I just finished my test of the 24-70 f2.8 mk2. It is a landscape oriented test with 100% corner crop comparisons with the 24TSEmk2, 35f1.4L Ziess 50 f1.4 and the 70-200 f2,8IS V1.

At the end there is a link to my SmugMug gallery that has some full size jpgs.

Take a look, leave a comment.

Pros. Well made, very sharp in prime territory.

Cons: Expensive, distortion, vignetting.

http://ben-egbert-photo.com/?page_id=827

Thanks

That is encouraging. I guess time to sell my 24-70 v1

Very interesting. I don't use the 35L for the sharpness though but when I need the 1.4, which in some of my work, often. I would like to see a comparison to the 70-200 II.

That would be Zeiss, not Ziess.

Good work Ben. Knowing a little from these forums of your penchant for sharpmess, this test means something. Thanks.

Thanks very much Ben!

ben egbert wrote:
It is a landscape oriented test

Is this why all pics are at f/8?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim Peled wrote:
ben egbert wrote:
It is a landscape oriented test

Is this why all pics are at f/8?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



It is, but I took some at f2.8 while doing the MA test, I will add it to the test, but I only have it at 24mm. This testing is interfering with fall color trips so I need to give it a break.

My thinking is that most of the well known test sites show resolution at wide open and various apertures etc, but we landscapers want to know if we can sell our primes which means comparing the corners. Center sharpness is usually pretty good stopped down but most zooms never get very good in the corners.

Alistair1 wrote:
Good work Ben. Knowing a little from these forums of your penchant for sharpmess, this test means something. Thanks.

Thanks, but the truth is, I am more interested in uniform sharpness out to the edges and corners than overall sharpness. Anyway, no lens I have is perfectly uniform and all have a bit of mushiness in the corners. It's relative and with primes I often have to crop later for composition. so some trade off is required.

Peter Figen wrote:
That would be Zeiss, not Ziess.

Thanks, I should have found the lens out and read it. "I" before "e" is a flawed rule. We engineers never understand such things.

It has another name associated with it,distagon or somesuch but I never remember that either.

Thanks all for feedback. I think I found and fixed all the Zeiss spellings and I added a note at the end explaining how I tested and post processed.

I plan to add one more set of images at 24mm f2.8. I will show one SOOC and one processed as per the rest of the images. Give me a while and it will be added.

Edit:

The f2.8 images are up. I had not even bothered to look at them, I took them accidentally and never have much use for f2.8 other than night shots. I was blown away when I stopped to do the processing.

You will need to follow the link to my SmugMug gallery to get full size, I did not include corner crops in my test report. I guess I can if there is interest. But I suspect wide open shooters are more interested in center sharpness.

Good and helpful work. Thanks for going to the trouble to do it and post it.

First of all thanks for all the work. Much appreciated.

For me, for landscape, the real comparison is the 24-105 f4 is vs 24-70 2.8 v2.

There is no doubt the 24-70 is a high iq lens. But I am yet to be convinced that it is a great landscape lens as compared to 24-105.

Based on thedigitalpicture at f8 the 24-70 is marginaly better at 24 but similar at 70mm and the 24-105 woops it at 105mm Your tests are hint at the same results.

But the 24-105 is lighter, has IS, and is considerably cheaper. The IS is a big deal when hiking and trying to get a good quick shot. The iighter is a big deal when you hike 20km - it permits carrying TS17. The $1000 is significant to my wife .

Unless I am missing something, I would prefer my 24-105f4 for landscape and prefer the 24-70 if I was shooting indoors. When I have time, at 24mm I use a prime (17TS, 25 Zeiss) and when I am in a hurry the IS and 105mm means more than corner sharpeness. And the weight savings is significant, because I prefer a prime and bring the zoom for walking and shooting.

I realize everyone has a different usage preference. And I am not saying I am right, just saying tell me what I am missing.

Scott Stoness wrote:
First of all thanks for all the work. Much appreciated.

For me, for landscape, the real comparison is the 24-105 f4 is vs 24-70 2.8 v2.

There is no doubt the 24-70 is a high iq lens. But I am yet to be convinced that it is a great landscape lens as compared to 24-105.

Based on thedigitalpicture at f8 the 24-70 is marginaly better at 24 but similar at 70mm and the 24-105 woops it at 105mm Your tests are hint at the same results.

But the 24-105 is lighter, has IS, and is considerably cheaper. The IS is a big deal when hiking and trying to get a good quick shot. The iighter is a big deal when you hike 20km - it permits carrying TS17. The $1000 is significant to my wife .

Unless I am missing something, I would prefer my 24-105f4 for landscape and prefer the 24-70 if I was shooting indoors. When I have time, at 24mm I use a prime (17TS, 25 Zeiss) and when I am in a hurry the IS and 105mm means more than corner sharpeness. And the weight savings is significant, because I prefer a prime and bring the zoom for walking and shooting.

I realize everyone has a different usage preference. And I am not saying I am right, just saying tell me what I am missing.

Yep, we obviously have different approaches. I never expect a keeper without a tripod and I shoot for as long as 30 seconds on a tripod. I am a big vista guy and do a lot of stuff at 14mm and 17mm. But never do landscapes above 70mm.

Corners and edges are so important to me that I spend an extra $1000 to get them, and it only matters at f8.

I sold my 24-105 because it did not meet my expectations for edges and corners. Fine elsewhere of course, but not in the critical edges and corners. This lens is the very first zoom I have ever owned that met this requirement. I also had the 24-70V1 for a brief period but returned it.

I also want to lighten my bag by deleted some primes. I hope to have the Zeiss 15, the 17TSE and the 24-70 as my entire landscape bag, I will use the 14 Samyang until I can get the Zeiss.

Now if Canon had a 14-24 in the Nikon class I would rethink my kit.

One mile in is about my limit for hiking anyway.

ben egbert wrote:
Peter Figen wrote:
That would be Zeiss, not Ziess.

Thanks, I should have found the lens out and read it. "I" before "e" is a flawed rule. We engineers never understand such things.

It has another name associated with it,distagon or somesuch but I never remember that either.

FWIW and WOT, in german, ei is pronounced like eye, and ie is prounounced like eee!

Great test BTW. Very helpful.

bhollis wrote:
ben egbert wrote:
Peter Figen wrote:
That would be Zeiss, not Ziess.

Thanks, I should have found the lens out and read it. "I" before "e" is a flawed rule. We engineers never understand such things.

It has another name associated with it,distagon or somesuch but I never remember that either.

FWIW and WOT, in german, ei is pronounced like eye, and ie is prounounced like eee!

Great test BTW. Very helpful.

Thanks, much appreciated. Been attempting to do a flower at f2.8 to add to the test but missing critical focus so far. Probably need a focus rail.

I just bought the 70-200 2.8 IS MKII now I am debating on selling and pick up the 24-70 the old 24-70 was an awesome lens and the new is better darn I wish I was rich

24-70 II 24mm, f/8, center frame, fine details rendering

Ben, great review. also enjoyed reading through your processing overview.
To me, the 24 TSE has better microcontrast, and slightly better sharpness through out, but 24-70 is very impressive. It is also surprisingly good at 2.8 everywhere except the corners, which is nice, but not that big of a deal in landscape.
I also agree with you on the 24-105. I do use it from time to time, but the distortion is very hefty at 24, and the corners are never really sharp.