Testing the 24-70/2.8 II

[yakim_peled1]

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests">LR</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff">PZ</a></p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Ken Rockwell called this lens the best midrange zoom he has ever tested in his review. I guess I'll have to start saving my money to trade up from my 24-105mm.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Are you testing the lens or not?</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I've been eagerly awaiting the reviews to come in for this lens, and am fairly impressed so far. It would, of course, be good if it had had image stabilisation, but that likely would have entailed optical compromises.</p>

<p>Still, though, I don't know if I'm ready to bite the very large bullet...</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>It would, of course, be good if it had had image stabilisation, but that likely would have entailed optical compromises.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily, as Canon's 70-200 variants clearly demonstrate. </p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>

<p> </p>

[william_bray1]

<p>There is another review of this lens at, The digital picture<br /> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx<br /> If you look at the ISO 12233 crop at the top of the website page you can compare tests from different lenses side by side.<br /> To me the MkII has the edge wide open at the shorter focal lengths but at 70mm the MkI has the edge on one of the two copies tested. The differences optically are not that great , defiantly not as great as the price between the MkI and the MkII, and the ten years it's taken Canon to release a MkII.<br /> The short answer to " Is the MkII better then the MkI", is yes.<br /> But when you consider the price difference, plastic filter thread for a lens of this caliber, for me the lens hood design of the MkI was superior and unique, 82mm filter size, the bokeh of the MkI to me is better, The answer of "yes it is better then the MkI" becomes quieter and quieter in my mind.<br /> I have the 24-70 MkI and I won't be upgrading. I also have the MkI of the 70-200 2.8 IS and again the differences between the MKI and MKII of that lens wasn't enough to make me upgrade either, but the 70-200 is a different beast and the MKII when used with 2X converters is noteasbly better then the MkI so I would consider an upgrade to the MkII should I start to need a 400mm focal length. I won't be using converters on a 24-70.<br /> The only thing that could have sold the 24-70 to the majority would have been IS. Which the Tamaron has, the IQ of the tameron compared to the 24-70 MKII is equal in the centre but at the edges and at longer focal lengths it suffers, the MkI is still better overall.<br /> If I wanted IS I would get the Tameron, if I didn't have the MkI I would be trying to get one, even a good second hand one.<br /> As for me I'm keeping hold of my MkI, I've now had to insure the MkI for the higher price of the MkII because if anything happened to it I would be sick given the choice of the MkII price or having to settle for the Tamron.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Personally, I'm most worried about the fact that two out of two copies were not perfect. IMHO this is inexcusable in this price range.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>

[william_bray1]

<p>When I bought my Canon equipment for me canon was offering the best options in lenses and bodies. But now With Canon's latest realises I'm getting a little tired of their technology being drip fed to it's customers , and it being the most expensive main brand of equipment out there.<br>

If I wasn't a pro and needed to buy Canon equipment I would be looking at the 5d mkII era of lenses and bodies, and hopefully in a few years this will turn full circle and Canon will be back where it was.<br>

I just hope they don't start to discontinue more of their good lenses with minor improved ones and major changes in the prices. </p>