p.3 #6 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Joshua, your images are just beautiful. They really show off your amazing talent. That is a beautiful part of the country. It has been years since we were thru there and you are making me want to go back.
p.3 #8 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Gunzorro wrote:
Ben -- Excellent work.
Skibum -- Also very nice, giving a different look and contrast to fall colors.
Invertalon -- Thanks for showing the range for architecture and "events".
+ 1
Thank you, Jim and Kathy for you flattering comments. I have been to that part of the country twice to Canyonland and Arches NP and I still feel I am barely scratching the surface. The fall colors in that area are definitely top rated. I would love to go back there before too long myself.
Daan B wrote:
Just curious... for landscape type of work (= f/8 or so) is there much difference in IQ between the 24-105L and 24-70L II?
Daan, I venture to say that there is a difference alright but I am not sure about "much" difference in IQ. As you know everything is relative and highly subjective, of course . I had my 17mm TS-E and used it for the Mesa Arch shot. Basically, the same everything just a wider view, of course. When I compared it side-by-side I got the impression that the capture using the 24-70mm at f/8.0 is as good as that coming from the TS-E. I had some reservation using the 24-105mm for critical landscape work before and as much as feasible, I relied on both my 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses for that but I don't hesitate using the new 24-70mm Mark II now . This is strictly my opinion, of course and 24-105mm is definitely no slouch.
p.3 #9 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
AGeoJO wroteDaan, I venture to say that there is a difference alright but I am not sure about "much" difference in IQ. As you know everything is relative and highly subjective, of course . I had my 17mm TS-E and used it for the Mesa Arch shot. Basically, the same everything just a wider view, of course. When I compared it side-by-side I got the impression that the capture using the 24-70mm at f/8.0 is as good as that coming from the TS-E. I had some reservation using the 24-105mm for critical landscape work before and as much as feasible, I relied on both my 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses for that but I don't hesitate using the new 24-70mm Mark II now . This is strictly my opinion, of course and 24-105mm is definitely no slouch....Show more →
Joshua, thanks for sharing your opinion.
I suspect the 24-70L II has some really noticeable difference @ 2.8 when compared to the 24-70L mkI.
p.3 #10 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Daan B wrote:
Just curious... for landscape type of work (= f/8 or so) is there much difference in IQ between the 24-105L and 24-70L II?
IMO, lots, at least at 24mm and the copies of each I've used
I got the 24 1.4 II because the 24-105 didn't quite do it for me, but now I am willing to sell my 24 1.4 II.
p.3 #11 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Well, I sold my 35mm f/1.4 but I am not ready to sell my 24mm f/1.4 yet .
Daan, as I mentioned before, in my book my 24-70mm Mark II is worthy for critical landscape photography. Of course, it doesn't have any of the TS features but when not really needed, and if you want to be more flexible with the focal length where physical constraints dictate the shooting conditions, this lens performs splendidly at the sweet aperture range of f/5.6 and f/8.0. The image of the Delicate Arch was shot at 53mm.
I was at the Delicate Arch a little over 4 years ago. This time around the sun stayed bright until it disappeared on the horizon to the right of me. The warm color intensity was very strong. I had to reduce the saturation level to -3 and it was still very saturated. In that respect, the arch itself is more spectacular than previously but the sky was practically sterile and boring. So, this time around I shifted the focus more on the sandstone formation showing beautiful cross-bedding in the foreground and I minimized the sky.
BTW, the hike to that spot was not that easy. I huffed and puffed all the way up there for over an hour. Of course, the camera gear I carried with me didn't help either. Next time I would consider hiring a sherpa to carry my gear .
More hot air balloon images - The balloons are definitely very colorful but I really love the lustre appearance and yet partly translucent material as the morning sun penetrates some of the balloons. It makes the 3D effect of balloons so palpable.
p.3 #15 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Well, I sold my 35mm f/1.4 but I am not ready to sell my 24mm f/1.4 yet . Daan, as I mentioned before, in my book my 24-70mm Mark II is worthy for critical landscape photography. Of course, it doesn't have any of the TS features but when not really needed, and if you want to be more flexible with the focal length where physical constraints dictate the shooting conditions, this lens performs splendidly at the sweet aperture range of f/5.6 and f/8.0. The image of the Delicate Arch was shot at 53mm. I was at the Delicate Arch a little over 4 years ago. This time around the sun stayed bright until it disappeared on the horizon to the right of me. The warm color intensity was very strong. I had to reduce the saturation level to -3 and it was still very saturated. In that respect, the arch itself is more spectacular than previously but the sky was practically sterile and boring. So, this time around I shifted the focus more on the sandstone formation showing beautiful cross-bedding in the foreground and I minimized the sky. BTW, the hike to that spot was not that easy. I huffed and puffed all the way up there for over an hour. Of course, the camera gear I carried with me didn't help either. Next time I would consider hiring a sherpa to carry my gear . More hot air balloon images - The balloons are definitely very colorful but I really love the lustre appearance and yet partly translucent material as the morning sun penetrates some of the balloons. It makes the 3D effect of balloons so palpable....Show more →
Joshua,
Your captures from the Balloon Fiesta are spectacular!!!
p.3 #17 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Here are two shots comparing 70mm between both the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II.... As you can see, the 24-70 II is quite a bit wider. Actually quite significant difference.
Top is the 24-70 II, second 70-200 II.
Shots were taken via tripod in the exact same spot (mounted from camera, not the lens (w.r.t. 70-200 II). I simply just swapped lenses.
Also as a side note, sharpness looks basically identical between both, even peeping at 100% between my samples. The 70-200 II is a bit closer though (FOV) so the smallest of fine details do appear a bit sharper. But it is that close, even with the difference. Used live-view focusing for both.
Here is the comparison:
Top is 24-70, bottom 70-200.
And just for giggles... The same crop from 24mm wide open...
The leaning trees are the only thing that makes me hesitate to sell my 24TSE. I see the tilted camera problem in lots of the samples shown in this thread. I have it in my own 24-70 mk2 shots. I love the compositional freedom, but I am not fond of the distortion. Ordinary distortion when the camera is level is hard to detect, but all lenses cause leaning trees if pointed up or down, even a TSE.
p.3 #20 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Invertalon wrote:
Here are two shots comparing 70mm between both the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II.... As you can see, the 24-70 II is quite a bit wider. Actually quite significant difference.
Slim or regular
. I had my 17mm TS-E and used it for the Mesa Arch shot. Basically, the same everything just a wider view, of course. When I compared it side-by-side I got the impression that the capture using the 24-70mm at f/8.0 is as good as that coming from the TS-E. I had some reservation using the 24-105mm for critical landscape work before and as much as feasible, I relied on both my 17mm and 24mm TS-E lenses for that but I don't hesitate using the new 24-70mm Mark II now 
