eyalha wrote:
I think the reason for most peoples disappointment is that they were expecting a 70-200 f2.8 II performance, but truth is that 70-200 is just a little easier to make then 24-70, so we still got a big improvement but because it started at a lower performance level (if you compare the older 70-200 2.8 v1 to the 24-70 f2.8 v1 which was a better performer optically ) then it needed a much bigger improvement jump to get to that level... and it just well... didn't
But if you compare the improvement form the 70-200 v1 to v2 vs. and the improvement of the 24-70 v1 vs. v2 I think we're getting a bigger improvement (with a larger price difference I must say) from the 24-70, but that is just my opinion which is only based on charts and reviews I read as I have not had the privilege of trying the 24-70 v2 yet

good points i think

JameelH wrote:
For landscape use where the usage is primarily stopped down (f8 or lower), I am finding it hard to justify this over the competition (Canon 24-105 and Tamron 24-70). Add in the need to get new filters, it is a serious move.

I tried the v1 a couple of times. Ran into the decentering issue both times, sent it to canon to get it fixed multiple times. Then gave up for the lighter and bigger zoom range of the 24-105.

Clearly for my use, f2.8 is not that important. For wedding shooters, it may be good option over v1 and tamron.

Well all I can say is I've tried a few 24-105 and the samples at 24mm that Stan provided here and the photozone sample blow away any 24mm landscape performance by miles I ever saw from the 24-105.

Also remember the 24-70mkII has a lot of other things apart from pure sharpness going for it.

As a working tog's tool its a lot more robust and lighter.

skibum5 wrote:
JameelH wrote:
For landscape use where the usage is primarily stopped down (f8 or lower), I am finding it hard to justify this over the competition (Canon 24-105 and Tamron 24-70). Add in the need to get new filters, it is a serious move.

I tried the v1 a couple of times. Ran into the decentering issue both times, sent it to canon to get it fixed multiple times. Then gave up for the lighter and bigger zoom range of the 24-105.

Clearly for my use, f2.8 is not that important. For wedding shooters, it may be good option over v1 and tamron.

Well all I can say is I've tried a few 24-105 and the samples at 24mm that Stan provided here and the photozone sample blow away any 24mm landscape performance by miles I ever saw from the 24-105.


Yes, the II is better than the 24-105 or old 24-70 at 24. I wish Canon would update the 24-105/4 IS or make what I really want, a high-end 24-85/4 IS.

EBH

Hah and what do you know, if you ignore the extreme measurements, again these are far corners where the eye tends to not look so much, but focus on his border measurements which cover extreme centered L and R edges and even heading down to the corner, i.e. the edge areas that matter for most photos then this beast does do VERY well and it does score even a touch higher out at the edges than the 24 1.4 II.

Border scores 24mm f/4 and f/8:
24-70 II - 3128 and 3175; 1.12 and 0.86
24 1.4 II - 3172 and 3104; 0.91 and 0.82
24 T&S II - 2917 (f/3.5) and 3053; 0.41 (f/3.5) and 0.43
16-35 2.8 II - 2945 and 2882; 1.02 and 0.92 (26mm)
24-70 I - 2879 and 3060; 0.89 and 0.69
24-105 - 2797 and 2891; 1.72 and 1.4
tamron 24-70 - 2921 and 2997; 0.73 and 0.74
17-40 4 - 2830/2856 and 2998/3027; 1.2/0.64 and 0.87/0.34 (20mm/28mm)
samyang 24 1.4 - 2874 and 2952; 0.70 and 0.64
zeiss 21 - 3002 and 3006; 0.79 and 0.70
zeiss 25 2.8 - 2245 and 2777; 0.68 and 0.66
zeiss 25 2 - 3150 and 3274; 0.32 and 0.20 (whoa!!!!!!! holy cow this one scores off the charts on all #s whoa)
crazy in the center, no distortion, zero CA, good grief man)
tamron 28-75 - 2622 and 2866; 1.87 and 1.84 (28mm) (i have to say that mine was sharper at the edges than any 24-105 I've tried so I guess copy variation?)

so at or near 24mm the clear winner is the zeiss 25 2 prime with no af and next best score is from the 24-70 II (at f/8) and 24 1.4 II (at f/4)! for border sharpness

of course there is also distortion, CA of both forms, large scale contrast, various types of micro-contrast scales, field curvature, ability to T&S and so on and more than just the above numbers (he says the new 24-70 II has a lot less field curvature than the 24-70 I)

zeiss 25 2 the best for CA with the 24 T&S II also very good there and the 24-105 the real stinker for that

i think the 24-104 and tamron 24-70 were the worst for distortion from what I recall

zeiss 25 2.8 by far worst border sharpness and then 24-105 next worst


for kicks I add center frame 24mm f/4 and f/8:
24-70 II - 3732 and 3580
24 1.4 II - 3849 and 3494
24 T&S II - 3740 (f/3.5) and 3543
16-35 2.8 II - 3436 and 3340 (26mm)
24-70 I - 3240 and 3386
24-105 - 3216 and 3309
tamron 24-70 - 3556 and 3346
17-40 4 - 3310/3172 and 3292/3225 (20mm/28mm)
samyang 24 1.4 - 3740 and 3409
zeiss 21 - 3561 and 3235
zeiss 25 2.8 - 3514 and 3278
zeiss 25 2 - 3740 and 3548
tamron 28-75 - 3387 and 3255

for f/4 center sharpness the 24 1.4 II has crazy scores and does best but 24 T&S II and 24-70 II and zeiss 25 2 and samyang 24 1.4 also do really well

for f/4 center sharpness the 24-105 and 24-70 I do worst

for f/8 center sharpess the 24-70 II does best and the 24 T&S II and zeiss 25 2 also do really well and the 24 1.4 II not bad

so the 24-70 II is actually at or near the tops against all of these at 24mm f/4 and f/8 center and edge other than for CA where it is unfortunately middle of the road and is the top zoom

i guess not so suprising the 24-105 comes out worst overall (other than the tamron 28-75 which does not match the copy I have)

the zeiss 25 2 is just sick

Or more simply for f/8 24mm center/border/CA:
24-70 II - 3580 and 3175 and 0.86
24 1.4 II - 3494 and 3104 and 0.82
24 T&S II - 3543 and 3053 and 0.43
16-35 II - 3340 and 2882 and 0.92 (26mm)
24-70 I - 3386 and 3060 and 0.69
24-105 - 3309 and 2891 and 1.4
tamron 24-70 - 3346 and 2997 and 0.74
17-40 - 3292/3225 and 2998/3027 and 0.87/0.34 (20mm/28mm)
samyang 24 - 3409 and 2952 and 0.64
zeiss 21 - 3235 and 3006 and 0.70
zeiss 25 2.8 - 3278 and 2777 and 0.66
zeiss 25 2 - 3548 and 3274 and 0.20
tamron 28-75 - 3255 and 2866 and 1.84 (28mm) (i have to say that mine was sharper at the edges than any 24-105 I've tried so I guess copy variation?)

snapsy wrote:
If you compare the 24-70 II and Tamron 24-70 on PZ the Tamron looks to be very close (except @ 70mm where the Canon takes a large lead) ...and much cheaper...and with IS

not so much really and just look at the 24mm samples they have, i know that the sample from one of the lenses looks WAY better to me

jorkata wrote:
bhollis wrote:
Not what I was hoping for . . .

The MTFs looked more promising. Oh, well.

The results are still excellent. But once the price is factored in ...


but then again teh MTF said it would be sharper at f/8 borders than the canon primes and it is, it's only the extreme corners where it falls apart and that is the part of the frame that matters least, if the center, mid-frame and extreme edges are crips but just the corner tips are soft it's not that bad really

A little disappionting results, I think. Also, onion bokeh, ugh
Might as well get the Tammy anyway, then...

Once again I think Klaus has pretty good results but then says weird things in the text. Do you think his 24mm tamron sample looks anywhere close to as good? is 4% distortion nearly the same as for the canon??

Sounds like photozone not much wow about this lens, especially about price Not even "highly recomended" as 40mm pancake for example.

Tom K. wrote:
What a shame.


+1, with this price tag - it is ...

The lens is just awful. Perhaps this review will drive the price down.
I want to get a second one cheaply and then remove one of the two originals from my lineup.

EBH

Breitling65 wrote:
Sounds like photozone not much wow about this lens, especially about price Not even "highly recomended" as 40mm pancake for example.

It is probably the price which dampens people's enthusiasm about what is probably an otherwise very good lens. However, in the real world consumers should look at the lens performance, features etc. in light of its price.....that's where the success, or lack of it, of a new gear model resides. Although Canon have a captive sort of a market, I think their early 24-70L MkII sales figures might trigger a rethinking of its price soon.

PetKal wrote:
Breitling65 wrote:
Sounds like photozone not much wow about this lens, especially about price Not even "highly recomended" as 40mm pancake for example.

It is probably the price which dampens people's enthusiasm about what is probably an otherwise very good lens. However, in the real world consumers should look at the lens performance, features etc. in light of its price.....that's where the success, or lack of it, of a new gear model resides. Although Canon have a captive sort of a market, I think their early 24-70L MkII sales figures might trigger a rethinking of its price soon.


Lens probably very good but photozone is very reputable site and many will read. I hope Canon will read because last two years they are getting nuts on prices, are they including tsunami damages cost into final price? Why would this lens cost so much?

Breitling65 wrote:
PetKal wrote:
Breitling65 wrote:
Sounds like photozone not much wow about this lens, especially about price Not even "highly recomended" as 40mm pancake for example.

It is probably the price which dampens people's enthusiasm about what is probably an otherwise very good lens. However, in the real world consumers should look at the lens performance, features etc. in light of its price.....that's where the success, or lack of it, of a new gear model resides. Although Canon have a captive sort of a market, I think their early 24-70L MkII sales figures might trigger a rethinking of its price soon.


Lens probably very good but photozone is very reputable site and many will read. I hope Canon will read because last two years they are getting nuts on prices, are they including tsunami damages cost into final price? Why would this lens cost so much?

Some people in Canon probably have a job of following different media reactions, however, I do not think that sort of a feedback has any real impact. I think Canon honestly believe they own the photography, and they know best how it's done.
The only language they understand is a major loss of revenue/profit. Such as when they had to kill 200 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.0 because those lenses were not selling well enough.

PetKal wrote:

The only language they understand is a major loss of revenue/profit. Such as when they had to kill 200 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.0 because those lenses were not selling well enough.
But if only they had kept making boxes for the 50/1.0 - think of the potential profit!

Photon wrote:
PetKal wrote:

The only language they understand is a major loss of revenue/profit. Such as when they had to kill 200 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.0 because those lenses were not selling well enough.
But if only they had kept making boxes for the 50/1.0 - think of the potential profit!

Breitling65 wrote:
Sounds like photozone not much wow about this lens, especially about price Not even "highly recomended" as 40mm pancake for example.

I still think there is some wow:

for wide landscapes:

24mm f/8 (center, far edge, CA):

24-70 II - 3580 and 3175 and 0.86
24 1.4 II - 3494 and 3104 and 0.82
24 T&S II - 3543 and 3053 and 0.43
24-105 - 3309 and 2891 and 1.4

or for wide open 70mm portraits or f/4 portraits:

70mm f/2.8:
24-70 II: 3343 and 2505 and 0.61
24-70 I: 2775 and 2262 and 0.57

70mm f/4:
24-70 II: 3459 and 2654 and 0.62
24-70 I: 3001 and 2725 and 0.63

(granted the 70mm numbers are a bit weak compared to the 70-200/300Ls, still what standard zoom beats them?)
(and yeah the primes easily beat it at the far corners, but far corners aren't THAT critical for landscapes compared to center, mid or far edges and just a touch of crop and far corners are partly or all gone too)


I mean for crying out loud it does better than any 24-70ish type zoom and even outsharps fabled primes at 24mm at some apertures and yet it didn't do well? DId people expect 300 2.8 IS II level from f/2.8 across 24-70mm?

I was expecting it to perform better especially with that price tag. While some of the recent lenses have be outstanding but as far as the price is concerned, I am convinced that Canon is interested in milking the customers.

I wonder what would the price of a new 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 be. I am guessing $800 .