Ok, I am not going to carry out brick wall test, photos of cats or dogs. As it is, I am taking a risk here posting my wife's image here . Images taken with 1dx in Raw and imported to Lightroom 4 and default 25 sharpening.
Those look nice, but I don't see any significant improvement over the mk I, certainly nothing to justify the premium over an already expensive and very nice lens.
bhollis wrote:
I'm quite interested in this lens and appreciate your posting these samples.
Just curious if you own(ed) a 24-70 mark I? If so, what your impressions are of the new lens versus the original?
Hi bhollis,
Yes I still have the 24-70 f2.8. The 24-70 is my work horse lens. The only thing I would say it feels lighter and better balanced than the old model. I don't think I will do a comparison between the 2 as there will be plenty of experts out there that will do it. For me the most important thing is, the lens is sharp and take good pictures.
Yes I still have the 24-70 f2.8. The 24-70 is my work horse lens. The only thing I would say it feels lighter and better balanced than the old model. I don't think I will do a comparison between the 2 as there will be plenty of experts out there that will do it. For me the most important thing is, the lens is sharp and take good pictures.
Seeing a bit of an issue. Note the grass at bottom left and right corners, If appears the left side corner is significantly degraded compared with the right. I'm guessing there could be decentered elements or something.
SKumar25 wrote:
Seeing a bit of an issue. Note the grass at bottom left and right corners, If appears the left side corner is significantly degraded compared with the right. I'm guessing there could be decentered elements or something.
Jep, I noticed that too. Could be a matter of DOF, but not sure. Anyway, the sharpness in the right corner is very good looking, so there is hope!
While these look pretty darn good and the fact that I would definitely like a 24-70 mark II, the pricing on this lens is astronomical. It's not like the 16-35 mark I vs mark II which was a very strong step up in quality and the price difference simply wasn't that great. Or the 24mm mark I vs II which is the same thing. If this lens came in at $1600 (which is exactly where it should be) I'd be much more inclined to consider it. An IS version shouldn't even be $2300. As it sits I'll be waiting a good while before I have this lens. Especially since I have a stellar copy of the mark I. IIRC, I think I had to fork over $400 for the new 16-35 after selling my old one and upgrading. Well worth it. If I were to do the same with my 24-70 I'd have to spend over a grand for a 5-7% increase in performance.
While some people might complain at the pin cushion distortion at the 70mm end, this is something I love about the 24-70 and something I'm glad to see the mark II has it as well (at least it seems like I see a bit of distortion at 70). When shooting portraits at 70mm it has a slightly thinning quality for people that I find pleasing.
Hi, Yeah I thought that was the case too until I tried several copies. What your seeing is field curvature. The old one had it quite bad too apparently.
SKumar25 wrote:
Thanks for that.
Seeing a bit of an issue. Note the grass at bottom left and right corners, If appears the left side corner is significantly degraded compared with the right. I'm guessing there could be decentered elements or something.
. Images taken with 1dx in Raw and imported to Lightroom 4 and default 25 sharpening.
