Great test. I'd be interested in a comparison to the 16-35mm II at 24 and 35mm since the 16-35mm II is my go to landscape lens right now.

kevindar wrote:
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.

Hi Kevin, thanks for looking and your observation on the 24TSE comparison. I am going to have a tough time selling that lens. But I seldom used it even before this always using the 17 instead.

At one time my plan was to have a 24-70 zoom, then a Zeiss 21 to fill the gap between 17 and 24. But then they announced the Zeiss 15 and I really wanted it.

datousteve wrote:
Great test. I'd be interested in a comparison to the 16-35mm II at 24 and 35mm since the 16-35mm II is my go to landscape lens right now.

I don't have access to a 16-35. Perhaps one of the other new 24-70 mk2 owners will do this.

skibum5 wrote:
24-70 II 24mm, f/8, center frame, fine details rendering

Nice, and what I think makes a lot of difference is the near absence of CA.

tanglefoot47 wrote:
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

Me too, so I could buy that rumored 46mpix camera for the rumored $9k. But my $8k 1ds-mk3 will probably have to last a lot longer.

ben egbert wrote:
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.

Well, at f/8 you may also want to have a look at the Samyang 24/1.4 and the 24/2.8 IS.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim Peled wrote:
ben egbert wrote:
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.

Well, at f/8 you may also want to have a look at the Samyang 24/1.4 and the 24/2.8 IS.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Well perhaps if I was looking to build a prime set. But I already have an excellent set of primes and am looking for zoom in the 24-70 range. I often find that zoom with your feet is just a theory.

ben egbert wrote:
datousteve wrote:
Great test. I'd be interested in a comparison to the 16-35mm II at 24 and 35mm since the 16-35mm II is my go to landscape lens right now.

I don't have access to a 16-35. Perhaps one of the other new 24-70 mk2 owners will do this.

I have the 16-35 II.
I was looking at the test images last night that I took. For landscape use, at f 11, the lens is very good at 24mm. there is continued improvement to the corners all the way till f11. the lens is not that great wide open at 24 outside of an aps-c size circle, so it would be decidedly worse than the 24-70 II in that respect, and based on Ben's results, I would say, even at f8 its behind, However, I find it very acceptable at f11. I will try to post a full size sample later.

got to muck around with a few copies of various lenses (I think more than ever that copy variation is real, saw some clear diff between 17-40, etc. that said, it's complex, lenses may not be universally better but only on certain parts of the frame or even only at certain depths in scenes at certain parts, since oddly, field curvature affects appeared to differ between copies at times, trying to pick the perfect copy might easily drive one mad, I believe one could cherry pick better copies, but it would be a LOT of complex (as I said can't just test a single edge or the center, need to test all over, need to test charts and various real world scenes to also see how field curvatures work, etc. tricky stuff), time consuming work, many copies, and maybe it's easiest to jsut forget it all unless you notice something really bad)

I think there may be something to some 24-70 II being a bit sharper than others, center frame area, f/2.8-f/4 or so.
Even the worst were still almost as good as the 70-300mm L at center frame 70mm though and the 70-300mm is about the best there is there other than the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Wost 24-70 II at f/2.8 was like a 70-200 f/4 IS at f/4 70mm. Best is already better at f/2.8 than the 70-300mm L (f/4) and noticeably better than the 70-200 f/4 IS at f/4 and I think must be a match for the fabled beyond fabled 70-200 2/8 IS II.

At the edges it's not a match for the 70-200/70-300 top lenses though, my 70-300L clearly beats it at f/4 and f/6.3 at the extreme centered edge at 700mm, but just 1/8th in from the edge, the 24-70 IIs are close already. So it is still decent for landscapes at 70mm and should be superb for portraits. The better at 70mm 24-70 II copies are crazy sharp near center frame f/2.8 70mm.

Better at 70mm 24-70 IIs appear to peak in sharpness before f/6.3, while the worst appear to peak closer to f/6.3 (f/6.3 was sharper than f/4 on some copies, the ones a touch less sharp at f/2.8, and yet f/4 was sharper than f/6.3 on the copies sharpest at f/2.8, note on those copies f/6.3 was still just a hair sharper than f/6.3 on the worst at 70mm copies; far centered edge differences at 70mm appeared to be less noticeable than center frame differences copy to copy actually).

(Not sure but it might be that the super sharp at 70mm f/2.8 center frame copies tend to also be crisper for subjects close in and blurrier, at least on one of the edges for objects farther away near with some sort of odd field curvature. Have to look things over, but for now, it's time to prepare for the Yankees! So you will have to wait a day or more for my detailed comments and tests on everything, 24mm, 28mm, more 70mm.)

It seems to show some LoCA under intense conditions at 70mm in the corners, but no worse than anything else, at 24mm it seems free of LoCA under such touch circumstances for landscapes.

Interesting observation. I am sure there is copy variation as well as shot to shot variations with respect to focus.

ben egbert wrote:
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.




+1
BTW you can use the Nikon 14-24 on a Canon. Love mine.

Klaus Priebe wrote:
ben egbert wrote:
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.




+1
BTW you can use the Nikon 14-24 on a Canon. Love mine.

I already have a 14 and 17 prime, one even reports. The only reason I would like a 14-24 is for the convenience of an AF zoom with full reporting and function with the camera. The Nikon would give me zoom but little else. I doubt it is as sharp as the 17TSE, which has near zero distortion to boot.

Now of course I expect a Canon Zoom will have distortion. I guess I could live with that and some vignetting as long as it solved the edge-corner sharpness issue.

I love my Zeiss 50, but it is probably my last adapted lens. Canon can do this and I can wait.