p.4 #1 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
ben egbert wrote:
The leaning trees are the only thing that makes me hesitate to sell my 24TSE. I see the tilted camera problem in lots of the samples shown in this thread. I have it in my own 24-70 mk2 shots. I love the compositional freedom, but I am not fond of the distortion. Ordinary distortion when the camera is level is hard to detect, but all lenses cause leaning trees if pointed up or down, even a TSE.
yeah if you don't like tilted trees you really do need the TSE or that as well ($$$ yikes, one day maybe....)
p.4 #3 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
These are all gorgeous. I see forest scenes like yours but never try them because I can never figure out how to compose.
On the 24TSE, I am planning to sell mine and just use the 17TSE when shift is required. I need to try a sunburst, looks like this lens is great at that.
p.4 #4 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Joshua is a master of lighting, color and composition. That portfolio is a, graphic, demonstration of being in the right place at the right time. A window into instants of glory from days of hiking and waiting.
p.4 #5 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
ben egbert wrote:
These are all gorgeous. I see forest scenes like yours but never try them because I can never figure out how to compose.
On the 24TSE, I am planning to sell mine and just use the 17TSE when shift is required. I need to try a sunburst, looks like this lens is great at that.
thanks, yeah composition for forest scenes is always tricky, they look so awesome when you are there, surrounded by it all, but they are also very messy and the switch to 2D makes them messier still, so it is always a struggle and I take what I can get even if not the perfect studio-type composition
yeah I have to say the sunbursts on this lens are awesome, never had a lens before that did them like this!
p.4 #6 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
I'll be the odd person out. When I received the lens, I did some careful and detailed tests and comparisons with other lenses in my bag (Zeiss 21mm, Canon 24mm T/S, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Canon 135mm f/2) regarding light falloff and corner sharpness at all apertures. Wide open, the light falloff in the corners was shocking, but it corrected well in CS5. Light fall off really didn't disappear until about f/8. Sharpness was my biggest concern, especially in the corners. Lack of sharpness was most notable in the upper left corner, somewhat less in the lower left corner, and sharpness in all corners was never quite as good as the center, regardless of aperture. This is not what I expected from a $2300 lens, and I've returned it. I'll rely on primes in that range, even though they are less convenient. If/When the price drops, I'll consider another copy of the 24-70 II.
p.4 #7 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Thats my experience when comparing to a 24TSEmk2 and a Ziess 50 f1.4 and a 35L. Bad light fall off in corners that corrects well but still present at f8. Corners less sharp than the TSE and Ziess, but probably better than the 35L.
But the difference was so small that I felt I would prefer the ability to zoom than crop a prime shot. I have my TSE for sale and have already sold the 35L. The Zeiss I may keep.
I was using the 17TSE for shift shots anyway. I now have shots at 31mm 45, 28 etc.
p.4 #8 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Thank you for all those wonderful pictures and comments. I am in Chile now and we will be going to Falkland Island and South Georgia and mostly out of the internet connection for about 3 weeks. Until then, please keep on posting, guys.
p.4 #13 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
CW100 wrote:
qall nice pics but don't know if the lens is worth $2,300
If it replaces 2-3 primes it is worth it. If soft corners don't matter to you, probably not. Most lenses are sharp enough in the center when stopped down for web work. But if you want the edges and corners to hold up to a large print, you need primes or a zoom of this caliber.
I still need to accept some degradation in the corners, but grass is still recognizable there rather than mush.
It boils down to two types of outcome here. A 17-40 and 24-105 for landscapers who don't care about edge/corner and those willing to pay the price to get it as good as it gets.
Even my 24TSE is not dead sharp in the extreme corners but the improvement over the old generation zooms was worth the price to me. Now I am willing to live with what the 24-70 mk2 provides and have my 24TSE for sale.
p.4 #14 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
ben egbert wrote:
It boils down to two types of outcome here. A 17-40 and 24-105 for landscapers who don't care about edge/corner and those willing to pay the price to get it as good as it gets.
Can we please lose the "only those who don't care" nonsense regarding these lenses? It is simply a myth that all good landscape photographers avoid the L zooms or that they rely on primes or TS lenses. The fact is that far more good, excellent, and even great landscape photographers shooting DSLRS use these zooms than use TS and other so-called exotic glass.
A few folks around here would do well to look at what successful and highly regarded landscape photographers - perhaps among them some of your personal heroes - actually use to produce their work. Art Wolfe, who I do not know personally, is reportedly a big fan of zooms. Michael Frye, who I do know, basically uses two lenses, the 17-40 and the f/4 70-200 - and he reports that many of his best-selling photographs were made with the 17-40. I could go on.
Folks, you are welcome to prefer TS lenses, super-zooms, L primes, and all the rest... They are fine pieces of gear, but the nonsense about being willing to accept poor quality results if you choose to use what you regard as lesser lenses simply doesn't pass the sniff test in the real world of photography, and it gets far more credibility than it deserves among forumtographers.
p.4 #16 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
gdanmitchell wrote:
Can we please lose the "only those who don't care" nonsense regarding these lenses? It is simply a myth that all good landscape photographers avoid the L zooms or that they rely on primes or TS lenses. The fact is that far more good, excellent, and even great landscape photographers shooting DSLRS use these zooms than use TS and other so-called exotic glass.
A few folks around here would do well to look at what successful and highly regarded landscape photographers - perhaps among them some of your personal heroes - actually use to produce their work. Art Wolfe, who I do not know personally, is reportedly a big fan of zooms. Michael Frye, who I do know, basically uses two lenses, the 17-40 and the f/4 70-200 - and he reports that many of his best-selling photographs were made with the 17-40. I could go on.
Folks, you are welcome to prefer TS lenses, super-zooms, L primes, and all the rest... They are fine pieces of gear, but the nonsense about being willing to accept poor quality results if you choose to use what you regard as lesser lenses simply doesn't pass the sniff test in the real world of photography, and it gets far more credibility than it deserves among forumtographers.
Guess I did not word that right. How about this. If you are a pixel peeper as I am who is not a pro or even a good ameatuer but who has a very high regard for sharp edges and corners. This zoom which can replace 2-3 expensive primes is not a bad bargain.
p.4 #20 · Please post images taken with Canon 24-70mm Mark II
Yeah, even though I sent mine back, I still think it's a good lens -- it's just not worth $2300 IMO, especially considering how it performs relative to other lenses at lower prices.
