1 lying about? Cos' if so, could you set-up your tripod and shoot a bunch of household objects (indoors) on both lenses @ various ISO levels, then post your findings here please.
> 
> I think a lot of us would really like to see a proper side-by-side comparison of mark I vs mark II



For some reason nobody wants to do that.


----------



## luoto (Sep 9, 2012)

Stupid question to x8koibito but why is the tripod ring's fixing point sitting at the 12 o'clock position in relation to the camera not on the monopod when you would otherwise surely have the camera upside down?


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 9, 2012)

DerStig said:


> For some reason nobody wants to do that.



A real review of the changed production version takes time, it isn't sufficient to shoot a brick wall and then say "Well, it's sharp alright". Esp. the changed af system on the mk2 and its interaction with the newer 1dx/5d3 af and for comparison the 5d2 af system needs someone skilled to do it - and in addition to that, a good review should compare more than one lens sample.


----------



## tx8koibito (Sep 9, 2012)

5DIII + 24-70II







luoto said:


> Stupid question to x8koibito but why is the tripod ring's fixing point sitting at the 12 o'clock position in relation to the camera not on the monopod when you would otherwise surely have the camera upside down?



Have you ever tried hand holding a 70-200 with the tripod collar at the 6 o'clock position??? I find it irritating and make it extremely hard to zoom or getting a good grip on the lens.

in this photo, the 200mm occupied the monopod and the 70-200mm is for handheld only. Not sure if it just me, but I always turn my tripod collar away from the normal (6 o'clock) position when Im hand holding lenses with tripod collar.


----------



## luoto (Sep 9, 2012)

Well if it works for you. I'd not noticed any issues with it at 6 o'clock, but I will rotate and have a go. I'm not knocking something I've not tried, hence the question.


----------



## tx8koibito (Sep 9, 2012)

luoto said:


> Well if it works for you. I'd not noticed any issues with it at 6 o'clock, but I will rotate and have a go. I'm not knocking something I've not tried, hence the question.



hehehe, maybe I've got small hands


----------



## Bosman (Sep 9, 2012)

luoto said:


> Stupid question to x8koibito but why is the tripod ring's fixing point sitting at the 12 o'clock position in relation to the camera not on the monopod when you would otherwise surely have the camera upside down?


If not mounted my lens foot is either taken off or put in the 1 o'clock position.


----------



## JEAraman (Sep 9, 2012)

Got my 24-70II today. Unfortunately I've already sold my mark 1 since March.. so. I can't compare.. All I can say as an initial reaction... WOW eventhough it's "plasticy" but it feels solid and well built. AF is fast unlike somewhere I read. Can't wait to go out and shoot with it!


----------



## DerStig (Sep 9, 2012)

Can someone please post a few shots of a printout ISO chart or if thats hard just some random "indoor" shots wide open at 24 and 70 at MFD? That's the first thing I'd do when I buy a new lens.


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 9, 2012)

JEAraman said:


> Got my 24-70II today. Unfortunately I've already sold my mark 1 since March.. so. I can't compare.. All I can say as an initial reaction... WOW eventhough it's "plasticy" but it feels solid and well built. AF is fast unlike somewhere I read. Can't wait to go out and shoot with it!



I wonder if a lot of people will now sell their version 1. I'm still looking to potentially swap my 24-105 for a good used copy of the 24-70. Prices at the moment are pretty high. I'm still kicking myself not buying it while it was still round new at a normal price. I'm not interested in version II as it appears to be the same kind of flimsy build quality that I don't like about my 24-105.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 9, 2012)

spinworkxroy said:


> However, one thing i was disappointed with was the focus speed...it' DEFINITELY no where near as fast as a prime lens. It's also not as fast as the 70-200f2.8 IMO.



You're the only person that has mentioned that they weren't happy with the AF speed, everything else I've read said that it's lightning fast. Zooms can focus just as fast as primes, it just depends on the lens (85L is super slow for instance).


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 11, 2012)

haha well the first 3 pages of this thread can be deleted it really only starts being relevent on page 4
agree about the tripod ring on the 70-200 i personally leave the ring off mine and just put it on if i'm going to actually shoot off a tripod with it.

nice pics, I'm still not sure if i'll go for this lens i'd be interested in seeing some 40mm f2.8 shots side by side with the shorty forty just to see how much bang for buck that little badboy delivers

I'm super happy i snagged a 24-70 mk1 for $800 and its a really good copy (the best i've ever used)
so i'll probably just stick with that and hold out for a 35 f1.4L II

I really like the way the mk1 zooms within the hood the zoom of the 24-105 always bugs me the extending zooms are ok from a being compact point of view however if you shoot in a dusty environment they are a nightmare and fine dust gets dragged into the focus ring even though they are dust sealed


----------



## DerStig (Sep 11, 2012)

You have written 4 paragraphs without any punctuation.



wickidwombat said:


> haha well the first 3 pages of this thread can be deleted it really only starts being relevent on page 4
> agree about the tripod ring on the 70-200 i personally leave the ring off mine and just put it on if i'm going to actually shoot off a tripod with it.
> 
> nice pics, I'm still not sure if i'll go for this lens i'd be interested in seeing some 40mm f2.8 shots side by side with the shorty forty just to see how much bang for buck that little badboy delivers
> ...


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 11, 2012)

DerStig said:


> You have written 4 paragraphs without any punctuation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I used a full stop at the end of the first and I got some of these squiggly things in there in places '


----------



## kaihp (Sep 11, 2012)

DerStig said:


> You have written 4 paragraphs without any punctuation.


Your point being, kind Sir?


----------



## liberace (Sep 11, 2012)

For those that didn't think that such a kit existed... (It might not in the US, but it sure does in Australia)


----------



## JEAraman (Sep 11, 2012)

liberace said:


> For those that didn't think that such a kit existed... (It might not in the US, but it sure does in Australia)



naaayce.. how much they going for?


----------



## liberace (Sep 11, 2012)

JEAraman said:


> liberace said:
> 
> 
> > For those that didn't think that such a kit existed... (It might not in the US, but it sure does in Australia)
> ...



Remembering that we pay a lot more in Australia than they do in the US (just in case you get sticker shock), and also including tax, it cost me $5,850. Going rate for the body here is $3,600 and the lens $2,500, the kit is a $250 saving.


----------



## luoto (Sep 11, 2012)

Still no sign of a kit or even product in Finnish stores. CPN dealer didn't know anything yesterday either (or couldn't say). Ditto amazon.co.uk is hopelessly out of date.

Maybe they are letting you guys test it before bringing out the v3. in November for 1500 dollars with IS


----------



## Quasimodo (Sep 11, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> haha well the first 3 pages of this thread can be deleted it really only starts being relevent on page 4



Just want to thank you for your piercing insight and benevolent advice. Nice to know that there are people like you who are concerned with the well being of this community.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 11, 2012)

The resolution numbers from Lensrental are impressive

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


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 11, 2012)

preppyak said:


> The resolution numbers from Lensrental are impressive
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests



Thanks for the link...can't wait to put my hands on this baby 

Believe it or not....I'm checking on my pre-order status EVERYDAYS....just like 5D III


----------



## well_dunno (Sep 11, 2012)

Hi guys,

sorry if this has been posted before or any other thread. There are a bunch of pictures here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1225646

What surprised me is that there is a mk2 vs TSE 24 comparison at 24 mm and f/3.5 where the mk 2 seems sharper... 

Cheers!


----------



## K-amps (Sep 11, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> sorry if this has been posted before or any other thread. There are a bunch of pictures here:
> 
> ...



+1 

" I can’t believe I’m seeing a zoom lens out resolve a $2,000 world-class prime,"

 Roger Cicala

24 TSE ; Canon's crown jewel in resolution... if the 24-70 can come close... it's amazing!


----------



## Deleted member 20471 (Sep 12, 2012)

Some RAW files to let you make your own opinion: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9336.0


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 12, 2012)

K-amps said:


> well_dunno said:
> 
> 
> > Hi guys,
> ...



Wait until you see Canon 14-24 f2.8 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## castillophotodesign (Sep 13, 2012)

Cannon Man said:


> DerStig said:
> 
> 
> > I am quite curious to see how a non-IS standard zoom lens costing $2,300 performs. 70-200 IS II is one of the few zoom lenses that is sharper than primes (or as sharp as) wide open. I wonder if 24-70 II will achieve the same for say 24L, 35L, and 50L.
> ...



Yeah your are right, i own a couple of those lenses my self. the images may have less noise but they will be soft in most cases. except with the 85L. Not to mention that the 85L has slow autofocus and the 50L frontfocuses and its kinda a hit and miss. but i gotta give it to you TS-E is awesome awesome.


----------



## castillophotodesign (Sep 13, 2012)

if been thinking on selling my 50L and put some extra money to buy the 24-70... I dont want to get rid od my 24L ii, i like it too much. but if the 24-70 is as good as they say i might sell the 24 as well. The 24mm is only usable after 2.0 before then is has a lot of vignetting specially for astro photography and a little soft in low aperture. after F2 is amazing


----------



## Chris Geiger (Sep 14, 2012)

Here is my first shot of something other than my cat. This was shot handheld @ 70mm f/2.8 1/160 ISO 800, 5D3. Light on camera flash + off camera flash to camera left. Image was imported to lightroom and exported with all default settings. Other than resizing the image has not been changed. Temp was 100 degrees today so there is some sweat on the skin.

I only took a few photos with this lens today and most of the shoot was done with the 70-200. Really happy with the results and it will be replacing my 24-105 at this weekends wedding.


----------



## Marine03 (Sep 14, 2012)

Nice shots Chris 

I though it was maybe the lens rental review but they had numbers for each focal length and I thought the Tamron fell just shy of the new lens. Did anyone else see this considering the price point could be tempting for someone waiting for the 6D. Or am I way off because I for sure want the best. 


It's amazing how a few months ago I pined for the now old version of the 24-70 and question if it would be worth thee money.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 14, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> Nice shots Chris
> 
> I though it was maybe the lens rental review but they had numbers for each focal length and I thought the Tamron fell just shy of the new lens. Did anyone else see this considering the price point could be tempting for someone waiting for the 6D. Or am I way off because I for sure want the best.
> 
> ...



Agree nice shot, wonderful colors especially the blues on the guy's shirt. Also like the contrast of the shot ... and yes, the vignetting adds to the drama 

I bought the Tamron and returned it next day. It is great and sharp if you want to use it as an MF lens...


----------



## Chris Geiger (Sep 14, 2012)

I tried to work with the Tammy at the camera store. It seemed to focus ok for me (just looking at the back of the screen). I really liked the idea of IS in the lens. I could not get over having the zoom ring go the opposite direction. I often work with a 24-70 on my right side and a 70-200 on the left. Having two different zoom directions would drive me nuts and I know it would slow me down.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 14, 2012)

Chris Geiger said:


> I tried to work with the Tammy at the camera store. It seemed to focus ok for me (just looking at the back of the screen). I really liked the idea of IS in the lens. I could not get over having the zoom ring go the opposite direction. I often work with a 24-70 on my right side and a 70-200 on the left. Having two different zoom directions would drive me nuts and I know it would slow me down.



try using it at f2.8 and use AF. Next shot use lifeview, magnify 5x or 10x and Manually focus. Compare the 2 shots... you will be amazed how much resolution you lose with AF. I have seen this in Canon lenses as well but there are times Canon AF will nail it.... with the Tammy, it missed a lot and the difference between MF and AF is very noticeable.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 14, 2012)

1. AF is SUPER FAST - faster than 70-200 f2.8 IS II
2. SHARP end to end
3. Doesn't feel like plastic

Final thought: IT'S A KEEPER....I LOVE IT

Here are couple JPEG shots. NO PP, just resized for upload.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 14, 2012)

it does do onion rings, a bit...


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 14, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> just resized for upload.



Resized isn't good for anything, you could think about uploading them full size to minus.com and just post the link - in this resolution a kit lens would nearly look the same


----------



## K-amps (Sep 14, 2012)

Love the shot of the figurines Dylan! Enjoy your new baby and don't treat the 70-200 mk.ii as a step child now.


----------

