p.2 #2 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
I returned my Tamron 24-70 VC thinking that the Canon II would be the better long-term investment. I think I made the right decision. That said, I probably won't buy until sometime in the New Year.
p.2 #6 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
You can get the 70-200 II for about $400ish less than you could brand new, with rebates and such. I expect the same (or more) with the 24-70 II with time. I won't bite until I can get it under $2000 (and hopefully around $1800).
p.2 #7 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
After seeing what Canon did with the 70-200/2.8 II IS and the new superteles...and given that the predecessor of this lens was no slouch...I'm not really surprised to see fantastic resolution numbers from Roger's tests...
p.2 #8 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
"It’s even better at 24mm than the sharpest 24mm prime we have, the Canon 24 TS-E. In the center, in the corners, it doesn’t care."
I just find this extraordinarily difficult to believe. The 24mm TS-E is also a new lens, and it has a massive image circle. The idea that the corners would be as sharp or sharper on a zoom is just ridiculous. Of course, if they are, then we know why Canon is charging so much
p.2 #9 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
avuroski wrote:
"It’s even better at 24mm than the sharpest 24mm prime we have, the Canon 24 TS-E. In the center, in the corners, it doesn’t care."
I just find this extraordinarily difficult to believe. The 24mm TS-E is also a new lens, and it has a massive image circle. The idea that the corners would be as sharp or sharper on a zoom is just ridiculous. Of course, if they are, then we know why Canon is charging so much
Alternatively they haven't done as good a job with the TS-E lens as we have thought
p.2 #14 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If it continues to deliver in real world tests, I hope this hits the staff store ASAP.
Hi Whayne,
Think of all those missed opportunities. It would be worth much more than the staff price you save. :-) I am jealous
I was actually to by CPS that the lens rating was far sharper than the old one. So the test so far does not surprise me. I love the 24-70 zoom range as it is so practical. I love version 1 but with the improvements it iS even better
p.2 #15 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
Mine is scheduled to arrive Thursday so I am mighty happy to read Roger's report!
I preordered ASAP since I am not impressed with my version I. I keep hearing folks rave about their's, but mine, even after a trip to Canon just to make sure nothing was out of whack, has been one of my least favorite lenses. But then, I have never seen a lens wider than 80mm (other than the 70 -200s ) that impressed me. I have about decided that those who shoot wide have low standards If this thing will be close to the 70 - 200 II then I might start shooting at less than 85mm again.
p.2 #16 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
pcho wrote:
Hi Whayne,
Think of all those missed opportunities. It would be worth much more than the staff price you save. :-) I am jealous
I was actually to by CPS that the lens rating was far sharper than the old one. So the test so far does not surprise me. I love the 24-70 zoom range as it is so practical. I love version 1 but with the improvements it iS even better
Perry
I'm torn as I like the flexibility of my 24-105L especially for travel, even though it's f/4. However, 24-70 would make a great landscape lens and much sharper than the 24-105.
p.2 #17 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm torn as I like the flexibility of my 24-105L especially for travel, even though it's f/4. However, 24-70 would make a great landscape lens and much sharper than the 24-105.
+1.
I would love a superbly sharp zoom at 24mm for landscapes and what not.
p.2 #18 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
It sure looks like Canon hit on something with these new II lenses that can justify the ridiculous Hi prices their charging. Never thought I'd say it but with a review like that I may have to eat my words if the review holds up.
p.2 #19 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
While the resolving power of that lens is nothing short but amazing, I still believe that incorporation of IS would make it a really superb lens, a slam-dunk lens, if you will. Maybe Canon thought that the IS would increase the price too much? At this point, what's an additional 10% more or something like, $300 or so for including an IS system. I know it is a moot point now but still why stopped short of making an incredible, and really superb lens, Canon? Why?
p.2 #20 · Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II tested by Roger Cicala
The only thing I do not like is the lens hood. On the first version it is attached to the main lens body, which is far more able to absorb shock than the zooming section and I do bump mine plenty of times as it gets worked hard in the field and I can't always watch where it is. With the old lens hood there was also better coverage for the 70mm end and the overall length wasn't much different as the hood did not telescope with the zoom.
