p.5 #2 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
StillFingerz wrote:
Thank you Roger, superb testing and analysis
With your f2.8 testing methodology, might I ask how you think the 24-70 f4L IS might fair.
I've an older non-L EF 24-85 that I'll be exploiting on a 6D in a few months but I'm interested in the new lighter IS lens. Don't really need the weight or speed of the f2.8 as most of my shooting is in daylight. Not interested in it's macro functionality, I've the 100L for that...
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Jerry
Jerry, I was testing at 50mm for convenience, which seems to be the weak point of the 24-70 f/4 IS, and f/2.8 of course. In other testing the 24-70 f/4 IS seems to be very similar to the Tamron at f/4 - a touch better in some areas, a touch worse in others.
p.5 #3 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Roger -- Thanks for the testing, and helping us put some hard numbers behind our collective personal experiences.
I was interested in your comment about the Zeiss 50/2 Macro, a very renown lens among Alt users. I've tried several Zeiss ZE and Contax lenses, and not found them to be as extraordinary as some enthusiasts claim. I'm not saying they aren't very, very good, but not slaying the top Canon or Nikon offerings. A lot of images presented on the forum to support the Zeiss legend seem to have central subject location/focus and great lighting, making the images really pop, plus a good dose of PP to enhance sharpness/color/contrast. When I would try comparing similar lenses, Zeiss and Canon, with light PP, the results lenses looked pretty similar, and certainly less dramatic and theatrical. So, I concentrated more on Canon L lenses and have been happier with the resulting look of my images.
Nice to see your remark at all three lenses are performing so well compared to that Zeiss macro.
p.5 #4 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Roger,
Here is a test, landscape photographers would love to see.
5D III + 24mm TS-E vs D800 + 24mm PC-E
I have run my own tests with single copies and thought the Canon "system" yield better resolution in the corners, especially when shifting the lens to max. (Center resolution looked better on the Nikon)
p.5 #7 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
RCicala wrote:
Jerry, I was testing at 50mm for convenience, which seems to be the weak point of the 24-70 f/4 IS, and f/2.8 of course. In other testing the 24-70 f/4 IS seems to be very similar to the Tamron at f/4 - a touch better in some areas, a touch worse in others.
Hey Monty, don't go to the dark side. That is all.
p.5 #8 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
thw2 wrote:
Klauss (Photozone) probably expected the lens to deliver tack-sharp images from corner to corner wide-open at every focal length. It appears the 24-70 f/2.8 Mk2 falls short a little at 70 mm. He's a rather demanding reviewer...
The 24-105 received rating of 3 stars for optical quality as compared to 3.5 stars for 24-70 f/2.8 Mk2.
And I think the 24 1.4 II got only 2.5 or 3 stars too, despite it actually delivering much better 24mm than the 24-105. Each lens gets graded on it's own scale of expectations I think.
p.5 #9 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Fred Miranda wrote:
Roger,
Here is a test, landscape photographers would love to see.
5D III + 24mm TS-E vs D800 + 24mm PC-E
I have run my own tests with single copies and thought the Canon "system" yield better resolution in the corners, especially when shifting the lens to max. (Center resolution looked better on the Nikon)
Fred that is a great idea. That may well be one example where the lens difference is large enough to overcome sensor difference. Or at least close to it.
p.5 #10 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
skibum5 wrote:
And I think the 24 1.4 II got only 2.5 or 3 stars too, despite it actually delivering much better 24mm than the 24-105. Each lens gets graded on it's own scale of expectations I think.
Good point. I think you're probably right. My assessment of a new lens is always affected by my expectations, and that varies according to lens price and reputation.
I consider most lens tests and reviews with a grain of salt. I recently posted somewhere (probably the Alt forum) that the 'old' photodo site average MTF test results were consistent in one respect, and inconsistent in another: IMO, lenses rated as extremely good in photodo MTF tests are all excellent (I own or have owned 8 of the 'top 15', MTF.ave > 4.4); OTOH, many other excellent lenses that I've owned didn't show very well in the old photodo results.
IOW, an excellent review from a competent source is generally reliable, while a "not so good" review from one or two competent sources isn't necessarily the kiss of death. Consistency is a very important consideration. If everybody says it's great, then it's probably great. If everybody says it stinks, then it probably stinks. If reviews are mixed (esp. if some are excellent), then it's worth a try. Of course, it's a lot easier and safer to "buy and try" from the second hand market...
Thanks Roger! I wondered about this for some time. It would be nice to include some comparative photos in your review. BTW are we looking at raw files or in-camera jpg?
And there is a thing I wonder about the Tamron 24-70! Was it the same lens which was reviewed by the digtial picture? as you said recently that you provided lenses for testing to them
p.5 #12 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Hulot wrote:
Thanks Roger! I wondered about this for some time. It would be nice to include some comparative photos in your review. BTW are we looking at raw files or in-camera jpg?
And there is a thing I wonder about the Tamron 24-70! Was it the same lens which was reviewed by the digtial picture? as you said recently that you provided lenses for testing to them
Always unsharpened raw files for my tests - the various cameras do different things with jpgs.
I did 3 copies of each lens out of our stock, all of which had been recently tested and averaged the results (there wasn't a lot of variance, but I think it gives a better real-world picture than any single copy). I don't know if any of the three went to TDP, we've got several dozen of them and I didn't check.
p.5 #13 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
RCicala . As a pragmatic tester of lenses since 1978 I would just say that I like the way you present your findings.
The d800 needs the best lenses to shine
I remember when I showed in 1981 in Sweden that a nikon 80-200 zoom lens could be sharper than a Summicron M90, which newer was accepted by the Leica people.
Best regards to you
Mikael
p.5 #14 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
macrobild wrote:
RCicala . As a pragmatic tester of lenses since 1978 I would just say that I like the way you present your findings.
I remember when I showed in 1981 in Sweden that a nikon 80-200 zoom lens could be sharper than a Summicron M90, which newer was accepted by the Leica people.
Best regards to you
Mikael
Thank you Mikael. I would have given a pretty penny to have seen the Leica people's faces.
p.5 #16 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Oooh yes they did, my friend Lars Kjellberg (with the worlds largest MTF tests and done by Hasselblad ,and later the original Photodo) was always flooded with calls if he presented anything in his Photo Magazines about there can be better lenses than Leica lenses, and this phenomenon is even worse today with internet , when someone's equipment will be criticized, " what you have chosen yourself is always the best"
Therefore I use as a photographer Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica and Sinar " to be safe"
The camera is a tool
p.5 #17 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
macrobild wrote:
Oooh yes they did, my friend Lars Kjellberg (with the worlds largest MTF tests and done by Hasselblad ,and later the original Photodo) was always flooded with calls if he presented anything in his Photo Magazines about there can be better lenses than Leica lenses, and this phenomenon is even worse today with internet , when someone's equipment will be criticized, " what you have chosen yourself is always the best"
Therefore I use as a photographer Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, Leica and Sinar " to be safe"
The camera is a tool
Interesting, Mikael.
I mentioned the 'old' (a.k.a. original) photodo about six posts above.
By coincidence, I was here last year... Just walking by... Going to Chalmers. Move along...
p.5 #18 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Nice, I missed it . Regarding MTF and lenses . Hasselblad did not test like 5 copies of a lens,
Therefore I appreciate very much what RCicala is doing, test a lot of copies of the same lens which shows the unevenness.
I tested 4 of the old Canon 24-70/2.8 to find one who was good enough
