Daan B wrote:
FWIW, my 24-70L is as sharp as my 35L from f/4 and smaller in the center. Corners are better on the 24-70L. Of course my 35L is better from f/1.4 - f/2.8. Sounds like your 24-70L isn't still behaving like it should. Maybe sent it one more time. Also, differences between all these lenses are marginal at f/8 and smaller. At these apertures it's more a matter of FL
If it were me, I'd start doubting my 35L if my 24-70 could keep up at f/4.
Thats Fresh wrote:
now those those who have had all three (16-35, 35L, 24-70), would you agree that i should keep the 24-70/35 or 24-70/16-35. i shoot both with a crop and FF bodies. my concern would be optics. i shoot weddings and fashion.
For the things you shoot I'd definitely prefer low-light above zooming versatility.
jmvdigital wrote:
Any updates on what you ended up doing Thats Fresh?
I'm in a similar boat right now. Not pleased with my 24-70L on my 1DsIII. Trying to figure out if I go to the 24L and 35L instead, or give the 16-35II a shot. Pair either with my 85 1.8, and skip the 50 range for now. I'm wary of zoom IQ now. Sold my 70-200 2.8L after being disappointed in the 200-end sharpness.
Maybe I am wrong here, but I think the 16-35II isn't better than the 24-70L at overlapping FL's. It will give you 16-24mm though. The 35L is about the same in IQ to the 24-70L @ 35mm, f/4-5.6 and smaller. Of course the 35L is way better between f/1.4 and f/4. The new 24L II seems to have (slightly -?-) better corner performance than the 24L I. Unfortunately I don't know how any of these lenses compare to the 24-70L @ 24mm.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
If it were me, I'd start doubting my 35L if my 24-70 could keep up at f/4.
Or maybe I have a very good copy of the 24-70L at 35mm... Anyway, I am not talking pixel peeping 100% exactly the same. But certainly about the same at f/4 and more so at f/5.6.
my first 24-70 was a great copy..... then it fell to the floor and broke off my mk2 when a careless waiter lifted a tray along with the tablecloth that my mk2 was setting on...... I finished out the evening with my 70-200 2.8L and then bought another 24-70 the next day at Sammy's in LA......... The newer 24-70 is another great copy..... I had the first one repaired and now I have two....... both of my 24-70's are excellent examples of canon glass. I have been very pleased with results from this lens while attached to my mk3 as well.
bobbytan wrote:
I beg to disagree. The 24-105L has terrible barrel distortion at the 24mm end .... A LOT worse than the 24-70L. It was for this very reason that I switched back to the 24-70L.
Yes, although pretty sharp @ 24mm, the 24-105 does have a lot of distortion, a lot more than my Tamron 28-75 @ 28mm
Daan B wrote:
Or maybe I have a very good copy of the 24-70L at 35mm... Anyway, I am not talking pixel peeping 100% exactly the same. But certainly about the same at f/4 and more so at f/5.6.
The best outcome possible: we're both lucky: you with your 24-70 and me with my 35
My 35 is definitely better than the one the digital picture used to shoot their chart. My 24-70 is more or less the same, maybe slightly softer.
