Just posted: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens review

I'm sure Nikon will come out with a better one in 5 years, for 8K video and 16k still maybe.

Mar 11, 2013permalink

benoa

As much as I enjoy reading the review, the samples gallery is IMHO not diverse enough, so I decided to share my own :
http://blog.benoa.net/2012/12/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii.html
Enjoy !

Mar 10, 2013permalink

Yes...the DPR image samples are beyond lame. They show us VERY LITTLE about the capabilities of a $2300 lens that is raved about in their review??? DUH. You did a MUCH better job showing us what the lens is capable of producing...(especially the cheesecake at the car show :-)),...just lose the Mickey Wizard...and you could look like a pro.

Mar 10, 2013*permalink

rallyfan

Those comparing Nikon and Zuiko lenses here seem to have a problem with this lens. Their actual problem is they've lost the plot.

If you have a Nikon lens that's better, and a Nikon body, you don't need this so it doesn't matter how it compares. Likewise for the Zuiko fans.

Conversely, if you don't have a body from another brand it doesn't matter how good that Zuiko or Nikon lens is; you won't be using it.

If you love your oh so special primes why are you considering a zoom? Don't buy it, maybe you'll keep retail prices lower. Go talk about your amazing talent and gear on some comment section for a prime, with the other armchair prize winners.

Is it loneliness or trolling then?

Blessed are the poor in spirit...

Mar 9, 2013permalink

Sad Joe

Stunning work Canon ! At last (and about time) I as a Canon owner can get really excited. Now PLEASE bring out a cheapish decent full frame DSLR designed for photographers rather than Facebookers !

Mar 8, 2013permalink

Area256

Don't be too quick to write off the 6D's WiFi and GPS as a "facebooker" feature. The WiFi tethered capture for studio work is awesome. As is the ability to do self-portraits, or shoot from unusual locations. The GPS is mostly a travel feature, but I could see some photojournalists making good use of it. The AF system is a little too basic for some, but for low light events it does the job very well.

Mar 10, 2013permalink

rbadiola

I don't see anything wrong with the 6D either. The wifi feature is awesome for studio work as you can see the previews on your desktop or laptop wirelessly. I don't really understand why some people consider it as "facebook" camera. Obviously they haven't used it yet.

Mar 11, 2013permalink

DonnyHiFi

I'm liking the Wifi feature, I can forward any pictures from an event I'm shooting straight to the client's phone/tablet, IMO that is a pretty cool feature. The only thing I don't like about the 6D is that the autofocus points not spread out to properly cover the rule of thirds without having to focus and recompose.

Mar 13, 2013permalink

hotdog321

I just shot my first editorial business portrait with this lens. Initial impressions agree completely with the DPreview tests, with two standout surprises:

1. Everyone says how sharp the 24-70 f/2.8 II lens is--they are right. At f/4.5 it was easily as sharp as my wonderful 70-200!

2. Flare control was just awesome! I was shooting into a bank of fluorescent lights on the wall, and the flare was non-existent. My 70-200 had trouble with the same lights.

This is a real pro workhorse of a lens and foresee at least a decade of hard use.

Just so I don't sound like a total fanboy, a few minor quibbles: I wish it had IS; the price is murder; I wish it had a larger lens hood to add protection to that massive front element; finally, I wish it was an internal zoom unit like the 16-35 and 70-200.

Mar 8, 2013permalink

Jahled

Totally with you on IS and internal zoom, I suspect they are things we'll see in it's next incarnation

Mar 8, 2013permalink

Five Piece

Every design is a compromise in some way. This lens is optimzed for sharpness, light weight and smaller size. I use it differently than my IS lenses, usually using a tripod, or doing it old-school, making sure the shutter speed is high enough for hand-held. 5DM3 higher ISO performance is just the ticket for that. Otherwise, just killer sharp from f/2.8 onwards...

Mar 8, 2013permalink

michonn

Oh people some of you who never had this lens yours hands will always say that this lens is not worth the price but I know that others who own this lens are happy with the results. I own this lens and I'm very happy with the image quality I get out of that glass , its 3 primes in one glass - I would recommend this workhorse to everyone who shoot canon... simple

Mar 8, 2013*permalink

Unless you have been using poor quality primes it is not optically as good with edges that soft still at f8. If your subject is in the centre of the frame fair enough but if it goes across the whole frame then this lens is poor. A lot of people are already questioning if it is even as good as the 5 year old Nikon equivalent. It's certainly not as good at f8 as an Zuiko 12-60mm, Zuiko 14-54mm or Zuiko 14-35 wide open and compared to a 14-35 f2 that is a 4 stop difference. Canon really need to up their game and put effort into the lens design for the amount of money they are charging. It won't take Nikon long to bring out a new lens and you can guarantee it will offer better value for money.

Mar 8, 2013permalink

Five Piece

Whatever, Mr. Stu 5. As an owver of this lens I could not be more pleased with the performance. I can also attest to its weather resitance, it took a really good splash in the Norwegian Sea, body is DOA but the lens still works fine. Maybe if you had some photographs in your gallery perhaps we could see if you have any idea what you are talking about, but you don't. Sigh... all these armchair experts here!

Mar 8, 2013permalink

Five Piece I choose not to put any photos in my gallery as that would not be fair on my clients or professional. The same goes for web links. So yes I am a professional photographer who also studied lens design. Worked in photographic retail management in the past and directly for two camera manufactures as well. Also worked for a few photographic distribution companies. I own/use camera formats from 10x8 downwards. So maybe not an armchair expert...

Mar 8, 2013permalink

Five Piece

Fair enough. The best tool for a particular job is not necessarily suitable for all situations. IF you are shooting a specific detailed across the frame subject and IF you will print poster sized+ for a paying client then yes, the very best prime will perhaps produce an ever so slightly better result.

However, as someone who is shooting for only me, where I often travel extensively, shooting whatever I come upon, the compositional choices available with the zoom far outweigh any barely perceptible difference in corner sharpness under microscopic examination that might be delivered by a possibly even pricier prime lens. Just sayin' the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II suites my purposes perfectly well.

Going to 4/3 format is likely not going go deliver superior results compared to FF in many scenarios, especially low-light. Not that these are not great cameras for many photographers, would like to acquire one myself at some point. The Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 Zuiko looks sweet!

Mar 9, 2013permalink

Vignes

Zuiko glasses are good, there is no denying about that but 4/3 or the m4/3 format can’t give you the same IQ as a FF or even an APS-C body. The best m4/3 at the moment is the OMD E-M5 but zuiko lens needs a conv to work with m4/3 body and AF via conv is slow.
Agree with Five Piece, Low light performance is where the major difference is. I have three generations of Oly m4/3 (e-pl1, e-p3 and em-5) - lens 12-50, 45, panasonic 14. I also have a K-5 (APC-S) and a 6D (FF).

Mar 9, 2013permalink

Stu 5...I own the zoom...and L and Zeiss primes...what you say is true...but this new zoom is a nice step up from previous Canon zooms...also it allows a photographer the "option" of capturing pro results without carrying the following:
24mm L prime
28mm prime
35mm A prime ( Sigma)
50mm L prime
70mm? (85mm L Prime)
Also at the cost of about $7-8000
...and possibly paying an assistant to carry all of the above....
...so the new zoom does have a niche...that offers VERY acceptable results for many shooting situations.
Yes, I think Canon could have made the lens even better for that price!

Mar 10, 2013*permalink

five5pho

great lens for sure. But no IS.
i will stick with the tamron

Mar 8, 2013permalink

abi170845

I will delay buying the 6D and will get this lens instead.

Mar 8, 2013permalink

itsastickup

The whole point of Canon zooms was the great bokeh.

R.I.P. Canon.

No bokeh no buy.

Mar 8, 2013permalink

Earthlight

It is a world class lens.

Now they only need a sensor to match. :)

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Not with edges that soft it isn't.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

lensberg

One would imagine that Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm is any better... in fact the Canon edges ahead in centre & corner sharpness...

Mar 8, 2013permalink

fair enough Nikon users have been using the best 24-70/2.8 for 5 years and it's Canon users' turn now.

Mar 8, 2013permalink

rallyfan

I would go for weather sealing any day. The one drawback with this lens is that the prior version works just fine. If/when that fails, we'll see. Not much Canon can do about that.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

the new f/4LIS one looks not good at all compared with this one at open. is the f/4 one a bad copy? also I think the Nikon 24-70/2.8G should be better than the test here, especially at 70mm.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

miejoe

I think the 24-70 f/4 IS test is a representative sample. It more or less matches Roger Cicala's results at LensRentals, and he tested 22 copies:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

As for the Nikon, are you sure you're not looking at the D300 (crop) results in the widget? As tested on the D3X, it's also in the range I would expect.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Tonio Loewald

So it appears to be slightly sharper and has lower CA than Nikon's older 24-70. More interestingly the new Canon 24-70 f4 IS is almost as sharp, better in other respects, and has stabilization. And of course it's much cheaper..

Mar 7, 2013*permalink

it's half-generation better than Nikon as it should.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Jahled

I replaced the old version with this and recently finally got round to selling my 24L II, 35L, and 50L; it simply seemed pointless owning them. A very nice lens.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Only pointless if you don't like shooting at fast apertures ..

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Jahled

True, and have loved shooting wide open; and i've hung onto my 85L, but my the weight of my camera bag was getting a bit mental for social events and i've wanted to lighten up for a while. I know i'm not obliged to have everything with me at all times, but my head feels less cluttered now. I should imagine i'll regret letting go of the 50 before to long, but there you go.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

50L should go (the only point may be to amaze the customer), 35L and 24L2 I'm not sure (not pointless but not much, either). looking forward to seeing 35L2.

Mar 8, 2013*permalink

Kinematic Digit

Andy, on page two of your review you mentioned that there is no weather sealing of the Mark I version. That is incorrect. It was previously listed as one of Canon's L series lens with moisture and dust sealing.

It does have the tell-tale O ring seal on the mount. I compared both of them at one point and one of the things I also thought was changed but corrected myself later. I do believe it may have been upgraded on the Mark II, but they both are weather sealed.

Mar 7, 2013*permalink

oselimg

After all this is a fast zoom lens with inevitable compromises. But what it's capable of producing comfortably outweighs any complaints. There is no such a thing as perfect zoom design or it would be extremely expensive to produce, at least this day and age. What you get with this zoom lens is a collection of weather sealed f2.8 primes with performances close to good primes. I know it is expensive but I'm not a pro photographer and not in the position to judge it's price/function/value combination. To have a zoom lens of this quality can be priceless at times.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

It's not as good as a prime though. The edges are noticeable soft even down to f8 and depending what you are photographing it will notice even at quite small image size. For a lot of my clients this would be an issue and for a lens of this type and price it's not good enough.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

miejoe

I'm surprised dpreview didn't mention the transmission improvement at all.

Normally transmission is insignificant to all but filmmakers, but according to dpreview's data, Canon managed a 1/2 stop improvement over version I at wideangle and a 1/3 stop improvement at telephoto.

If their numbers are correct, this would directly translate to a 1/2 stop better low-light or fast-action performance, which to me seems pretty relevant to photographers.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Butoa

How is it possible that Sony 24-70 has worse corners on A350 than on A900? That is not logical.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

jonny1976

if you look at photozone review the tamron in practice has similar resolution. worst ain flare, better in bokeh, similar ca. vc and 1400 less dollar.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Then4

Sad that the quality of Tamron lenses not even close to Canon L lenses.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Tharizdun

Canon is losing it. They've made it better by making the diameter bigger. That's what Sigma does!

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Sigma is also very capable in lens design. way better than Sony (fake) Zeiss at least. but at least Canon managed to reduce the overall size and weight (by 15%) regardless of the larger front element. the only issue may be a stepdown filter adapter to 77mm.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

thomas2279f

It's a must have lens on Canon side and slightly good news is that price is coming down a bit on line - although the UK pricing off this is abeit high in the first place along with Nikon's over top pricing for the 80-400 AFS VR (should have been £2k max).

Mar 7, 2013permalink

LeonXTR

Beautiful lens but Canon's €2K pricing policy (24-70 II,70-200IS II, 14mmII, TS-E17mm II etc..) puts many of the newest models out of non-professional reach.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

There is no TSE-17mm mk11

Mar 7, 2013permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6385346624/photos/2148378/tamron-24-70-vc-test

but it's supposed to be a professional lens ... wouldn't pricing and making it as good as it gets for professionals be the primary consideration? o.O

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Picturenaut

This is definitely a top pro workhorse lens. I use the Tamron 24-70/2.8 with my 5D3, because I am no pro and I prefer mostly primes. The Tamron is really nice and I love its great IS, which allows such free hand shots:

But the Tamron's AF is no match for any good Canon lens (I have and love e.g. the EF 70-200/2.8 II). Wide open I get a lot of OOF results, AF MA didn't help much. To make it worse, I discovered that I need to activate MA for close distance and switch it better off when I shoot more far away objects. So, if you really want to make the best of the 5D3's or 1D-X's AF system with such a standard zoom I fear you need to go for Canon's new zoom. Just think about what you'd have to pay for a decent Leica lens, this helps to relax a bit... ;-)

Mar 7, 2013permalink

After reading this article:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue
I would never consider a Tamron lens for any thing photographic.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

AlbertSiegel

@Infared: Would you have the same feeling for a different brand if they had a well-known issue with the mirror falling off from one of their best cameras?

Mar 7, 2013*permalink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcsnsJUKhAg

If a company would make such a schlock decision in the "engineering" of the lens and thento put this $1000+ product on retailers shelves for sale...um...it tells me a LOT about the basic mentality of that company. Finito!
...would make one wonder where else they are cutting corners.

Mar 7, 2013*permalink

dave_bass5

That lens rental article is very old. How many threads have there been about this fault? Hardly any IMO, certainly not recently.
Saying that, ive had two copies of the Tamron that had faulty VC systems, the second copy also caused camera lock up so i agree, poor QC on Tamron's part.
Having now got the Canon MKII i can only thank Tamron for pointing me in the right direction lol.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Grand Wazoo

Dave, your Canon lens is a proper pukka lens I give you that, and it should be for that money, but either I am lucky or God knows why, my Tamron 24-70 is faultless and works very accurately.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

qianp2k

Watch above video that pretty explains everything. 24-70L II is not perfect by missing 'IS'. Hope next year Canon will announce 'IS' rumored version. I will sell my 24-70L II can get the 'IS' version. Otherwise I love my copy.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

blemont denis

For the price Canon 24x70 you can get a Olympus omD his grip with pana 20mm and 45mm Olympus!
Canon really exaggerating too much on the price of new optics, it discourages noprofessional ...

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Plastek

For a price of full frame lens you can get a camera with a tiny sensor?
I'm underwhelmed.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

digifan

You are comparing apples and pears, but yeah, there's a point.
@blemont denis, a 1/2,3 P&S sensor is tiny, the 35mm is only 4 times larger, so tiny is an exxaggeration! The 35mmFF is tiny compared to FULL FORMAT!
It's all in they eyes of the beholder.

Mar 7, 2013*permalink

samhain

Lol @ Plastek

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Holy sh!!!! Did you know you could buy like 200 webcams for the price of Canon's 24-70II? Talk about value for money!!! :O

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Marek07

From a professional working environment, I have had this lens for over 5 months now, and is in constant use, I shoot Fashion and Portraiture and have to say it has become the workhorse in my kit even leaving my 50mm 1.2 to gather dust it's that good, of course there is always going to be distortion and vignetting with any zoom but the new 24-70 is the sharpest, fastest zoom I have used and has great bokeh.

I use it with the new 5d mk3 which now has lens correction, and shoot studio, location, front lit, backlit...

Initially I went into a camera store with a few flash cards and tried a variety of 24-70 lenses including the nikon d800e with it's 24-70 and the new canon easily came top.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

samhain

You prefer a zoom for professional fashion & portraiture? Intresting...

Mar 7, 2013permalink

@sanhain .. for fashion and portrait edge performance is less critical.. the new 24-70 is very good in the center and has great contrast and colour..

Mar 7, 2013permalink

@ Marek .
your last para,, makes me wonder if you are familier with nikon system at all, i find the d800E with nik 24-70 resolves a bit better than any zooms in that FL (below MF) from any other brands.it outresolves the new canon too, not because of the lens but because of the sensor.it´s always a sum of the combination :-).
probably you left the nikon in it´s default settings which applies none to very low sharpening levels, and it´s a known fact that canon default settings applies a lot more incam sharpening.

by the way here is a good read, there is a direct comparisson somewhere. and the numbers are easy to grasp than vague claims :-).
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison

@ shamhain . what´s wrong with using a zoom for fashion and portraiture? specially when it is as good as any prime lens out there.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

oselimg

@ Ken Johnes...You are wasting you time replying people like "shamhain" they have nothing to do with photography, or a function of a particular lens, are only interested in numbers, newest gear, and think in terms of few cliche they've picked up in gear reviews.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

i think you are absolutely right, i´ll keep that in mind.thanks

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Petka

@ Ken Johnes: While this new Canon zoom is the best midrange zoom ever, best primes still beat it handsomely. But of course the absolute best is not always needed, convenience of a zoom might result in better pictures overall, depending on the situation.

Often in fashion shoots the backgrounds are featureless color backdrops, corner sharpness does not matter at all. Same in portraiture.

Also, mathematically speaking, the end result is the product of the combination, not sum... =:-)

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Studor13

A friend of mine and I both have a D800 and 24-70 lens.

When we compared our lenses (on a tripod with MLU) we found that her's slightly back focused differently to mine. After adjusting using the AF Fine Tune, her sample still had a slight problem on one side.

The lens was re-calibrated by Nikon and now both our system are equal.

And in case you don't know the D800 is a very demanding camera but it can give incredible results. Of course, you actually need to know what you are doing.

Good luck comparing lenses in a store with a few flash cards, and presumably, hand held shots.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Teila Day

As most professionals shooting to pay their mortgage already know, for most fashion, glamour, and portrait work, whether you shooting with a prime or premium zoom hardly matters.

While there are distinct advantages to both (Zooms come into their own during action portraiture when zooming with your sneakers isn't practical & primes come into their own WHEN that extra stop of light, light-for-focusing, or shutter speed makes a big difference which isn't often shooting general fashion, etc.)

It's only the bottom line that counts, and the bottom line is that most clients and professional photographers can't tell what you shot with after post processing is all said and done.

Many zooms best primes back in the mid 2000s, today in 2013 the prime vs. zoom fodder is just infantile. Generally, the days of there being a glaring difference to the point of a zoom being a detriment are long gone.

Mar 7, 2013*permalink

nofumble

From lenstip.com

Pros:
solid casing,
excellent image quality in the frame centre,
very good image quality on the edge of the APS-C sensor,
negligent longitudinal chromatic aberration,
great coma correction,
slight astigmatism,
low vignetting on APS-C,
silent, quick and accurate autofocus.

Cons:
lateral chromatic aberration corrected in a worse way than that of the rivals,
huge vignetting on full frame,
weak performance against bright light,
exorbitant price

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Will Kaiser

"negligent longitudinal chromatic aberration"

That's negligible; almost opposite meaning

Mar 7, 2013permalink

tkpenalty

I thought the comparison widget was broken or something. Then I realised how sharp this lens is...

Mar 7, 2013permalink

JackM

"near flawless" = 87%? I don't get it.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Mafoo

Price. If it was flawless, but cost 30K, should it get 100%?

Mar 7, 2013permalink

snow14

Can't help wondering if this lens was made by Leica how much will they charge for it?

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Would not have come out of the design room in the first place until they improved the quality.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

snow14

it is easier to design a lens without AF you know.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Joe Ogiba

Michelle Obama's New Official Portrait taken with 5D MKIII w/EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM at 63mm ,F4, 50iso, 1/80th sec :
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8532/8491445521_3fd1722dd7_o.jpg

Mar 7, 2013permalink

JackM

not her best look.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Mafoo

You would think someone who is experienced enough to be doing presidential family portraits, would not have missed focus. Her eyes are a little soft.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

monokultur

Its typical for a more techie site like preview that all one sees is the not so perfect sharpness. This picture is by ALL means a bad picture. BAD lightning, bad posing, BAD focal length. Look at her hands. What the hell should these big shovels aesthetically represent in this picture?

Its a real pitty that an attractive woman like Michelle Obama has been photographed in such an unflattering way.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

JackM

Her eyes are in acceptable focus, but the bigger problem is the pose draws attention to the fact that her eyes are not the same size.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Teila Day

I don't think most Americans give a care about something as nit pik as the size of Mrs. Obama's eyes. Most reasonable people aren't so tunnel visioned.

That's one problem with professional photography today- gotten so nit-pik that people can't see the big picture any longer... akin to an English teacher hell bent on her students being able to diagram a sentence correctly when most inhabitants of the planet engaged in business (to include professional publishing) couldn't care less about such.

Her eyes aren't perfect? As if most people give a hoot. Meanwhile that photographer (and many more like him generating non-perfect eyes in their portraits) are getting paid, and I gather the bulk of those who are super critical would starve if they had to survive on their own photography. ;)

Mar 7, 2013*permalink

Absolutic

Love my 24-70L II. Andy, you should have invented a new 'Diamond" award, beyond the regular Gold award for that lens.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Richard Murdey

Not one diamond, five diamonds. The five diamond award...

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Antony John

Yup, all diamonds are flawed ;-)

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Roland Schulz

Hmm, maybe I'm wrong, but why is this all blue in the review?? This lens is soft like a pillow, see in the river shoots at f8! Somewhat sharp in the center but completly butter off center.
By the way I'm a Nikon user, not that happy with the extreme corners of the 24-70 2.8G, but what I see here is nothing I would accept.

BTW2: The review from IR is not that all positive, nor the diagram is.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

ivan1973

Maybe your photography skills ain't good enough?

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Edmond Leung

Maybe his eyes have problem too!
He had better to see a doctor.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Roland your correct the lens is soft on the edges. Certainly from these samples it is not worth the money. Not sure what DPR were doing but I would have asked for another sample of the lens to be sent through just to make sure it was not a one off.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Edmund it is quite easy to see this lens is soft on the edges. You might put up with it but some of us wouldn't especially not for the asking price. If I did not know what these were shot on I would guess it was a much cheaper lens.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

FreedomLover

How dare you point out the Emperor is naked ? :-)
It is a compromising zoom lens after all.
Thank you for honestly verifying the report yourself
and helping us make a true assessment.

Can you recommend using 2 cameras with
fast prime lenses for weddings ?

Maybe a large format for the general views
and the OMD-EM5 for good skin tones
and excellent IS in the close-up portraits ?

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Timbukto

You are wrong. As a Nikon user how familiar are you with the nature of Canon's OOC jpegs? There is going to be a substantial difference had the pictures been processed with ACR. But to be honest DPReview is incredibly vague in stating - "Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. " Given that you are viewing distant objects through sometimes hazy sky, I think the results look good enough...yes I've seen better with my 50mm stopped down in RAW, but I'd probably be dissapointed if I had to pixel peep OOC jpegs too of no particular settings. You guys need to cite exactly what filenames and soft areas you are referring to because as of now you seem to be comparing test chart sharpness vs actual real-world 3 dimensional scenes.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Roland Schulz

The softness off center can easily be seen in several shoots, even @f8. For sure most lenses get worse towards the corners, so here. I don´t find anything special since this design seems still inferior to the Nikon 24-70 2.8G that is about 5 years old now (but also not perfect). Compare reviews from Imaging Resource, photozone.de and others for that.

I find these "diamonds" are overhyped, nothing so special with this lens for me.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

@ Timbukto,
i am a nikon user now but have been using canon till last summer and i must say the OOC jpegs looks way better from canon because of the higher default sharpening and contrast levels , and you ar not gaining much in that respect if you shoot raw .
there is no substancial difference ,specially if you are using ACR :-).

@ Roland , can you please explain why you think the design is inferior to the nikon´s ?, one time i tried the canon , the lens was more responsive the the nikon ( faster and smoother and had similar bokeh too)

you are right .these samples dont do much good for a lens like this.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

I don't really care what you jokers who don't own this lens say. I have one. I shoot with it. It is f*ing amazing :D

Mar 7, 2013permalink

from a sharpness, CA, and distortion aspect - every review has it better than the nikkor .. which is understandable - it's a 5 year old lens now.

interesting how nikon users have to feel afraid of competitor's lenses.

the Nikkor is a excellent lens, but i have yet to see a review that has it better when compared within a reasonable standpoint of side by side better than the 24-70II.

the published MTF's show the 24-70G falls off alot at 70mm - alot more so than the 24-70II - where you see the published mtf's to be far more consistent for the II versus the G throughout the range, which outside of QA issues - seems to be the case with the 24-70II.

this is really reflected in just about any side by side comparisons.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Timbukto

Yes there is not a big difference between jpg and raw at the *image* level in these conditions if we are not pixel peeping...but you guys *are* pixel peeping. Not to mention you are pixel peeing pictures where the corners are long distance shots of *water* which is somewhat absurd since I can't remember when I've seen tack sharp water from a distance. There is a reason why MTF charts are not just pictures of water.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Dan4321

No people?

Please, could you post some photos of actual people taken with this lens in the samples?

Statues don't count, I want to see how the lens handles delicate skin tones, eyes, lashes, etc. Close-up portraits, full-body shots, groups shots, environmental, studio, etc. It's important for a lot of us but it seems like a lot of the time, review samples posted by you guys have only a few people shots -- or none at all. Please don't neglect people photographers.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Clint Dunn

Seriously....what do you expect from people who are posting this info for free (and advertising). It's Canon's BEST standard zoom....if you need it than buy it. If you don't like it then return it.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

TBH, if you are concerned about skin tones, go buy a fuji :D

Mar 7, 2013permalink

AbrasiveReducer

They may not make the slickest camera bodies but doggonit, they sure know how to make sharp lenses (except the 16-35/17-40 but then, nobody's perfect).

Mar 6, 2013permalink

If only canon would use sony sensor's then they would be awesome.. but the 1DX could do with losing some weight ..it's a beast..

Mar 6, 2013permalink

The Photo Ninja

No complaints with the 5d3 sensor.

Mar 7, 2013*permalink

Nishi Drew

The bodies are slick, most can actually be handled by human hands unlike other manufacturers', Canon is top-notch with their high-end AF, and where there's weather sealing it's sealed no problem... but yes their sensors...

Mar 7, 2013permalink

I bet canon is preparing for a high res body,this lens in combination with the 70-200mk2 would work like a charm on a 40MP body,I used the 24-70mk2 for about 2 weeks on a 1DX,lighter and faster AF than mk1 with few CA's and nice that the street price is coming down now,I prefer the new filter size too.IS is rumoured to be on the way which will appeal to wedding and journalist snappers..

Mar 6, 2013*permalink

A lot of wedding shooters are actually starting to switch brands now because of the issues they have with the 5D MKIII so I.S won't appeal to many people. Looking at these samples the lens is not good enough for a high res body. Far to soft on the edges even at f8. Yes it is an improvement on the old MKI lens but that was a very poor over priced lens. This lens does not justify the price unless you are so committed to the Canon brand that switching to another system is not affordable. For many that would like to switch that is a real issue.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

what issues are those photogs having with the MKIII ? care to explain ? am just curious.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

They all quit photography as a profession because there are endless trolls on DPR.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

lol stu.. got a serious hate on in this comment section don't you?

Mar 7, 2013permalink

tkbslc

Dang, I've never seen so much blue in a lens test. Well done, Canon.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Benarm

Why is it more sharper on full frame than APS-C? Shouldn't it be the other way around since crop uses just the sweet center portion?

Mar 6, 2013permalink

vodanh1982

I think lens resolution has reached the maximum (LP/ PH). The FF has more height so it has more resolution.

Mar 6, 2013*permalink

tkbslc

The density of the FF sensor is lower, so each pixel corresponds to a larger area of the lens elements. Essentially a lower density sensor demands less detail from the glass to achieve the same "sharpness".

Mar 6, 2013permalink

LKJ

What you're seeing is the "sweet spot" myth exploding.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

What sweet spot? My 24-70II is AMAZING left, right and center lol

Mar 7, 2013permalink

thx1138

Completely disagree about the close-up performance. I was using this lens for several hours in the Botanic gardens shooting at f/2.8 to f/5.6 and even wide open the shots were nice and crisp. I was only stopping down for extra DoF. This lens is simply superb, but I am disappointed the max magnification went from 0.29x on the old model to 0.21x on this mk II.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

ThomasSwitzerland

I had the prior Canon 24-70 L and found it the best zoom in its range. Then I have got some Tamron lenses. They are not that good as the Canon, but come quite close from my field experience. It is really hard to decide.

But, if you see the huge price of the Canon – you get in doubt. May be if you want the best of the best, have plenty of funds, and know how to take pictures.

Otherwise, there are different choices.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Greg VdB

"The Tamron looks like a very worthy competitor, offering impressive image quality, image stabilisation and weathersealing all in one package, and we aim to assess it fully in the near future. But quite simply the Canon offers such exceptionally good optics that, if you're after the very best, there's simply no other choice."

No doubt the Canon is a great lens, but untill you have fully tested the Tamron (or refer to external comparisons), that last sentence is incorrect and sounds a bit like fanboyism...

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Andrew Westlake

Full lab test data for the Tamron is available in the lens widget.

Mar 6, 2013*permalink

quickly looking at the comparison, wide open from 24mm to 70mm .. the original 24-70, nikkor, sony/ziess, tamron, sigma .. all simply aren't as good.

hardly say it's fanboyism when you can compare yourself and see they are speaking pretty factual. from CA, sharpness - the II is best in case.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Greg VdB

My appologies, I did not see that the Tamron already features in the lens widget.

Still, what one calls "the very best" is up for debate. In terms of sharpness, the Canon indeed leads the pack for most of the zoom and aperture range. However, if I was into concert photography, "the best" in my opinion would rather be the image-stabilized Tamron, which more than makes up for the small loss in absolute sharpness (mostly at 24-35mm wide-open). Hence, I'm still of the opinion that the statement "if you're after the very best, there's simply no other choice" is incorrect. With the last sentence representing the conclusion of your "Final word", I'd much rather have seen it replaced by how you started that paragraph:

"The answer, as usual, isn't necessarily clear-cut, and depends on each individual photographers' needs and preferences."

Mar 7, 2013permalink

I think the statement was pretty conclusive.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

how exactly would image stabilization have that much effect on concert photography considering ISO is more important, and shutter speeds would for the most part be higher than 1/focal anyway to reduce subject motion blur.

you're nitpicking.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Greg VdB

@rrccad: naturally turning up the ISO is to some degree a substitute for mechanical image stabilisation, but this is a camera feature and so is rather beside the point of this lens review.
And let me nit-pick some more: using high iso means shorter exposure times, which can be undesired if the aim of the photographer is to display motion of a subject (human or otherwise) or background (whilst panning). I used the example of concert photography since that is a good example where you might want to mix a steady background with (partial) movement of band members to give a sense of 'being there' to the viewer. In this admittedly rather specific (but for some people very important) case, the Tamron would be "the best". That was all I was saying, and now I will rest my nit-picking case.

(PS: note my appologies and imagine that my 1st entry might not have been entirely nit-picking if the comparison would not have been available - if I could delete my first post I'd probably do so...)

Mar 7, 2013permalink

again .. very nitpicking a very exclusive category of shutter dragging (which btw, they did prior to IS/VR)

usually lens sharpness, ca, bokeh, AF speed are far more general statements that can be made.

heck, it's a pretty bad macro too.

the review mentioned that the tammy had VR.

it also has sluggish AF, and some issues with canon bodies.

Mar 8, 2013permalink

buellom

Roger (from lensrentals) made extensiv AF tests and came up with the result that the AF of the 5DIII is more precise than the AF of other Canons (at least with the new lenses). It would be very interesting to check if the AF issues mentioned in the review are found with a 5DIII too.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Ron Poelman

What's with the halos along the dolphin's back ?
Can't be default sharpening, Shirley ?

Mar 6, 2013permalink

hotdog321

Ironically, I ordered mine a couple of days ago. It should arrive today and I'm on pins and needles!

Mar 6, 2013permalink

tgelston

I love mine but wonder if the 24-70 f/4 had been out. . if that would have satisfied me. My partner that I shoot weddings with says no, we need that extra stop but in my tests the 24-70 f/4 is right there hanging with it - I have a little video review up of the three 24 lenses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzR_CjFs8g8

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Randell Tober

Hi,
I owned an 24x70 2.8 along with the 70x200 2.8 in the past. Made the mistaken decision to sell them and replace with the- 70x200 F4. (financial issues) I haven't been happy since. Not even close to happy in low light- indoor sport situations etc... I should've known better. With that said, it will take some doing for me to get to this glass level again. Starting over. Sold the F4 and the Canon 30D... Probably going the 4/3 route now... Olympus? Feel free to give me opinions please... Can't even begin to think about spending $2K on a piece of glass any longer :o( Thanks

Mar 6, 2013permalink

DeFinitive

OM-D E-M5 with 45 f1.8 and 75 f1.8, fantastic optics and IQ. Olympus bringing out f2.8 zoom/s in a few months (hopefully 12-60) and possibly new E-M7??

Mar 7, 2013permalink

If you keep buying gear and selling gear, you'll just keep losing the money and the gear. Just buy something alright and shoot with it.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

Randell Tober

Note: I have yet to lose any money selling glass :o) When one goes from making 80K a year to 30K a year one has to make choices :o)

Mar 7, 2013permalink

FreedomLover

Apparently an IS version is expected for later this year.

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Andrew Westlake

You could have said exactly the same thing any time for about the last five years...

Mar 6, 2013permalink

FreedomLover

Sure, only then it would have been wrong :-)

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Dianoda

Thing is, rumors are rumors until Canon actually makes an announcement, and even then, that doesn't mean the lens would actually be available for purchase.

Mar 6, 2013*permalink

I doubt Canon would be that dumb to immediately pss off 50% of their loyal followers.

Mar 7, 2013permalink

JEROME NOLAS

Yes, almost a perfect lens. Also very heavy, that's why we need more FF or at least APS-C compacts...

Mar 6, 2013permalink

Nishi Drew

Big heavy lens on small lightweight compact... right... talk about unbalanced and cumbersome to use. The reason for large DSLRs are to balance with the lenses. The lenses need go back to being small and lightweight for that, and in the process needs to deal with the angle of response of sensors, and while keeping AF and being sealed and have the same quality. Can happen, but when?

Mar 7, 2013permalink