they show very good performance at 24mm (much better than the 24-105 and better than the tamron 24-70 TC (as always though a Tamron lens performs like junk on TDP though, did Tamron steal his HS GF or something)) not quite as good as the 24-70 II or 24 1.4 II but far closer to those than the others for sure.
so that matches what you found
they have it going to trash as 50mm though, just as you found, none of their copies looks good there and some look awful, easily the worst performance there of all the standard zooms
but then they have it doing decently at 70mm again, similar to the 24-105 and better than the tamron (go figure) and a little bit worse than 24-70 II
oddly, this guy raves about how it does at 50mm and says that it only comes into its own against the 24-105 once it gets up to 50mm
that goes 100% against what TDP shows and Legion reports. So 4 copies to 1 copy. Either the learning camera guy got a very different sort of copy or he did not test them well.
This is not what I see. Just got it today from LensRentals and going to take it for a walk on the weekend. However, after multiple shots around the house I can tell with certainty that the lens is amazingly good and sharp at all f, wide open. The low distortion at the wide end is something.
gfiksel wrote:
This is not what I see. Just got it today from LensRentals and going to take it for a walk on the weekend. However, after multiple shots around the house I can tell with certainty that the lens is amazingly good and sharp at all f, wide open. The low distortion at the wide end is something.
Wow, that's good. I generally have to take the time to do controlled tests and comparisons before I can make conclusions like that!
EB-1 wrote:
I also just noticed that TDP test before before returning to this thread.
Based on the data, I will be keeping the 24-70/2.8 II.
EBH
Yes the f2.8II looks better at every FL and aperture. But the f4IS isn't bad by any means and I can see the IS being a benefit. Glad to see Canon is making really nice lenses (even if adding IS to the 2.8 would have been even better).
jorkata wrote:
Based on that, Canon's ability to judge the market is looking ... misguided recently. So, I wouldn't blindly trust their judgment.
I don't have to trust their marketing judgement. I simply respect it. Further, I know that conditions come and go and that there can be many reasons for discounts that have nothing to do with lack of sales or lack of judgement.
I'd want to test a few more copies across a longer production run before drawing any conclusions as sample variation and/or early production QC may be to blame. If I believed all the remarks and reviews of the 24-105L back in the day, I would have never bought one as it appeared to be mediocre at best (I suspect QC issues were widespread). In reality my 24-105 is one of the sharpest zooms I've owned, and I've owned many. It's only bested by my 70-200 4L IS USM (and primes of course).
)) not quite as good as the 24-70 II or 24 1.4 II but far closer to those than the others for sure.
