mttran wrote:
Joshual, i have no doubt that 24-70LII is the latest best from Canon but it's just the half efforts that canon has been doing last many many moons since the final IQ is just not from the lens itself...but the receiver as well. Who knows that all our older lenses can be twice of their performing if they were used with better improved sensor(s)...as illustrated by above third party samples.
I remember a time when Canon had the best sensors but their lenses were not to that level. Canon are on a roll with their lenses, many of the new ones are best in class. As someone mentioned it may be in preperation for some big sensor advancements. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
AGeoJO wrote:
Hi Mike, no need to apologize to me, i am not the OP but personally, I wouldn't be too thrilled if people would do that to a thread that I started asking for images taken with a specific lens to be posted. You are not the first, BTW.
Cheers!
Yep, let's get back on topic. More samples please.
stanj wrote:
Yes it's certainly a worthwhile replacement for the mk1. Now we just need one of the same quality in 16-35 ish range, and of course as a 50 prime
Thanks very much Stan. Feel priviliged to see your shots, great photo doucmentary... the end of an era for NASA.
Was dog tired (sic) yesterday evening after spending they day at herding clinic with my dog. but wanted to compare my new Mk2 vs. my old but just MA adjusted Mk1. Was a bit hard to really spot any major difference in the centre of pic. Tested 24, 35, 50 and 70mm. As light was fading, I had to shoot pretty high ISO and will not post any pics from this due to many uncontrolled variables.
One thing noted though... my Mk1 had a shutter speed of 1/160s while the Mk2 showing 1/200... Not sure if this is due to a dirty UV filter of if the transmission is better in the new lens. See if I can do further testing today. Clouds getting thicker and rain not far away!
So far the handling and feel is superior to the old one, but not sure how much better IQ in real shooting, not just coulnting lines
Nothing like pictures, right?
I have been playing a bit during an overcast afternoon. My neighbours daugher was forced to sit model while I tested my new lens.
PLEASE NOTE, this is by all means no scientific testing, just wanted to see how big difference I would see if I compared my old 24-70/2,8 Mk1 vs. Mk2. Just for fun I had my 70-200/2,8ISMk2 at 70 mm and a few pics with the 40/2,8. As it turned out, I must say it was much easier to get tack sharp pics with my new Mk2 vs. Mk1. Not sure why but the focus was nailed on the eye pretty much 100% When the Mk1 got it right, no major difference between the two lenses could be noted, unless I was at 100% viewing. The 40/2,8 did not fare well, not sure, may have done something with MA that did not work at this distance. Have to retest. The 70-200 is a killer... nuff sait
you don't need a tripod with that light.
when using the 70-200II its nasty sharp. although mine.
I have to soft all the women portraits, otherwise they can't face the reality.
I just took a couple of quick ones of my backyard, nothing fancy but I think I'm going to love this lens. I also like the feel of it. Sorry if these are not good examples but I may go out tomorrow during the day and get some shots of my German Shepherd, gotta have dogs right Both taken from my deck and not cropped. I did sharpen but even shooting RAW the images appeared pretty sharp.
So far judging from these samples I'm not impressed by the rendition of this lens.
Maybe it is supersharp but the drawing is rather flat with average bokeh... many images from the previous version instead showed a nice 3D look rarely seen in a zoom.
I'm waiting to see more before spending so much money.
I personally didn't buy this lens for the bokeh that's what I have my other lenses like the 85 1.2 or 200 f/2 for. I don't use my 35L with bokeh in mind but it sure is a great lens!!! It is a lot of money though I'll give you that.
