# Photozone's review of the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is up



## traveller (Sep 22, 2012)

Klauss isn't overly impressed for the price: 

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff


----------



## charlesa (Sep 22, 2012)

For that price everyone would expect better TBH


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 22, 2012)

traveller said:


> Klauss isn't overly impressed for the price:
> 
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff



Ha! The Onion Rings!

I've read a lot of bashing against the poor cheap Tamron in this forum for that very reason. I would lilke to know what those people have to say now.

Anyway, quoting the review:



> The question of the day is, of course, whether this is "enough" compared to the impressive Tamron AF SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di USD VC ? Well, we have some doubts here. We'd say that among the primary criteria the Canon lens has an edge in terms of contrast (at max. aperture), build quality and it has a slightly better bokeh. However, the Tamron lens is as good in the lower zoom range and provides a much better border quality at 70mm. Additionally it has a unique selling point - an image stabilizer. So unless you're heading into a war zone (thus requiring max. equipment quality) *a premium of one grand (EUR) over the Tamron lens seems a little excessive.*



I can only agree, and I add that it's actually utterly ridiculous.

They improved the build quality to a decency level but it's hard to praise Canon for that. They should be ashamed for the QC issues of the previous version, considering the price tag and the pro user target. 

Looking at those graph it's hard to justify the hype for its sharpness either, and the bokeh is probably a tad worse than the previous version.

And the price? I would never pay more than twice as much as for the Tamron, which also has VC. By the way Tamron also offers 6 years of warranty and an excellent service. It's pure value.


----------



## Nyc2dc (Sep 22, 2012)

I was really expecting/hoping for a 70-200 ii performance on this lens. What kills me is that with regard to my personal experience photozone have always been dead on with their reviews. :-[


----------



## drjlo (Sep 22, 2012)

I'm somewhat glad that the previous super hype surrounding the 24-70 II isn't really justified. If it did turn out to be as super as rumored, I would likely have swallowed the ludicrous $2300 price, which I really shouldn't. 

It is very good zoom lens with "an almost surprising drop in border quality at 70mm with resolution figures that are inferior compared to the old version of the lens." (Photozone)

"However, the Tamron lens is as good in the lower zoom range and provides a much better border quality at 70mm. Additionally it has a unique selling point - an image stabilizer."


----------



## brad-man (Sep 22, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Klauss isn't overly impressed for the price:
> ...




Yup. I've had my SP 24-70mm f/2.8 for four months now and couldn't be happier. While I never seriously considered the new ef 24-70 II due to price and lack of IS (I don't make no money from this), the whole "onion bokeh" hysteria cracked me up (non issue). To see the new Canon also has it (still non issue for me) makes me chuckle. Having a six year warranty in case my front element comes loose makes me laugh out loud...


----------



## risc32 (Sep 22, 2012)

personally, my biggest gripe with the Tamron is the reverse zooming/focusing, and what looks like a weird focus/zoom layout. but, i've had to dig deep to learn much of it. is the focus ring in the back? is it tiny? does it go the wrong(opposite canon) way?


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 22, 2012)

I thought I'd never had to say this, but we should also reconsider the 2.5 times cheaper Sigma version.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 22, 2012)

risc32 said:


> personally, my biggest gripe with the Tamron is the reverse zooming/focusing, and what looks like a weird focus/zoom layout. but, i've had to dig deep to learn much of it. is the focus ring in the back? is it tiny? does it go the wrong(opposite canon) way?



Yes. The zoom is large, smooth and in front. It turns opposite to the Cannon. The focus ring is small, but right behind the zoom ring, making it quicker for me to adjust on the fly. Familiarity with the equipment is all that is required. Some folks don't care for the push/pull zoom on the 100-400L, but I am quite fond of it. Plus, if I'm on a boat that is sinking, I can pump out water with it


----------



## traveller (Sep 22, 2012)

I'm starting to worry about sample variation, because Lensrentals seem to have got a much better batch than the one that Photozone reviewed: 

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

Also, Bryan Carnathan has experience variation between the three that he has purchased: 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/ [see Friday 21st September 2012]

The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC looks like a great alternative, until you see pictures like this: 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue :-[ :-[ :-[


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 22, 2012)

This is where the 6 (7 in EU) years warranty comes in handy


----------



## g3act (Sep 22, 2012)

Interesting to see how the Photozone resolution figures are very different to those posted by Roger at Lensrentals.com.

According to Roger, the Canon is 30% better than the Tamron at 70mm, but Photozone show it to be worse :-\

I own the Tamron and have found it to be very good indeed. The AF can be a bit hit and miss in poor light, but generally the results I get from it are superb. I could never afford the new Canon 24-70 anyway, but at least the red ring envy won't exist for the 24-70 after this latest review.

WRT to onion bokeh, I did have a little chuckle after reading all the Tamron bashing earlier this year.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 22, 2012)

Klaus is a tough grader and tells it like it is. I like his reviews!
However, Lens Rentals has the advantage of having several lenses to test, and Roger showed us what a average lens could do. Testing one or two lenses is a tough proposition, since sample variation is a real thing. A tested can only look for obvious defects and if there are none, then the lens should be typical--- except that it isn't.


----------



## heptagon (Sep 22, 2012)

g3act said:


> Interesting to see how the Photozone resolution figures are very different to those posted by Roger at Lensrentals.com.



I suspect that all manufacturers have major quality issues with the new lenses due to very low tolerances acceptable. Maybe Zeiss can come up with high enough quality standards but Zeiss also has a high enoug price for that. I guess it's up to the user to put each lens through a test and send back the broken ones (which will be delivered to other customers).

Canon should make a LT-line with the T meaning that it's really quality tested and up to the standards advertised.


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 22, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Klaus is a tough grader and tells it like it is. I like his reviews!
> However, Lens Rentals has the advantage of having several lenses to test, and Roger showed us what a average lens could do. Testing one or two lenses is a tough proposition, since *sample variation is a real thing.* A tested can only look for obvious defects and if there are none, then the lens should be typical--- except that it isn't.



Honestly, I think that when you pay 2150€ for a pro-grade lens sample variation should be minimal and barely noticeable, while in this case they seem worlds apart. It's just unacceptable, it can't be a lottery. Not for this price. This lens is 25% to 350% more expensive than any Zeiss lens.

I've seen 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina bashed here for much much less and for 400€ priced lenses. At least let's all be objective about the epic fail that it is - for one reason or another.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 22, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Honestly, I think that when you pay 2150€ for a pro-grade lens sample variation should be minimal and barely noticeable, while in this case they seem worlds apart. It's just unacceptable, it can't be a lottery. Not for this price. This lens is 25% to 350% more expensive than any Zeiss lens.
> 
> I've seen 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina bashed here for much much less and for 400€ priced lenses. At least let's all be objective about the epic fail that it is - for one reason or another.


Zeiss lenses have also had huge variations that testers have reported, so I'm not sure why you think they are any better.
Is it really possible to make a lens for under $30 or 40K that has miniscule variation from unit to unit? Lens have 14-18 elements, and the possible number of tolerance combinations is huge, so even with tight control of tolerancs, each lens would need to be hand made and thats where those huge cinema lens prices come in.


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 22, 2012)

Fair point, but it doesn't explain the price difference between this lens and its old version, not to mention competitors. If Canon can't deliver a narrower variation curve, then why that price?


----------



## g3act (Sep 22, 2012)

The price point for both the 24-70 II and the 5D MK III does seem very high compared to the current price of previous iterations. However, apparently the 24-70 MK I was $2100 at launch. If these lenses reduce in price by such a large amount can we expect the new Canon to be around $1400 within the next year or two? Will it be viewed in a different light as a result?

I must admit I didn't think that sample variation in lenses was so large. For two reviewers to produce such differing results is an eye opener for me.


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 22, 2012)

g3act said:


> The price point for both the 24-70 II and the 5D MK III does seem very high compared to the current price of previous iterations. However, apparently the 24-70 MK I was $2100 at launch. If these lenses reduce in price by such a large amount can we expect the new Canon to be around $1400 within the next year or two? Will it be viewed in a different light as a result?
> 
> I must admit I didn't think that sample variation in lenses was so large. For two reviewers to produce such differing results is an eye opener for me.



Well, yes, a -30% in price changes the picture. Honestly it's the same for me, though I've never heard of things like this for the 70-200 II and comparably-priced lenses. Not this *huge* a difference.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 22, 2012)

brad-man said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > personally, my biggest gripe with the Tamron is the reverse zooming/focusing, and what looks like a weird focus/zoom layout. but, i've had to dig deep to learn much of it. is the focus ring in the back? is it tiny? does it go the wrong(opposite canon) way?
> ...



I've had Tamron lenses in the past and liked the IQ and price/value ... but, never got used to the wrong turning direction of the zoom ring. Sold them all. 

I see it as blatant lack of respect towards their Canon clients to not offer correct turning direction for each lens mount. AS long as they do not change this, I will not buy a lens from them, no matter what. Same goes for Sigma and tokina. Want to make Nikon-style lenese? Go, sell to Nikon owners but not to Canon users.

To me it was a real hazzle and cost some quick shots when after changing lenses, the zoom ring suddenly turns the wrong way.

And Canon also rightfully suffers from their decision to not equip the 24-70 II with IS. And charge outrageuosly while not ensuring proper quality control to ensure sample variation is kept to minimal levels. Good that this comes around to bite them. They deserve it. 

But since Canon does not offer me a fully competitive FF body, I have no need for a 24-70 for the time being anyway. I'll sit back and watch the street price plummet faster and deeper than expected. hehe!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 22, 2012)

g3act said:


> I must admit I didn't think that sample variation in lenses was so large. For two reviewers to produce such differing results is an eye opener for me.


If you are talking near perfect lenses, particularly a zoom, then 2300 is dirt cheap. You are not going to get it for less than 30-40K


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2012)

Kinda glad I didn't preorder one.


----------



## g3act (Sep 22, 2012)

My point, I suppose, is that if there is so much sample variation between lenses, it kind of makes lens reviews completely pointless. They are reviewing that particular copy ( or batch ) or a lens, rather than the product as a whole. Maybe, we expect everything we buy to be perfect, or maybe those of us who prowl these forums are just perfectionists ( count me in  )

I struggle to believe there is that much sample variation. My hunch tells me that maybe one of the reviewers may be off the mark with their testing. I think I will reserve judgement until the next set of reviews come through.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 22, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Ha! The Onion Rings!
> 
> I've read a lot of bashing against the poor cheap Tamron in this forum for that very reason. I would lilke to know what those people have to say now.



+2


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 22, 2012)

traveller said:


> Klauss isn't overly impressed for the price:
> 
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff



Yeah and he even says the tamron is as good on the wide end, but really? His numbers don't say that and his samples sure do not. Just compare the 24mm samples of the building take with both and look at how much crisper the trees on the left and building edge on the right look with the canon (granted who knows how he focused those).

And look at this, just as the MTF charts predicted more or less (the extreme corner is worse than expected but that doesn't matter so much really, so I ignore his extreme numners, far bits of each corner, not THAT big of a deal, it's the center, mid-frame and extreme side edges that matter most):

For f/8 24mm center/border/CA:

24-70 II - 3580 and 3175 and 0.86
24 1.4 II - 3494 and 3104 and 0.82
24 T&S II - 3543 and 3053 and 0.43
16-35 II - 3340 and 2882 and 0.92 (26mm)
24-70 I - 3386 and 3060 and 0.69
24-105 - 3309 and 2891 and 1.4
Tamron 24-70 - 3346 and 2997 and 0.74
17-40 - 3292/3225 and 2998/3027 and 0.87/0.34 (20mm/28mm)
Samyang 24 - 3409 and 2952 and 0.64
Zeiss 21 - 3235 and 3006 and 0.70
Zeiss 25 2.8 - 3278 and 2777 and 0.66
Zeiss 25 2 - 3548 and 3274 and 0.20
Tamron 28-75 - 3255 and 2866 and 1.84 (28mm)

My Tamron 28-75 is better than his for sure, he must have a bum copy.
Man that Zeiss 25 2 whoaaaa.
But that 24-70 II sure looks good though, no?

As expected looking at 24mm, f/4 and f/8, center, edge and CA and distortion the 24-105 basically comes in last of everything. The 24-70 II comes in best of the zooms and even better than primes at times.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 22, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Looking at those graph it's hard to justify the hype for its sharpness either, and the bokeh is probably a tad worse than the previous version.



Even though they show it to be sharper at the center and edge than all the other zooms and even some of the primes? (yeah maybe it is behind the primes mostly on his extreme corner test and barely better than the other zooms there at times, but again, we are not talking even extreme edge but extreme far corners where the eye is least likely to bother looking at an image)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 22, 2012)

Check out these two images, you are going to tell me that one isn't a lot better than the other near the edges?:
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/1874375857_cC7dStc-O.jpg
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/2099376767_rBhGTrX-O.jpg

download the full images, save, flip between them in a viewer, the edges look noticeably better to me from one of them (hint: the canon  )

(to be fair, we don't know exactly how he focused these and that can affect things, but still in a quick real world pop snap one certainly did better)


----------



## well_dunno (Sep 22, 2012)

Klaus stated in photozone forums that if the money was not an issue, he would go with the Canon mk2. He does not seem to find a legitimate reason for the price difference it seems. Border sharpness at 70 mm is a bit concerning though. I understand sample varience is inevitable but paying over 2K for a lens that might underperform a 1K lens (which also has IS) in certain settings?.. :-\

I think wait a while with the 24-70 f/2.8 purchase...

Cheers!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 23, 2012)

g3act said:


> I struggle to believe there is that much sample variation. My hunch tells me that maybe one of the reviewers may be off the mark with their testing. I think I will reserve judgement until the next set of reviews come through.


 
Here is a video from a few years back about Canon manufacturing a 500mm f/4 lens. You get a idea about whats involved. THere are three parts, this links to part 1. You can easily find the others.

Canon Lens Production 1


----------



## pwp (Sep 23, 2012)

garzamoheno.com said:


> I received my 24-70 2.8L II copy yesterday. I don't know what this bad review is all about. Mine is razor sharp on all the frame, at all focal lengths. Very minimal aberrations, and superb fast auto focus. I am comparing it to a 24-70 2.8L I, a 24-105 4L, a 50 1.2 L, a 24 1.4L, a 35 1.4L.
> 
> I really believe that the bad review guy got a defective copy.



The cold hard light of a Photozone review is a useful perspective, but it is best balanced against real world feedback from working photographers. The lens is selling quickly so there should be a flood of user feedback coming in to help inform out purchase decisions. This review doesn't put me off, but it is a sobering counter to the gushing early feedback. 

-PW


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 23, 2012)

garzamoheno.com said:


> I received my 24-70 2.8L II copy yesterday. I don't know what this bad review is all about. Mine is razor sharp on all the frame, at all focal lengths. Very minimal aberrations, and superb fast auto focus. I am comparing it to a 24-70 2.8L I, a 24-105 4L, a 50 1.2 L, a 24 1.4L, a 35 1.4L.
> 
> I really believe that the bad review guy got a defective copy.
> 
> It is an amazing lens, a little expensive honestly for what it is, a lot of plastic in the construction, no IS (for whoever find that a letdown), but probably the best "normal" zoom around. I used the word "probably" because I haven't tested ALL normal zoom around, so I cannot speak for the Tamron or others.



+1....received the lens before my trip to Hong Kong. I will have some pics after I get back. So far, this lens is SHARP end to end. 

I will visit Lantau Island and Victoria Peak in Hong Kong today. Kinda miss my 16-35 II for landscape though


----------



## GLPhotographic (Sep 23, 2012)

I think there may be some slight variation in the first batch, based on my experience, which isn't conclusive - (could be a one off). 
First lens I received #(000061) was soft at 70mm f/2.8, had a hazy appearance on focus area. even once calibrated with lens align2 I wasn't blown away 
(I had the Tamron 24-70 vc and returned it because of back focusing and poor AF quality & speed).

Even though I wasn't wowed by the first copy it, it was better than the tamron, in every way. I still returned the canon the following day, considering the price, I wanted AMAZING. 
I was lucky that my store had a second copy of the lens yet to be sold (000063) which they kindly exchanged.

Now I am super impressed, amazingly SHARP @ F2.8 at every zoom length across the entire frame, which is inline with what Roger at Lens rentals reports. no micro adjustment required. (after doing the usual lens align procedure).
DID all sorts of exhaustive tests, and real life shots, I am wrapped with the build quality, operation, and images which come from the lens....I don't know if there is slight variation between copies, but this is my experience (first copy compared to second) and could reflect the photo zone findings.

The onion bokeh is there under certain circumstances, but its allot cleaner than that of the Tamrons, and isn't noticeable unless pixel peeping. doesn't concern me in the slightest. I think the bokeh is wonderful, very similar characteristics to the 50L1.2.
lack of fringing and CA is great. colour and contrast is wonderful.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 23, 2012)

And for all the talk about how it is a total portrait failure and awful at 70mm well look at the actual numbers:

70mm f/2.8 (center/far edge/CA):
24-70 II: 3343 and 2505 and 0.61
24-70 I: 2775 and 2262 and 0.57

70mm f/4:
24-70 II: 3459 and 2654 and 0.62
24-70 I: 3001 and 2725 and 0.63
24-105: 3363 and 2318 and 0.76

yeah really tragic there, it merely blow the other two zooms away hah 

ok sure the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and f/4 IS and 2.8 IS II and 70-300L beat it (and maybe blow it away at far edges) at 70mm but none of the standard zooms (that are harder to build) do, maybe for $2300 it should also match those in every way at 70mm, I don't know, but it gives the best wide side (and even long side wide open) from a standard zoom....


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 23, 2012)

I don't doubt that this is the best 24-70/2.8 zoom ever. 

That said, the edge over other iterations and the sample variability make it a highly disputable purchase at this price.


----------



## traveller (Sep 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Check out these two images, you are going to tell me that one isn't a lot better than the other near the edges?:
> http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/1874375857_cC7dStc-O.jpg
> http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/2099376767_rBhGTrX-O.jpg
> 
> ...



My observations:

I'd say that the Canon has the resolution advantage in the centre, the Tamron in the extreme corners (who cares?), but Canon has much better contrast. The colour balance of the lenses is very different -the Canon is more natural than the Tamron, which is quite yellow. It's difficult to tell in these photos as they are shot at different times of the day with varying cloud cover. The Tamron has noticably less distortion than the Canon. 

These shots were taken at f/9; lets compare them at f/2.8: if you want to shoot at f/9, buy a 24-105 F/4L. Sadly, Photozone doesn't have any f/2.8 shots at the same focal length. [This is something that I always find strange considering the purpose of the site, surely they'd be better to have some standard outdoor test setups for various focal length/aperture combinations?] Until some more real world samples appear, we're left with The Digital Picture's ISO 12233 chart tests: 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Fine, but I always find it difficult to relate this sort of test shot to the real world and they are taken at quite close distance, which some lenses don't perform well at [see Bryan's comments about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, which every user raves about (including Bryan) but underwhelms on these charts].


----------



## AndreeOnline (Sep 23, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ...well look at the actual numbers...



Where do you get detailed specs on all the lenses?

Thanks,

A


----------



## Mika (Sep 23, 2012)

It is interesting to hear about the performance of 24-70 mk I and 24-70 mk II in real life testing. So far I have been very satisfied with the Mark I myself (bought last year), and wondered what could be coming up next.

When Mark II was announced with very high MTF, I thought Canon may have shifted the weighing of some characteristics during the design of this lens to accomplish the drawing capability design goal.

Apparently, the older lens traded field curvature at 24 mm for comparatively small amount of distortion. Additional changes in the drawing capability of the new lens seem to have caused the maximum reproduction ratio to decrease actually substantially from the old one, and also bokeh seems to be worse on the new lens.

What it comes to investing in the new lens, I don't know as it does not have exactly the same performance in other areas. Mark I for me seems to be a bit more all-rounder, so I do think there might be some interest in the second hand markets for this lens for a relatively long period due to aforementioned properties.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 23, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Ha! The Onion Rings! I've read a lot of bashing against the poor cheap Tamron in this forum for that very reason. I would lilke to know what those people have to say now.



I'd really like to know how many people who'd never gotten the Tamron because of the horrible onion rings now will say that it's actually not that bad, that a zoom can never be a prime and the problem occurs only in specific shots :->



neuroanatomist said:


> Kinda glad I didn't preorder one.



The mk2 may be more worthwhile on a high mp camera due to increased sharpness, and for heavy-duty event photogs that need the fastest af and more durability (which the mk2 has over the mk1 due to lensrentals).

For the rest of us, Canon should be renamed as the "$500 too much company" (5d3, 6d, 24-70ii) :-o

EDIT: removed mixup


----------



## risc32 (Sep 24, 2012)

What? The 70-300L has a reversed focus/zoom direction? Really?


----------



## tnargs (Sep 24, 2012)

I guess I can't comment because I am perfectly happy with my EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. Which, BTW, PZ rated more highly for optics than the new 24-70. (strictly being mischievous here :)


----------



## risc32 (Sep 24, 2012)

Just had to look it up myself. the position of the zoom/focus rings are swapped from the normal orientation, but they operate in the same direction. it's the direction that would drive me nuts, i bet i can get over their positions being swapped. Reminds me how i swapped my gear shifting direction lever on my bike. 1 down 5 up, or 1 up 5 down. no big deal, but one time when i got in a bit too hot i did go the wrong way. i guess i was overloaded, but i worked it out. anyhow, continue the 24-70 doubting.... ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 24, 2012)

g3act said:


> My point, I suppose, is that if there is so much sample variation between lenses, it kind of makes lens reviews completely pointless. They are reviewing that particular copy ( or batch ) or a lens, rather than the product as a whole. Maybe, we expect everything we buy to be perfect, or maybe those of us who prowl these forums are just perfectionists ( count me in  )
> 
> I struggle to believe there is that much sample variation. My hunch tells me that maybe one of the reviewers may be off the mark with their testing. I think I will reserve judgement until the next set of reviews come through.


 
And not only that, they mount it to a camera, so you are seeing a combination of camera and lens. If the camera mount tolerance and the lens mount tolerance are additive, the result will be visible.
A lens testers life is tough, but Klauss is one of the best, so I'm confident that the results are good for the lens he tested. Some of Roger's tests on his Lens rentals site clearly show the large amount of sample variation that he often finds.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/notes-on-lens-and-camera-variation
As you can see, even Zeiss has huge variations. Some lens models tend to have more than others. I'd expect IS lenses to fall into that category.
Also note that Cameras do show a variation, so the same lenses on different bodies give different results, eving using live view focus. 
There are tolerance buildups everywhere.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2012)

GLPhotographic said:


> I think there may be some slight variation in the first batch, based on my experience, which isn't conclusive - (could be a one off).
> First lens I received #(000061) was soft at 70mm f/2.8, had a hazy appearance on focus area. even once calibrated with lens align2 I wasn't blown away
> (I had the Tamron 24-70 vc and returned it because of back focusing and poor AF quality & speed).
> 
> ...



that is a little disturbing to here, even after the long delay to fix production....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2012)

traveller said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Check out these two images, you are going to tell me that one isn't a lot better than the other near the edges?:
> ...



Hah I tried the 24-105, three copies, at f/9 and f/11 and f/8 and it sucks on FF at 24mm for finely detailed edge to edge landscapes. The samples aren't even close to the ones posted at 24mm and stopped down from the 24-70 II (or my 24 1.4 II).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2012)

AndreeOnline said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ...well look at the actual numbers...
> ...



on the photozone charts


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 24, 2012)

risc32 said:


> What? The 70-300L has a reversed focus/zoom direction? Really?



It does not.

It does have the ring placement swapped compared to many Canon zooms. I can't say it's bothered me in the slightest.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 24, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > What? The 70-300L has a reversed focus/zoom direction? Really?
> ...



Sorry, I mixed up "focus direction" with "focus placement" - thanks for correcting me!


----------



## M.ST (Sep 24, 2012)

It seems to be, that Canon has the same problems with the production as in April 2012.

I recommend this lens, because my two lenses are sharp from edge to edge in all possible focal ranges.

Some photographers that I know are not happy with their lenses, because they are not sharp from edge to edge or not so sharp as my lenses. 

I test their lenses and totally agree with their opinion.

My advice: 
If you hold the new EF 24-70 II in your hand test it in the complete focal range and with different apertures. If you notice any problems return it to Canon and demand a perfect one.

I don´t accept drawbacks in this price class or above.


----------



## jpjeff (Sep 24, 2012)

Guys any advice on best way to test the lens?

http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/how-to-test-a-lens/ 

Or would Reikan FoCal or SpyderLENSCAL be enough?

I have both and they take alot of time and it is quite tricky to do


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Sep 25, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> g3act said:
> 
> 
> > I struggle to believe there is that much sample variation. My hunch tells me that maybe one of the reviewers may be off the mark with their testing. I think I will reserve judgement until the next set of reviews come through.
> ...




Looking at this video, there seems to be a lot of instances where impurities can creep into the manufacturing process. I don't know if you posted this video in support of Canon or against them. My take is that I wasn't very impressed. The factory doesn't look very purified or dust free.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 25, 2012)

DarkKnightNine said:


> My take is that I wasn't very impressed.



While these lenses might seem very expensive to the average Joe like me, it has to be said that a consumer dlsr lens is not the Hubble space telescope (and even that was flawed). And shiny brochures and detailed specs might cloud the fact that it's just a normal industrial mass production - produce cheap, sell expensive.


----------



## DB (Sep 25, 2012)

Those videos of how the 500mm f/4L lenses are made are quite interesting because they show that there are almost two dozen unique steps in the manufacturing process:

1. Material blending
2. Pre-fusing
3. Melted glass allows to cool naturally
4. Cut the glass into pieces
5. Fusing
6. Mixing
7. Churning
8. Clarification
9. Homogenization
10. Shape the glass into sheets
11. Shaping and pressing process
12. Grinning processes
13. Heating the glass and form its shape by pressing (by hands or by automatic machines)
14. Annealing
15. Further polishing
16. Rough grinding that produces that curved surface of the lens
17. Fine grinding
18. Polishing and surface curvuture adjustment
19. Optical inspection
20. Clean with ultrasonic washing machines
21. Alignment
22. Coating
23. The Lens assembly process itself (done by hand for Canon L lenses)

From a QC perspective, the steps outlined in Red above indicate that there is scope for variation due to human involvement. I always think of buying an 'L' lens as a bespoke product and not a commodity-type consumer one. After all, when you're expected to pay a lot of money for an object that is essentially hand-built and uses the best possible components, you have to expect some degree of variation (all manufacturing processes have tolerances - usually picked-up in the variance or standard deviations of the final goods).

Ultimately, both Nikon and Canon employ highly skilled technicians to build and assemble Professional grade lenses, and there has to be variation between these humans. I would bet a lot of money that if you were to test a large sample of say 2,000 L lenses produced over a 90-day period and created an index of the optical performance of each lens, then plotted the frequency distribution of those L lenses, that the results might look pretty normal (bell-shaped distribution curve), but then take the same data and plot their scores (or their deviations from the mean) chronologically (as a times series plot) or by Technician you would be very surprised indeed. You may find that Technician B on average produces L Lenses with less variation than Technician D or E, or you might find with shift-work that day-shift batches are better/worse than night-shift workers etc. Or even that Assembly line 2 is better than Assembly line 1 or that for Technician A there was a 2-week spike up in August in the variance of his output - that mysteriously dropped when he returned from vacation!

Bloggers on CR often use automobile analogies, well I did quite a bit of research on BMW Motorsport before I ever bought an M-badge car and one feature of their QC process stood out - every M car produced is test-driven on the world famous Nurburgring Racing Circuit, and it is said that the test drivers can tell which Technician hand-built the engine in every car. Furthermore, they had a Chief Technician in the 1990s, who it was said could simply switch on the engine whilst the car was stationary, walk around it and listen to the sound it produced as well as press his ear up to the bodywork (and feel the vibration) of the vehicle and he could then say: "Claus assembled this one!" Urban myth? Perhaps, but it does speak volumes for the fact that even the most expensive items in the world have considerable product-to-product variation.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2012)

M.ST said:


> If you notice any problems return it to Canon and demand a perfect one.



But I don't buy lenses from Canon, it's a the most cheap shop I can find ... and this gets tricky is there was a price discount if the lens is bought together with a body. Really, @ €2300 there mustn't be this discussion and the awkwardness to look for a good sample, that's why people usually say "Don't buy Tamron".


----------



## AJ (Sep 26, 2012)

traveller said:


> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



Thanks for the link. The Tamron looks good, but the Canon looks really REALLY good. Pretty darn close to perfect, actually. I wonder if Klaus got a subpar sample.


----------

