Did a brief test with the new 24-70 II against 24 TSE II @3.5 and 35/1.4 @ 2.8 and 50/1.2 @2.8
The result in terms of sharpness @ the very center is similar at each of the FL.
Pretty incredible considering it is a zoom going against some of the best L primes.
(also did a MA and found my copy of 24-70 II did not need to be adjusted)
I'll have do another round for the corners and probably contrast.
Still asking myself if I need the primes or the zoom.
(lol.... do I need $2300 worth of convenience?)
Jling wrote:
Did a brief test with the new 24-70 II against 24 TSE II @3.5 and 35/1.4 @ 2.8 and 50/1.2 @2.8
The result in terms of sharpness @ the very center is similar at each of the FL.
Pretty incredible considering it is a zoom going against some of the best L primes.
(also did a MA and found my copy of 24-70 II did not need to be adjusted)
I'll have do another round for the corners and probably contrast.
Still asking myself if I need the primes or the zoom.
(lol.... do I need $2300 worth of convenience?)
Although zooms are usually strongest at the wide end. If it came close to any good prime at the other end I'd be really impressed.
It is close as makes no difference in sharpness from 2.8 on Woth the 24L II, 35L, 50L and 85LII but has much stronger vignetting until around f4-5.6. It does not replace the primes for low light at all. You need both and you are fooling yourself if you think you can sell/replace the fast primes with the 24-70II except in good light. I was just reminded of this tonight shooting a rock show at ISO6400 f1.2-1.8 1/125-1/200
The primes are not designed for ultimate stopped down performance look elsewhere for that (TS-E 24 II, ZE 21, ZE 25 etc).
Mines fantastic, but the last evening event I shot was with my 50L @ mostly 2.0 or wider, something the 24-70 II can't do. If folks wanted to replace some primes with this lens then Canon would of had to put in a 4-stop IS system. Maybe that's why Canon didn't.
Phil -- Playing the Devil's Advocate here: as we've been discussing on another thread, there seems a wide range of variation on the 50L, until suspect copies have been corrected by Canon repair.
What I found interesting in these digital picture comparisons, (unless I did something completely wrong) is that the original copy of the 24-70L beats the new v.II (especially in edges) slightly at 28; and pronounced at 35, 50; and very slightly at 70! I checked the f/2.8 to 5.6. The new version beat the old only at 24mm. The new copy is excellent in the center at all focal lengths.
Three examples (full image and crop) at 70mm wide open. To show detail and all that. With a direct comparison the 24-70 II basically matches the IQ of the 70-200 II at 70mm. The 70mm on the 24-70 II though is quite a bit wider. 70-200 has a significant smaller FOV.
