p.6 #4 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
netexpress wrote:
Frankly I astonished this lens isn't on the FM Buy and Sell forum already based on the history here!
I bought my first 200-400L/4(5.6) IS here last week! It was really expensive, too. I can hardly wait until it gets delivered. It's coming by Ponie Express.
p.6 #5 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
jcolwell wrote:
I bought my first 200-400L/4(5.6) IS here last week! It was really expensive, too. I can hardly wait until it gets delivered. It's coming by Ponie Express.
If you spot the Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS version II please ping me ASAP. My flux capacitor hasn't been able to dial one in for me yet and I need the cap ex write off before 2013
p.6 #10 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
RCicala wrote:
Fred, it was the 24-70 II was sharper in the center and central 1/2, about dead even outside of that.
With Imatest we're measuring about 90% of the way to the corner, but not the absolute corner, though. I'm like everyone else, waiting for a good reviewer to shoot some infinity landscapes or such to tell about the absolute corners.
There is a respected FM'er (PhotoMadNZ) who evaluated the 24-70 L II for professional landscape work. He had access to multiple samples and found the lens has issues relating to field curvature. He shared an example raw file which demostrated this. The image showed slight degradation on the one extreme corner @ f/8. Hardly a huge issue, but it is there.
Also factoring in the distortion, I'd say the 24 TSE II still may be landscape king @ 24mm.
p.6 #12 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
netexpress wrote:
I'm Busted!
Lens down - hands over my head!
Please Petkal - not another Canon treatment center!
I promise to be good from now on!!! Honest! I'll change!
Sorry, Netty, I think it is hopeless..........you ostensibly have no support at home in your attempts to recover.....even your better half brings you the stuff. Yes, it is hopeless, my poor man.
p.6 #14 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
jonbrach wrote:
out of curiosity..and not to be difficult...didnt the gentleman from lensrentals also say the tamron 24-70 is sharper and a better lens than the canon 24-70 v1?It is one of the reasons I bought a tamron!
I do believe he did.
And it is, a bit, with good image stabilization too.
There are certainly many, myself included, who are absolutely, positively going to have to have the Canon II. But I suspect many more will be absolutely, positively satisfied with the Tammie. It's a very good lens.
p.6 #15 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
PetKal wrote:
Sorry, Netty, I think it is hopeless..........you ostensibly have no support at home in your attempts to recover.....even your better half brings you the stuff. Yes, it is hopeless, my poor man.
Thank you for the intervention Peter. I now realize I am co-dependent. I renounce all my Canon glass!!!
.
.
.
Well Except for my Superteles
.
.
.
And my other primes
.
.
.
And the zooms!
,,, and Hasselblad and Zeiss, Profoto and Leica and...
p.6 #16 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
RCicala wrote:
I do believe he did.
And it is, a bit, with good image stabilization too.
There are certainly many, myself included, who are absolutely, positively going to have to have the Canon II. But I suspect many more will be absolutely, positively satisfied with the Tammie. It's a very good lens.
The new 24-70 II lens is a photo-journalist staple. Tight shots of hot shots close up...
I'm thinking that at close range this new 24-70 II lens is the cat pajamas. It is optimized for close-ups.
I'm wondering if at landscape range (far out) if the primes dethrone it?
p.6 #20 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
Ive done some more testing with some more samples (!) Yes the lens is extremely sharp for short range, 'focused on subject", type of work. But in saying this, its no sharper then a good copy of the 24-105mm. It still beats the 24-105mm noticeably in the corners at 24mm though. Ive taken some of my samples and printed them quite large (30x20) to really see where its at, printing ultimately is still so much better then peeping.
Anyway, Im still satisfied with my decision not too purchase it. My 24-105mm remains as my walk around lens and my Contax 35-70, which easily beats everything in that focal range, will remain for stitching and landscapes. Ive got a cracking copy of the 24mm TSEII so Im going to do one final test against the zoom with this before taking it back. From my experience with this lens I dont think I will be concurring with lensrentals. YMMV.
?