World first Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II review (vs original)

<p>The test is <a href="

and to tell you the truth, I'm a bit surprised to see that the difference is so small. By this test alone (which of course is something one must not do) I would not spend an extra 1K. Looking to see more tests. </p>

<p>Files are <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/66174868@N02/">here</a>. </p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br /> Yakim.</p>

<p>A test is way too grandiose a word. It's just a couple of shots taken with both lenses.</p>

<p>Thanks Yakim. I've got version one, and was a little underwhelmed by the bokeh, seemed to have ropy look, if that makes any sense. The out-of-focus clovers (or whatever they are) look a little better to me with version 2. I think, LOL.</p>

<p>My one big negative with version one (apart from lack of IS), is the way a just-out-of-frame light source can infuse a scene with contrast lowering, golden glow. Maybe you could check I vs II in this regard?</p>

<p>Still the ongoing lack of IS is frustrating. I know the reasons: weight, expense, but still.</p>

<p>I'm with you on that. Long ago, when I used EF cameras, I chose the 24-10 over the 24-70 because I wanted IS. If today I'd face the same dilemma I think I'd go for the Tamron, for the very same reason. IQ is good enough for me.</p>

<p><br />Happy shooting,<br />Yakim.</p>

<p>I had the original 24-70, but I got rid it in favor of faster, optically superior primes. However, I must confess that I'm intrigued by the 24-70 II, but I'm going to wait for more "definitive" testing before I decide whether to buy one.</p>

<p>I'm (essentially) with Mark P. on this. The 24-70/2.8 II looks to be the first normal zoom that competes with primes for landscape work, where the detail needs to hold out all the way out to the corners. I just came back from a trip lugging 21/2.8, 40/2.0, and 100/2.0 around summer-heat Japan. Would have been nice to have done it with just one lens.</p>

 

<p>Any improvement in IQ from version one would be enough to make me smile. The fact that it is lighter and slightly smaller makes me smile. The fact that it doesn't have IS is the only reason it's not in my bag now. *Please* Canon, add IS to this lens.</p>

<p>Well, the new lens is smaller (I think that was what I dislike the most on the old one) and lighter. What I also like is the lock, I also own a 24-105L IS F4.0L which creeps like hell. Not nice for a walk around zoom. Begins after two years or so. So from the outside a big step forward. The mark II shall IQ wise be a little better.<br>

<br />But something is lost, the mark I is a tank, something you never doubt to get broken. It has character. The mark II is just a faster 24-105L IS F4.0L without the IS. Not a character lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I also like is the lock, I also own a 24-105L IS F4.0L which creeps like hell.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that a zoom lock is out of place with tight-tolerance lenses like L, and my 24-105 never had a zoom creep. Nor do I recall hearing about it. </p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p>"Not a character lens"<br>

Well, as before, it's the only zoom that looks to be an acceptable alternative to primes. I don't need character, I need prints that aren't soft. At 24mm and f/8 (where I'd shoot a lot), the Canon MTF charts show it being marginally better than the 24/2.8 prime and a lot better than either the 24-105 or the old version. That's a big deal. (And, yes, I realize those are calculated, not measured, MTFs, but that doesn't make them not a valid comparison between each other.)</p>

<p>Here are the MTF charts (lifted from the Canon Japan site) for these four lenses (top to bottom: new, old, 24-105, 24 prime). Either Canon is on drugs, or it's a seriously amazing lens.<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/145971044/original">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/145971044/original</a></p>

 

<p>I wonder about a Canon review conducted by a reviewer called "That Nikon Guy". I also challenge the statement that the new lens has a different view point from the old lens. I say he simply jiggled the tripod slightly or placed the subject slightly different for the two test shots. The elements and lens mount obviously are centered over the camera's sensor and to speculate that the new lens centers differently compared to the old lens is odd.</p>

<p>"I wonder about..."<br>

Yep. ROFL. Not the most reliable source for a Canon review. But the folks at LensRentals have a glowing to the point of being hagiography review of the new lens up. They love it. If it's anywhere near as good as they claim, it'll be worth every penny (again, to crazed pixel-peeping landascape wannabes such as myself).<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/canon-24-70mm-f2.8l">http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/canon-24-70mm-f2.8l</a></p>

<p>There is one enormous difference between the lenses: the old lens extended as the focal length is reduced, whereas the new lens extends as the focal length is increased. That means that the lens hood on the old lens is somewhat useful at all focal lengths, whereas the hood on the new lens is only useful at 24mm. Sigh. But this might also have the effect that the magnification at closest focus at 70mm is different between the lenses. The specs for the lenses have the close focus distance being the same, but the new lens having a _smaller_ maximum magnification. If that were listed for the 24mm focal length, then it might mean that there's an opposite difference at 70mm. Maybe, I'm just guessing.</p>

<p>Another possible disadvantage to the new lens is that it has slightly more barrel distortion at 24mm. This is easily and automagically fixed in RAW conversion, but it means that the lens becomes somewhat less wide at 24mm. (If done sensibly, distortion correction should not reduce resolution noticeably.)</p>

 

<p>BTW, from the comparison Roger made it's the Tamron that strikes me as the best value-for-money.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>