Glad we have a worthy competitor with the Tammy VC.

thw2 wrote:
Glad we have a worthy competitor with the Tammy VC.

It depends. The Tamron is disappointing at the wider apertures. I tried it quite a bit, but could not get that lens to work for me. If you need the VR and subjects are relatively stationary it may work for you at the middle apertures.

EBH

Love this now I don't have to wonder how in the F do I get the money to buy

Wow, what a change...one week Roger gives a stellar review and everyone was running to the stores/online retailers to grab the lens. With the release of this review, everyone is now second guessing that decision and now may be opting for the Tamron.

gvg45 wrote:
Wow, what a change...one week Roger gives a stellar review and everyone was running to the stores/online retailers to grab the lens. With the release of this review, everyone is now second guessing that decision and now may be opting for the Tamron.

Well you know how easily people are manipulated online. Next week there will be a different story yet.

The distortion of the new 24-70 is a big problem for me, yet that does not seem to be the main complaint. Nobody seems to be so impressed by the clean images and large aperture performance. But then again, not so many people complained about the awful field curvature of the original Canon 24-70/2.8 in the corners. The main issue is currently the price. Although the lens is better than its predecessor, it does not seem worthwhile to many. Sure the version II should be $500 less or have IS thrown in, but for the most part there aren't any better options. The Tamron is cheap enough, but not the greatest. The Canon 24-105/4 IS is inferior and also needs an optical redesign. The 24-70/2.8 Nikkor is a very good lens, but a ways from perfect too. At $1900 it's not exactly cheap either. There is no free lunch and every lens design is a compromise. At least there are more and better choices in the class this year.

EBH

EB-1 wrote:
Well you know how easily people are manipulated online. Next week there will be a different story yet.
EBH

Ain't that the truth.


Well I'm hoping this review discourages people at least a little to run out and buy the lens.
Like many others, I feel the lens is overpriced & feel we may see price breaks sooner than later if the lens isn't flying off the shelf.

I am not questioning the results posted by Photozone and I am not a lens tester. However, in my limited shots using that lens I didn't see the reported onion-like pattern in the out-of-focus highlight points. To what extent the presence, as reported by Photozone and the absence as shown in my own results will have any impact on the actual bokeh rendition remains to be seen. Folks that have this lens already may want to check for those OOF highlight points and render their opinion here.

I am attaching the bokeh rendition from Photozone. I hope it is OK to do so for folks to see the difference side-by-side.Aand for direct comparison I am including two of my shots from (Mexican) Olvera Street in LA today. Both are heavily cropped to show the round bokeh highlight points. Almost overlapping discs are not onion-like structures, at least, not in my opinion.

I tried a friend's Tamron 24-70 VC (thank you, Luz), had the Mark I version, used the Nikkor 24-70mm G for 18 months and I am still using my 24-105mm IS lens that probably will be sold before too long. Based on my own experience, the Mark II clearly is the best lens of all listed above. I am not saying that it is a perfect lens but currently, it is the creme of the crop. Is it worth the price and like some mentioned, almost double than the price of its predecessor or that of the Tamron that has VC? Well, it will depend on the user and needless to say it varies widely from user to user. To some yes and to others, not even close and I respect each individual opinion on that. If you don't like the price, wait a couple months and it will be more affordable.

gvg45 wrote:
Wow, what a change...one week Roger gives a stellar review and everyone was running to the stores/online retailers to grab the lens. With the release of this review, everyone is now second guessing that decision and now may be opting for the Tamron.

which doesn't really make sense since this review, if you look at the numbers and not his text, still beats em all, especially at the wide end and lives up to Roger's stuff other than at the long end

RCicala wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
The difference between this test and that of RC from LR is intriguing.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


There's always a bit of variation between our results - some of it the difference in comparing raw to jpgs, and every Imatest setup a bit different.

However, when I look at Klaus' numbers, rather than his opinion, it's a really good lens. Much better than 24-70 numbers, at 24mm very close to 24 TSE or f/1.4 at similar apertures. My results showed it a bit better, his a bit worse, but both are close.

Yes, I know that, but I must admit that for this stratospheric price I expected 70-200/2.8 II performance both in sheer IQ and in uniformity between copies. As it didn't provide that, it's easy to understand why people think if they should indeed get it.

RCicala wrote:
For the person who compared it to the Nikon, that's a lot of variables: lens, camera, sensor mircrolenses, and if jpgs were used in the Imatest process, difference in in-camera post processing. To compare the Canon and Nikon, we'd really have to put both lenses on an optical bench.

Which is very easy to do. Just get a Nikon to Canon adapter and mount the Nikon lens on a Canon body.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Not overly happy with my old 24-70 (think it needs new nylon collars) I find the new 24-70 giving pics with slightly more contrast and more consistant focus. Maybe the new closed loop stuff doing it's magic? And lighter means easier to carry, and find handling a lot nicer to me. So for me it's a keeper!

Just going to follow.

Thanks Photozone for saving me $2300. I find that I shoot my 24-70 Mk I more in the 50-70 range than the wider range, so it seems I'm better off just keeping my Mk I. Plus, the filter grooves on my Mk I are metal, not plastic. For now I'm happy staying with what I've got.

Yakim Peled wrote:


RCicala wrote:
For the person who compared it to the Nikon, that's a lot of variables: lens, camera, sensor mircrolenses, and if jpgs were used in the Imatest process, difference in in-camera post processing. To compare the Canon and Nikon, we'd really have to put both lenses on an optical bench.

Which is very easy to do. Just get a Nikon to Canon adapter and mount the Nikon lens on a Canon body.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Unfortunately not quite that easy. Adapters add another two variables (lens camera and camera lens mounts) and when testing at these sensitivities it makes a difference. I've done some testing on adapters and usually have to try several combinations of camera-lens-adapter to get one at no side-to-side variation. It's not usually severe enough to notice in pictures but it can affect the numbers.

Not saying it isn't doable, but to try it with one copy of each and hoping for the best might not be accurate.

Looking at the numbers the 24-70 II is a great lens. Performance at 70mm is still not awesome, the 70-200L II wipes the floor with it at 70mm but its still very good. Overall its a very significant upgrade to the v1 of the lens.

I think the high price leaves a bit of a sour taste in the reviewer's mouth and that comes across in his commentary if you read between the lines.

Good but not good enough at that price with no IS.

RCicala wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:


RCicala wrote:
For the person who compared it to the Nikon, that's a lot of variables: lens, camera, sensor mircrolenses, and if jpgs were used in the Imatest process, difference in in-camera post processing. To compare the Canon and Nikon, we'd really have to put both lenses on an optical bench.

Which is very easy to do. Just get a Nikon to Canon adapter and mount the Nikon lens on a Canon body.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Unfortunately not quite that easy. Adapters add another two variables (lens camera and camera lens mounts) and when testing at these sensitivities it makes a difference. I've done some testing on adapters and usually have to try several combinations of camera-lens-adapter to get one at no side-to-side variation. It's not usually severe enough to notice in pictures but it can affect the numbers.

Not saying it isn't doable, but to try it with one copy of each and hoping for the best might not be accurate.

You're right but the other option has far more variables.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Well I decided I am going to keep mine. I have wanted a WA landscape lens for my FF. I rented the Canon 24 TSE II. Superb lens but I'm not a tinkering person so I knew the novelty of that specialized lens would wear off. I also rented the Zeiss 24mm. A beauty but could not justify no AF and moustache dist for a prime.

Is the new 24-70 overpriced. Definitely? Am I not pleased with Canon because they did not add IS? Very. They will probably add it next time so I have to cough up another $1500. It took three 5D's to finally introduce pro AF.

However outside of those factors what other choices do I have unless I go to primes which I don't want to or the new Tamron. I'm not a pro but shoot several events a year which includes weddings. My 24 -105 is a good lens stopped down but still awful at 24mm. The new 24-70 is pretty decent at 24 and will be my landscape lens. May not be the best but it will do based on my tests. Now I have a decent workhorse in that range which has 2.8. Gonna sell my 24-105 and Tokina 11-16 which I used on my 7D for landscapes. I also ordered the new 70-200 2.8 so with those two lenses will have the coverage for any event I shoot.

I have no kids so when I croak (and my wife as well) my sisters in law and nephew will get it. I may as well spend it. They can work and save like I did .

Man, it must be a real dog. I guess I'll have to sell mine next Wednesday, after I pick it up on Tuesday... not!

jcolwell wrote:
Man, it must be a real dog. I guess I'll have to sell mine next Wednesday, after I pick it up on Tuesday... not!

I do not see it as a dog at all. I believe it will be as dramatic of an improvement over the Mark I as the 16-35 MkII was over the MkI version. However, for me I still love my 28-70L, it shoots razor sharp at f/2.8 and at the end of the day the real difference for me is the lack of 24-27mm. I can live with that.
Dave

My will arrive shortly, so I'm reading "evaluation" results and as usual they are all over the users map.
I had ver.1 and it was a good copy with excellent flair resistance, but didn't like the bokeh and size.
Also tried two samples of new Nikon 24-70/2.8 which were blurry at wide end and the ergonomics, for me, were worst than Canon's. Both went to Nikon but couldn't be fixed since they didn't have parts or info. for a new lens at that time. Interesting that the price wasn't too high for many who were buying. If I recall well it was over $2k with tax.
The results based on lab. tests are numbers.
If I get a good sample delivering similar quality to the posted pictures I'll be very happy.
Comparing lens performance mounted via adapter is totally unreliable and a waste of time, especially on cameras with high MP count. I mostly use native lenses.