But to answer the OP simply: it should be relatively easy to get some pretty amazing farthest edge performance out of it, especially 50mm and under, stopped down just a little.
I have some shots 24mm f/4 where the scene fits easily in any field curvature issues that are 100% crisp farthest edge to farthest edge and with less PF than most of the 24mm primes and even the far corners are pretty sharp and not at all mush.
I'm very picky about my wide end performance at the edges. 24 2.8, 24-105 never did it for me at all. 24 1.4 II did. But the 24-70 II made me forget about the 24 1.4 II (other than the very, very rare times I could've made use of 1.4, which are for me, far, far less than bonus of zoom flexibility). And the 24 1.4 II actually has MORE PF for fine details against clouds and such and the 24-105 has vastly more of that. So you get all sorts of branches and leaves against sky and white clouds and it's all crisp with no green and purple halos and such.
Yes, mine was obvious that the edges fell off. This was at 6.3 33mm on a shot where the center was fine but the edges. . . I was able to use the image but as I told CPS again today, I don't want to have to worry whether I am going to get all the quality I need or not and they agreed. They took notes and said they are going to make sure the lens problem is rectified. I do not want to send it back in again. Twice for the 24-70 I, was enough. It is sharp now and sharper at the edges than the II and while that is going to be great for someone who buys the 1 when I sell it, I didn't buy the version II to be the same or not as good. I should know Tues or Wed when it returns.
skibum5 wrote:
there are some that are only a trace better than the old design at f/2.8
Not encouraging news as I shoot at 2.8 a lot. Tough to swallow given the price you pay. I have to admit that I have had good luck with Canon lenses though as I've never returned one. I'll be ordering soon and hope to get a good copy.
After using my 24-70I again, since the II is gone, I realize how sharp my copy of 1 is. I mean I always felt fine with it, after it was sent in twice, but I hope the II goes up a notch as I will feel like a chump for spending so much money for little improvement, if that is how it turns out. I do like the size of the new model. It seems smaller even though there isn't much difference. I also like the locking mechanism. Hopefully it will be a stunner when it returns.
ggreene wrote:
Not encouraging news as I shoot at 2.8 a lot. Tough to swallow given the price you pay. I have to admit that I have had good luck with Canon lenses though as I've never returned one. I'll be ordering soon and hope to get a good copy.
Most likely you'll be happy with the f/2.8 performance, very happy, with luck, ultra ecstatic.
I have been debating upgrading to this lens from my 24-70 mark 1 but I'm not sure if its worthwhile, I have a sharp copy, I don't use it for landscapes and its mainly for wedding and portraits so is it really worth the extra cash
Weekh, building 37 is on a focal plane well behind 39, so depending on your DOF, I would certainly expect 39 to be sharper. Think you can add a haze factor in there as well.
weekh wrote:
I've not really tested the replacement copy but initial assessment seems ok.
This test shot was taken with a lens that you deemed not up to par and you have received a replacement lens. What's the point, if I may ask? By so doing you potentially could confuse people and apparently you did that already .
AGeoJO wrote:
This test shot was taken with a lens that you deemed not up to par and you have received a replacement lens. What's the point, if I may ask? By so doing you potentially could confuse people and apparently you did that already .
@aladyforty - I wouldn't upgrade if I were you .
Thanks, I think mine is sharp enough, especially as its mainly used as a portrait lens...still debating though
aladyforty wrote:
Thanks, I think mine is sharp enough, especially as its mainly used as a portrait lens...still debating though
I wouldn't. I now realize my 24-70 ver 1 is fine and pretty sharp. I feel a little foolish spending the money I did. Someone will get a good lens as I won't keep both and will most likely sell the ver 1 but just like when I sold my 100 macro non L after I got the L version, I see no advantage to the newer L, even with the IS. So there you go. I do like the MKIII 5D though. :^)
jamato8 wrote:
I wouldn't. I now realize my 24-70 ver 1 is fine and pretty sharp. I feel a little foolish spending the money I did. Someone will get a good lens as I won't keep both and will most likely sell the ver 1 but just like when I sold my 100 macro non L after I got the L version, I see no advantage to the newer L, even with the IS. So there you go. I do like the MKIII 5D though. :^)
.
??