What is the verdict on the 24-70L II when compared to the vI and Tamron?
I used to have a 24-70L vI and wasn't blown away by 2.8 sharpness and contrast. Now I read mixed reviews on the vII's sharpness. Some say it is a huge improvement over the vI, others say they don't see much improvement.
Another consideration is the vI 'suffered' from occasional decrease in sharpness due to mechanical wear out. I had to have it serviced once a year to counter the effect. Maybe to soon to say, but I am really curious if this has improved over the vI?
And how is the Tamron holding up? I also read some mixed reviews on this lens.
In short, is the mkII's premium cost over the mkI and Tamron really worth it?
Very basic test in a camera shop in Tokyo.
Tammy AF struggled for accuracy at 2.8 on my 1Dx.
24-70II nailed everything I pointed it at.
So I bought the Canon.
Must say the Tammy at 2.8 when it was on seemed nice but the issue in a very basic try out was a little disappointing from the AF accuracy point.
My 24-70 so far is excellent way sharper at 2.8 than my old one which today is still very respectable..the AF is very very good..
No regrets at all...
My second Tamron has been exemplary. No focus issues whatsoever and eyelash sharp wide open. Love the IS! It may be worth it try one from a shop where you can return it like anything else photographic. I adjusted mine using FoCal, the adjustments for all practical purposes were not required.
Daan -- I recall from our discussion on the 16-35 II that you are quite discerning and critical of optical performance (not unreasonably so, just very clear about lens quality), and you have very high standards. I'm going to try to interpret what I've read and seen about these two lenses based on that.
I've been spending a lot of time reading and analyzing the photos provided in tests.
One of the best on the new Canon was by Roger of Lens Rentals, showing with the tear-down how much better engineered the new lens is compared to the old -- I was very impressed with Canon's new design.
The general tone of all reviewers is that the new Canon is a big improvement over the old in all areas, with the exception of bokeh (OOF discs) and wide open edge sharpness, both attributes being slightly better in the first version. Otherwise -- center sharpness is much better and the edges equalize in quality at mid-apertures.
The reviews on the Tamron are more problematic. The IS is a big plus for many reviewers, even more important than optical quality. The images I've seen have very poor corner performance at all apertures to f/8, and edges are acceptable, but not great. Center sharpness is terrific. I believe Roger also did a review of the lens, and I was far from impressed to see the front element literally glued into position -- I expect better engineering and consider the front element the "blast shield" of a lens and want it very stable and well aligned. The general tone of reviews for still and video were that if you could live with excellent center sharpness and softer edges and OOF corners, this is a great lens. The lens seems most useful for video shooting (See Dave Dugdale on YouTube). If IS is a priority, this lens is the only game in town. But for edge-to-edge technical rendering, this is not the way to go.
The price of the Tamron is most attractive compared to the new Canon. For less than the price of the Tamron, you can have a nice used copy of the original Canon version. But if IS is critical need, the Tamron will look very good for that feature and its price.
Personally, being careful where my limited upgrade funds are spent, I don't see enough improvement in the new "L" to warrant upgrading from my excellent version 1 model. I'm not saying the new one isn't better, but I'm not unhappy with the lens I have. I'm more in need of a top imaging body like the 5D3 or 1Ds3 than I am of an very expensive lens. A good version 1 is still a very useful lens, but it does suffer in comparison to less bulk and weight of version II, even if optical were the same or close. That savings weight and size might be worthwhile to some shooters.
I don't have any interest in the Tamron, other than appreciating their effort and that it might spur Canon or others to include IS as a standard feature in lenses.
Anyway, those are the views I've taken away from reading review and watching videos.
My 24-70/2.8L II is remarkably better at the edges and in the corners than my old MK I, at all focal lengths. Both are plenty sharp in the centre. The Mk II is so good that I did a careful comparison with my go-to Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 and 35-70/3.4 lenses. The Zeiss are slightly better in the corners, and so I won't sell them, but the difference is not great. The 24-70/2.8L MK II is a worthy companion to the 70-200/2.8L IS II - both are truly excellent lenses.
I returned my 24-70 f/2.8 II. I was very disappointed in light falloff and reduced sharpness in the corners, especially considering the price of the lens. It's a good lens, not a great lens, and simply not worth $2300, IMO.
You are speaking from experience of course I am. You can point us to the poor corner performance of the Tamron right? I'd be curious to see them since I am not having problems with mine in any regard. admittedly slightly short of the new Canon version but far better than the original 24-70 which has a reputation for field curvature. Just wondering!
Here's a gallery of test shots of my Tamron 24-70 VC on the D800, all shot handheld and at f/2.8. All the indoor shots are at 1/13. I've made the full 36MP images available: Gallery Link
You are speaking from experience of course I am. You can point us to the poor corner performance of the Tamron right? I'd be curious to see them since I am not having problems with mine in any regard. admittedly slightly short of the new Canon version but far better than the original 24-70 which has to this day a reputation for being all over the place optically. Just wondering!
I clearly stated that my post was a summary of what I had read or viewed in videos, and I gave references to check (notably Dave Dugdale's fine video comparison). Do you want a complete bibliography?
I think I made it abundantly clear that these were the opinions I'd formed, taken away from the information I sought out from many sources.
Why don't you do some research, instead of snarky preaching?
Bob Atkins has a good review of the Tammy, the link is below, hope it helps! I'm thinking the Tammy might be a nice alternative lens for those that don't require absolute ultra sharp corners and/or the best AF speed; and at half the price with IS...
That said, I've not been happy with any 3rd party AF lens motors except Canon's USM. They all seem quite clunky; slower, maybe this newer Tammy is better than previous versions and their QC is better as well. It's on my try it out list...
The 24-70 is a great lens. It's definitely better in sharpness all over the image field compared to it's predecessor. The mkII to the 24-70L is what the 70-200/2.8ISL mk II is to it's predecessor, but.... The original 70-200L IS was already a great lens with a wow factor imo, while the 24-70L was a great allround workhouse lens, but with no wow factor. This exactly the same for the mkII lenses. The 70-200/2.8L IS mk II is still a lens with a wow factor. The 24-70L mk II is still just a great allround workhorse lens. The two make a great combo because their colour characteristics is very well in line, coherent tonal response. If that is important to you the 24-70L mk II maybe a great lens. Wether the lens is worth the EOSfun to you, is another question. I find the mkII a large amount of money and didn't upgrade for that reason and kept the 24-70L, which is still a great allrounder even though it's sometimes not up to the task in certain shooting conditions. I have several primes to cover those conditions and decided they can save me. Both for the shooting conditions and upgraditis
Gunzorro wrote:
I clearly stated that my post was a summary of what I had read or viewed in videos, and I gave references to check (notably Dave Dugdale's fine video comparison). Do you want a complete bibliography?
I think I made it abundantly clear that these were the opinions I'd formed, taken away from the information I sought out from many sources.
Why don't you do some research, instead of snarky preaching?
Feel free to ignore my opinion or observations.
,
Sorry you felt offended, no intention there . However I happen to own one and the results are quite different than what your research shows as evidenced by Bob Atkins, Photozone etc.
I am. You can point us to the poor corner performance of the Tamron right? I'd be curious to see them since I am not having problems with mine in any regard. admittedly slightly short of the new Canon version but far better than the original 24-70 which has a reputation for field curvature. Just wondering!