Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #9 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II reviewed by Photozone |
Yakim Peled wrote:
The difference between this test and that of RC from LR is intriguing.
There's always a bit of variation between our results - some of it the difference in comparing raw to jpgs, and every Imatest setup a bit different.
However, when I look at Klaus' numbers, rather than his opinion, it's a really good lens. Much better than 24-70 numbers, at 24mm very close to 24 TSE or f/1.4 at similar apertures. My results showed it a bit better, his a bit worse, but both are close.
Yes, I know that, but I must admit that for this stratospheric price I expected 70-200/2.8 II performance both in sheer IQ and in uniformity between copies. As it didn't provide that, it's easy to understand why people think if they should indeed get it.
For the person who compared it to the Nikon, that's a lot of variables: lens, camera, sensor mircrolenses, and if jpgs were used in the Imatest process, difference in in-camera post processing. To compare the Canon and Nikon, we'd really have to put both lenses on an optical bench.
Which is very easy to do. Just get a Nikon to Canon adapter and mount the Nikon lens on a Canon body.