Not sure why he says the Tamron is as good at the wide end when it takes the bad 24-70 II distortion and then takes it to truly hideous 24-105 levels and when it doesn\'t measure as sharp there, and now maybe these were not focused the same way and that can matter a lot so who knows, but look at the building on the right and trees at the left on these two samples and tell me the tamron doesn\'t clearly look worst 24mm:
it does seem the 24-70 II falls apart at 70mm more than the MTF implied, if it had to fall apart I\'d rather it there, by a millions miles, than 24mm since we have never had a zoom that did the 24mm side of things very well on FF and we have amazing 70-200s and 70-300Ls for 70mm. Granted for $2300 and not say $1800 you\'d think 70mm would be crazy too though and it is surprising that the CA is higher measured than on the tamron or old 24-70 (although on the sample image I swear the tamron CA looks worse to me....)
Sep 22, 2012 at 03:26 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #10984806 « Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II reviewed by Photozone »
