# 24-70 vs 24-70 II Outdoors Test! WHOOAAA!!!b



## clicstudio (Sep 16, 2012)

Since people asked... Here are some outdoors comparisons...
First thing I must say is the new lens is exactly 10% brighter. For this comparison, I adjusted ONLY the brightness and made them both as close as I could.
At first glance, they look almost the same. There are 3 crops. Center, Left and Right.
Not only the old lens gets blurry on the edges, but also the horizon line drops significantly! I drew a red horizon line on all crops to illustrate the effect... The new lens has an almost perfect horizon line all the way thru... Amazing!
Sharpness is just awesome. The buildings on the center are probably 3 miles away and the 2 towers on the right hand side are over 6 miles away... Still there is enough detail in them and this is just a 70mm lens. 
Check out the Subway billboard on the right... Unbelievable!
I am not a landscape photographer but I used the lens for the first time to shoot a model. In another forum topic I complained about how many out of focus or soft images I was getting out of my 1D X. I was disappointed and frustrated. I must say that I didn't miss any today. ALL images are super sharp and the focus is spot on! I am happy again! The old 24-70 will be on ebay tomorrow! 

Here are the links to the comparisons... Just rollover the image to switch and prepare to be amazed!
If you are an outdoors photographer, the perfect horizon line and the sharp edges should be a life changing experience 

One more Thing. Since the lens is brighter, it seems more light goes into th sensor, it is even better for low
Light situations. I would guess it's
Like 2 stops brighter. At the studio, When i used to need ISO 640, today I used ISO 400! Same
Lighting setup! Awesome!

Hope u enjoy!

Cheers

Patrick

http://clicstudio.com/2470test.html

http://clicstudio.com/2470test2.html

http://clicstudio.com/2470test3.html


----------



## Wrathwilde (Sep 16, 2012)

Wow, that lens seems a lot sharper. Very very nice.


----------



## rpt (Sep 16, 2012)

Patrick, FYI, the second and third links are the same...
However I put in http://clicstudio.com/2470test3.html and it worked.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 16, 2012)

rpt said:


> Patrick, FYI, the second and third links are the same...
> However I put in http://clicstudio.com/2470test3.html and it worked.


Thanx. I Just fixed it.


----------



## birtembuk (Sep 16, 2012)

Great demo, it's crystal clear. Thanks for posting. As far as the horizon goes, I am right to observe that the bottom of the 24-70 I pic is sightly tilting to the right. Could this explain ?


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 16, 2012)

birtembuk said:


> Great demo, it's crystal clear. Thanks for posting. As far as the horizon goes, I am right to observe that the bottom of the 24-70 I pic is sightly tilting to the right. Could this explain ?


I shot these hand held so I straightened both photos slightly. The red horizon line went from left to right almost perfectly on the new lens and dropped at the edges on the old one. The flat line falls only at the edges. Is not an angle issue. I just couldn't believe how bad the old lens is... I thought I had the best lens for the last 6 years. 
Canon waited too long but the wait is over and now, a perfect match for the 1D X...
My new "perfect" setup: 1D X, 24-70 II, SpeedLite 600 EX, Lexar
Pro 1000x 16GB Compact Flash. Just doesn't get any better than this.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 16, 2012)

Landscapes are one thing, but how is the af for fast close up stuff? I actually find the old 24-70 to have very good af. Is the new one like the 70-200 that doesn't rotate but jumps to focus?


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 16, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Landscapes are one thing, but how is the af for fast close up stuff? I actually find the old 24-70 to have very good af. Is the new one like the 70-200 that doesn't rotate but jumps to focus?


As I said, I am not a landscape photographer. I just did this comparison because people asked for it.
I used it for the first time in the studio today. It was perfect. Didn't miss one photo. Great and fast.
I was having a lot of out of focus pictures with my new 1D X and the old lens. Problems I never had with the 1D Mark IV. I thought I had a defective camera or that it wasn't good enough. Turns out it was the Old lens that couldn't keep up with the speed of the new AF system...
I will be selling the old baby right away. If anybody is interested, let me know before I throw it on eBay.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 16, 2012)

clicstudio said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Landscapes are one thing, but how is the af for fast close up stuff? I actually find the old 24-70 to have very good af. Is the new one like the 70-200 that doesn't rotate but jumps to focus?
> ...



Thanks, but in studio is hardly fast action now is it?

I find it very strange your old 24-70 was worse on the 1d X than on the 1d4 though af-wise. I have had all sorts of lenses and with better bodies they have always been better, at least with AF. The worst AF-lens of all (at least speed) the 85 L II is twice as fast on the 1d X than it was on the 5d3 for example, I can use it for moving subjects now. 

And when you said in studio, where you still in One Shot mode? 

BTW, checked your website, and you have some seriously good skills, cudos! Oh, and pretty models as well :


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 16, 2012)

Viggo said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


I don't do fast action. Just girls. I move around a lot. I zoom in and out all the time and wait to hear the AF beep and visually see the red point Light up to shoot in One Shot. I usually focus on the face but since the focusing points are
Too close to the center, if I'm shooting full body, I have to pick a part of the body that Is contrasty.


----------



## risc32 (Sep 16, 2012)

I can't fault your work, it's very nice. But, i don't know about your numbers. 10% brighter does not = 2 stops. 10% brighter is nothing. and iso 640to iso 400 is not 2 stops either. these numbers just don't make any sense but again, your photos are very good, so who cares about math anyway?


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 16, 2012)

risc32 said:


> I can't fault your work, it's very nice. But, i don't know about your numbers. 10% brighter does not = 2 stops. 10% brighter is nothing. and iso 640to iso 400 is not 2 stops either. these numbers just don't make any sense but again, your photos are very good, so who cares about math anyway?


The 10% is a sure thing. I tested it out in photoshop. 
I am just guessing the stops. It really feels like an F2.0 lens.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 19, 2012)

A difference in lenses both rated f2.8 is absolutely possible regarding how much light actually ends up on the sensor. It happened before and will likely happen again. It is a good thing indeed that you can shoot at slightly lower ISOs with the newer zoom, especially combined with the 1D-X.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 19, 2012)

clicstudio said:


> Amazing!
> Sharpness is just awesome. The buildings on the center are probably 3 miles away and the 2 towers on the right hand side are over 6 miles away... Still there is enough detail in them and this is just a 70mm lens.
> *Check out the Subway billboard on the right... Unbelievable!*I am not a landscape photographer but I used the lens for the first time to shoot a model. In another forum topic I complained about how many out of focus or soft images I was getting out of my 1D X. I was disappointed and frustrated. I must say that I didn't miss any today. ALL images are super sharp and the focus is spot on! I am happy again! The old 24-70 will be on ebay tomorrow!
> 
> ...



Holy crap! A footlong for just $4.50!


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 20, 2012)

DB said:


> First off, thanks for putting up some actual pictures using both the old vs new 24-70 lenses.
> 
> I looked at all 3 test crops and there is visible handshake in all 3 tests in the 2nd photo in each series. On one example you cannot read the SubWay sign plus there looks like a circular smudge in the trees just an inch or two below that green billboard. If you had used a tripod and shutter release, it would have been a lot better.
> 
> ...


Perhaps, but you can fix the color balance in 2 seconds in Photoshop but you can't fix the lack of sharpness or the edge distortion.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 20, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Landscapes are one thing, but how is the af for fast close up stuff? I actually find the old 24-70 to have very good af. Is the new one like the 70-200 that doesn't rotate but jumps to focus?


It does't miss at all... Perfect focus out of the box. When I have some time I will try to do some micro adjustments. It should make it even better! I'm really happy with the new lens. Totally worth the steep price.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 20, 2012)

DB said:


> First off, thanks for putting up some actual pictures using both the old vs new 24-70 lenses.
> 
> I looked at all 3 test crops and there is visible handshake in all 3 tests in the 2nd photo in each series. On one example you cannot read the SubWay sign plus there looks like a circular smudge in the trees just an inch or two below that green billboard. If you had used a tripod and shutter release, it would have been a lot better.
> 
> ...



Check this out

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## DB (Sep 20, 2012)

No, I fully accept that it is a lot sharper, and that the photographer can choose whatever saturation they'd like in post, but I think the most talked about 'positive' feature of the old lens was how wonderful the colours were (but I guess that is certainly true of most L glass.

Thanks again for taking the time to show us some landscape test shots, so far all we've had is un-boxing photos and technical stuff.


----------



## Invertalon (Sep 20, 2012)

You would need the original RAW files to accurately judge color... Never know if the camera changed the value slightly between the shots. If you had the RAW file, then you can put both at same WB and compare. But using JPEG's is not accurate.


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 20, 2012)

Invertalon said:


> You would need the original RAW files to accurately judge color... Never know if the camera changed the value slightly between the shots. If you had the RAW file, then you can put both at same WB and compare. But using JPEG's is not accurate.


Most of the reviews I've seen say the lens is warmer. Warmer means more reds and yellows... Great for skin tones but bad for greens...
Easily fixable in Aperture, Lightroom or Photoshop...


----------



## Invertalon (Sep 20, 2012)

It may be warmer, but still, to do an accurate judgement you need the RAW files


----------

