p.2 #1 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
Interesting. I am using a 5DIII. So some experience it sharper at the long end, some the wide and some feel it is good both wide and long. On my copy, wide open, it is obvious in contrast and sharpness that the wide in is very sharp and the long end at center is good but not the same and the edges and corners fall off pretty good.
p.2 #2 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
gschlact wrote:
With that said, I think those in above posts should specifie their observations as to which camera and sensor they are referencing their the subjective analysis. Obviously crop vs ff would have a huge factor on defining edges with the to nowhere near equal
Guy
7D
I was talking FF. On APS-C it sharp corner to corner across the entire range to a mad degree.
p.2 #3 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
jamato8 wrote:
Interesting. I am using a 5DIII. So some experience it sharper at the long end, some the wide and some feel it is good both wide and long. On my copy, wide open, it is obvious in contrast and sharpness that the wide in is very sharp and the long end at center is good but not the same and the edges and corners fall off pretty good.
Going by all the copies I've seen and what I've read the average copy is crazy sharp center frame right from wide open ( a better copy is basically all but peaking at f/3.2 already) across the entire range. But once you start going above 40mm or so I do feel that the corners and then eventually the edges very slowly start dropping off (it's more obvious the more complex the scene is in terms of the DOF it needs to cover) but not really jumping out at you much at all until you start getting above 60mm (of course keep in mind that longer focal lengths naturally cover scenes differently than wide angle, but I'm talking compared to a 70-200 doing 70mm).
Never tried the 70-200 2.8 IS II but I'd guess that 70mm f/2.8 center frame is worse for the lesser 24-70 II copies similar for typical and better for the best. Compared to 70-200 f/4 IS as I said they should all be more or less at least as good and mostly a good deal better (with the 70-200 at f/4 and 24-70 at f/2.8). Compared to 70-300L the lesser copies are worse, typical copy is a bit better, best copies are definitely better (once again 24-70 at ony f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4 at f/4 so that is really pretty damn impressive because the 70-300L performs VERY well at 70mm f/4 center frame).
The lens does seem a bit variable. I suppose there could be some where long end is clearly better wide open or vice versa center frame and maybe even a few with better edges at the long end (??).
p.2 #4 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
What i find amusing is that the 24-70II 70-200II and 70-200F4 are three of the most amazing zooms ever created.
Because a device says one offers so many lines per inch or whatever all of a sudden there are 'concerns" about copy variation and softness?
WTF??
Id love to see an example of softness that would show up in any 36" print..
I mean you guys are splitting hairs that are on a hair and saying that the original hair is imperfect as one of its 3000 sub hairs has frays..
Talk of softness is relative if you want to talk about soft look at the 28-70/2.8..
The 24-70II is a beautiful piece of gear.. http://www.vortexaviationphotography.com/Civil-Aviation-Photography/Flight-Deck-Photography/i-J9MzbD7/0/L/035C5864-L.jpg
p.2 #5 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
dehowie wrote:
What i find amusing is that the 24-70II 70-200II and 70-200F4 are three of the most amazing zooms ever created.
Because a device says one offers so many lines per inch or whatever all of a sudden there are 'concerns" about copy variation and softness?
WTF??
Id love to see an example of softness that would show up in any 36" print..
I mean you guys are splitting hairs that are on a hair and saying that the original hair is imperfect as one of its 3000 sub hairs has frays..
Talk of softness is relative if you want to talk about soft look at the 28-70/2.8..
The 24-70II is a beautiful piece of gear.. http://www.vortexaviationphotography.com/Civil-Aviation-Photography/Flight-Deck-Photography/i-J9MzbD7/0/L/035C5864-L.jpg ...Show more →
Yes, I am sure it is, if it is within tolerance but any lens can be off. My 35mm Summicron is an excellent lens but has needed adjustment in the past and its focus is done by adding or removing shims, so how it would ever get off I don't know but it does.
p.2 #6 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Really, it is just very sharp for a zoom throughout its entire (limited) focal length and across the frame. It is not "weak" at any focal length.
It has been my observation based on thedigitalpicture and photozone.de that the 24-70 really shines at wide open, whereas as it gets longer and stopped down the 24-105 comes very close. In fact the CA on the 24-105 is better than the CA of 24-70 at 70. Some of this is because the 24-105 is better stopped down but some if it is caused by less strength on 24-70.
Still the best zoom lens in this range if you live with the narrower range and lack of IS, vs speed, as compared to the 24-105, for example.
p.2 #8 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
Scott Stoness wrote:
... the photozone.de shows the 24-70 being strongest at 24 for resolution and weakest at 70mm....
It is not "weak" at any focal length or aperture. It is excellent at all of them. Just because something measures 1000 and something else measures 1001, 1000 is not suddenly "weak."
Thinking this way - and I don't mean to pick on anyone individually here, but rather to comment on a genera way of thinking - is like picking up a 100 pound bag of sand and commenting, "That is heavy!" and then picking up a 100.2 pound bag of sand and saying, "Now that 100 lb. bag is light!"
Or...
"I'm rich! I have $100,000,000!" "Oh wait, that other guy has $100,000,001, and now I'm poor!" ;-)
p.2 #9 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
gdanmitchell wrote:
It is not "weak" at any focal length or aperture. It is excellent at all of them. Just because something measures 1000 and something else measures 1001, 1000 is not suddenly "weak."
Thinking this way - and I don't mean to pick on anyone individually here, but rather to comment on a genera way of thinking - is like picking up a 100 pound bag of sand and commenting, "That is heavy!" and then picking up a 100.2 pound bag of sand and saying, "Now that 100 lb. bag is light!"
Or...
"I'm rich! I have $100,000,000!" "Oh wait, that other guy has $100,000,001, and now I'm poor!" ;-)...Show more →
And with that definition - its excellent everywhere - if you look at photozone, its resolution drops to 2300 on extremes, so you are defining excellent as >=2300. By this definition you would also conclude the 24-105 is excellent everywhere too.
So while I agree that the 24-70 is a great lens from end to end, it is not much better than its alternatives, compared to its alternatives at the long end or stopped down a bit. In addition, as noted by lensrentals.com, it has significant variation in iq from lens to lens. I suspect the op was trying to figure out whether his lens was just a bad copy or whether all copies less strong as compared to the alternative longer. In which case, the average 24-70 is good everywhere but better at short mm, is the answer but at least as good as 24-105 througout.
p.2 #10 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
My one and only copy of this lens, purchased in Sept 2012 is very sharp at all FL's,but especially outstanding at 24mm wide open and at all f-stops. I've used it on a 1D X, 1D IV, 5D III and a 7D. Couldn't be happier.
p.2 #11 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
I think the overall image of the lens at any given aperture is so good that I don't really question its sharpness. The color, contrast, etc really stands out vs my old 24-70 and any other lenses in that range. I don't hesitate using f2.8 and I feel I can use wider apertures than I usually use.
p.2 #13 · Where is your 24-70L II sharpest, wide or long?
Scott Stoness wrote:
And with that definition - its excellent everywhere - if you look at photozone, its resolution drops to 2300 on extremes, so you are defining excellent as >=2300. By this definition you would also conclude the 24-105 is excellent everywhere too.
So while I agree that the 24-70 is a great lens from end to end, it is not much better than its alternatives, compared to its alternatives at the long end or stopped down a bit. In addition, as noted by lensrentals.com, it has significant variation in iq from lens to lens. I suspect the op was trying to figure out whether his lens was just a bad copy or whether all copies less strong as compared to the alternative longer. In which case, the average 24-70 is good everywhere but better at short mm, is the answer but at least as good as 24-105 througout....Show more →
The question of how it compares in actual use to other lenses is a great one, though not at all the question that was posed here.
I've written a few times about situations in which I prefer the 24-105 over the 24-70, and vice versa.
And basically all lenses vary from copy to copy...
??).