vsg28 wrote:
I personally would take a 1.8% increased barrel distortion which can be corrected in 2 steps in Lightroom and save a heck of a lot of money.
Rcicala, can you help out with information about the true focal lengths the new zoom delivers at its upper and lower limits? The resolution is close enough to the 70-200 II at 70mm that I wouldn't choose the new zoom for 70mm work if it were notably shorter at 70mm than the 70-200 II is. But I don't know the true focal lengths for either lens.
Basically, I'm looking to buy one lens or the other to solve a problem at 70mm, and willing to accept any other talents whichever lens delivers as a bonus to help justify the price. With the new zoom I would get currently-unaddressed capability in the range from >50mm upward, and with the 70-200 II from >135mm upward. But I'm not as happy as some others about the 70-200 II performance above 135mm. Two of those that I tested were easily bested by my 135mm f/2 plus 1.4 extender, which surprised me.
And if the new zoom is actually a 62mm or something at its upper limit, then I don't get much except zoom versatility for buying it, and I'm a landscape shooter who doesn't need that versatility as much as an event shooter or PJ would. Good as the new lens may be, I doubt it is going to usefully outperform my stellar Zeiss 50mm MP stopped down to f/5.6. So if the new lens is close to that focal length, I would get very little for buying it.
Even an unquantified comparison of which lens is longer at nominal 70mm would be helpful.
I didn't get a chance to measure angle of view -- that requires some special measurements I didn't have time to make. I can make some generalizations, though, based on the setups required because with Imatest you change distance to exactly fill the target.
The 70-200 f2.8 IS II, I know from previous work, is actually 73mm at the long end (we did the measurements way back when).
The 24-70 f2.8 Mk I is not quite 70mm. We haven't measured. I woud say it's 68mm, or so since it sets up about 6 inches closer to the target than the 70-200 at 70mm.
The 24-70 Mk II is set up at exactly the same distance so it would be within +/- 1mm of the Mk I.
The Tamron 24-70 is clearly shorter, setting up almost 6 inches closer to the target for the same framing. I'd estimate 65 or 66mm.
I hope that helps until someone does measure angle of view or actual focal length.
skibum5 wrote:
i guess the out in the US by the 13th meant only in VERY limited quantities to only 2 or 3 stores in the whole country.
anyone have word when it will actually be generally avail in the US?
I preordered about 4 weeks ago from my small/local independent camera shop. Just got notice that it's shipping now and I should have it early next week. I think I'm the only one on their list though.
Sheldon N wrote:
I preordered about 4 weeks ago from my small/local independent camera shop. Just got notice that it's shipping now and I should have it early next week. I think I'm the only one on their list though.
good to hear
hopefully they didn't skip over the large/local independent camera shops though and just give it to B&H and the little ones though hah
My 24 - 70 Mk II arrived today and I am very impressed so far.
The first thing I did was use FoCal to MA it. On my 1DIV it needed+2 on the wide end and zero on the tele end. On the 5D MK III it took -1 on the wide end and zero again on the tele end.
With that out of the way I took some pictures around the yard that I had taken in the past with the Mk I back when I was trying to figure out why I didn't like the Mk I. (I know, lots of folks love the Mk I but I have never been impressed with it or any of the semi-wide lens - I haven't shot at wider than 85 mm for a couple of years, except with the 70 - 200.)
I WILL be taking pictures in the 24 - 70mm range in the future. The Mk II produces nice sharp pictures with pop. Other than pin-cushion and barrel distortion I would think I was looking at 70 - 200 II photos. The barrel and pin-cushion I can fix in post.
I'm starting to chomp at the bit reading these recent threads. I've been on a pre-order for several months now and it will certainly be a welcome addition in my meager few that I have now. Some great exposures starting to pop up with the threads!
I missed the UPS on Friday. I can't decide whether to accept delivery now or not. Is the new lens sharp in the corners at f/8? The first version had so much field curvature the corners were never really sharp. I use the 24TSE II for 24 so if the distortion is less painful by 28 that would be sufficient.
EB-1 wrote:
I missed the UPS on Friday. I can't decide whether to accept delivery now or not. Is the new lens sharp in the corners at f/8? The first version had so much field curvature the corners were never really sharp. I use the 24TSE II for 24 so if the distortion is less painful by 28 that would be sufficient.
24 T&S II def looks better there in the corners
wow hmm the new 24 2.8 IS does too hmmm
but it looks pretty close to the 24 1.4 II they tested
def looks way better than the 24-105 at 24mm in the corners
the new 24 2.8 IS might be the least expensive way by far to get top landscape to the edges performance on FF
the 24 T&S II is prob the ultimate for landscapes overall though
despite MTF claims maybe the 24-70 II doesn't quite get there
that said it sure does worlds better over most of the range and aperture values than the 24-105 and to a lesser extent than the 24-70, it basically creams both of those anywhere near either lenses wide open aperture at all (f/5.6 and below) and even beats them, especially the 24-105, way stopped down on the very wide side
if you stop down to f/5.6 or more the 24 2.8 IS actually seems to outdo the 24 1.4 II, so it really is the best bargain for a top quality wide for FF
that said far corner doesn't also matter as much as far edge and far edge and far corner performance can differ and my results, for whatever, reason have not always matched those of TDP and larger distance, field curvature, etc. remains to be seen between them all
the 24-70 I doesn't do so badly on his test at the corners at f/8 even just up to only 28mm from 24mm and the 24-70 II looks even better there, like the 24 T&S and 24 2.8 IS almost and all of them demolish the 24-105, especially the primes and new one; letting the zooms do 28mm: 24 T&S II > 24-70 II > 24. 2.8 IS barely > 24 1.4 II barely > 24-70 I >>> 24-105
lettings them all do 24mm: 24 T&S II > 24 2.8 IS > 24 1.4 II barely > 24-70 II >> 24-70 I >>> 24-105 or something or other along those lines (all at f/8)
the 24-70 II seems quite sharp at his mid-frame position (whch is not really mid-frame but sort of a well upper mid-frame)
Apparently by default when you open that link of comparison between the 24-70mm Mark II and the 24mm TS-E Mark II, the aperture of the zoom lens is f/2.8. The next aperture setting down for the zoom lens is f/3.2 and it is still not quite the same. So, set it at f/4.0 for both and do the comparison then. All I can say, considering that it is a zoom lens, that lens is really impressive.
AGeoJO wrote:
Apparently by default when you open that link of comparison between the 24-70mm Mark II and the 24mm TS-E Mark II, the aperture of the zoom lens is f/2.8. The next aperture setting down for the zoom lens is f/3.2 and it is still not quite the same. So, set it at f/4.0 for both and do the comparison then. All I can say, considering that it is a zoom lens, that lens is really impressive.
@ f/4 the zoom is stronger in the center and mid-frame.
it destroys the tamron 24-70 vc, but then again, i almost swear he is paid to mess up all tamron lens tests, his tamron results tend to always suck and be wayyy worse than i (and some other sites get). His 70-300 VC results at 300mm look like a bad joke and nothing like either of two copies i tried (which didn't even blow me away or anything at 300mm) and his 24-70 VC looks like a nightmare at 24mm at ANY aperture at the corner/mid-frame, come on now, dven my 28-75 destroys the results he got out of it and his results don't remotely watch the talk of others about the new tamron at 24mm
i don't know
maybe he tested it near to MFD where tamron lenses often stink?
i noticed they tend to make their lenses ideal for distant subjects
wow yeah he clearly got trashed copies of the tamron lenses, not sure why he tested them
hah i mean come on! his tamron 28-75 results are a joke! mine was sharper than three different 24-105 across the frame at 28mm at any aperture and his looks like maybe even worse than a bottle cap again and again every tamron lens he tests somehow looks like utter junk, i don't get it, how can he get the worst copy they ever made of every single lens they make?
or maybe it is the distance tested at and he tests them all super close in or at some particular distance that exactly worst matches their field curvature, something must be going on
hmmm