Brian added some ISO's it appears from 4 lenses.
The note says sample 1 is the new set but those ISO's do not look very good. (Edit; I should say "very good in comparison to what I was expecting")
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...aspx?News=3205
Is sample 1 the latest lens?
From all the hype I was expecting better IQ.
Last edited by HDNitehawk; 10-16-2012 at 01:49 AM.
For all the money, too. I'm keeping my version I. I'll just increase the sharpening on the photos. It'll save several hundred dollars, and fend off any buyer's remorse.Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
Did Roger get the only consistently sharp copies of all people who do tests/reviews? That would be too bad, the first reports sounded very promising.
Arnt
It looks pretty good to me at 24mm. Less impressive at the other end.
Yes it does look good. But we had visions of it being as good as the 24mm f/1.4L, and its not.
On the long end we had visions of it being as good as the 70-200mm f/2.8 at 70mm, and its not.
Overall it is a big improvement on the old version. I just need to compare to see if it will be an improvement over my 16-35mm II because for me that is the lens it will be replacing.
I'm surprised Bryan had such difficulties with obtaining a good copy of this lens, especially since Roger at LensRentals.com seemed to get a whole stack of great copies. Maybe the UPS man decided to drop the packages with the first two copies he received (I had to have a talk with my UPS man... it is not acceptable to throw packages at my front door from 5+ feet away).
The copy I received seems almost as sharp as my 70-200mm IS II at 70mm and also seems just as sharp across the rest of the focal range. It's vastly superior to the mark I lens I had in sharpness and autofocus, so I'm a satisfied customer.
Not quite sure why you'd want to replace the 16-35mm II with this lens... these two lenses seem to compliment each other more than compete. I know I'd really miss the wide end of the 16-35mm, but I suppose your focal length needs might be very different from mine.
- Trowski
For the 35-70mm extra range.
I only use the zooms as walk around lenses. Right now I carry the 16-35 in a side pouch with the 70-200mm mounted on camera. I think if I had the 24-70 I "might" just carry the one lens and leave the 70-200mm at home. I have the 16 to 35 mm range covered now at two spots with my 24 and 35mm L's. If I find I miss the 16mm range I might add the 14mm L later.
My take is that "1" and "2" were the previous copies. Lens sample "3" and "4" are Bryan's replacements.
3 and 4 seem much improved over 1 and 2 to me. Comparing them to the 70-200 f/2.8 II, I would say that the 70-200 still owns the crown as the sharpest zoom, but it is getting close.
That was my question. The news release said #1 was the new properly tuned lens. It does not appear so.
I was hoping Bryan would clarify.
Hi Everyone,
After having four of these lenses, I think that the lens listed as Sample 1 is what we should expect from the new 24-70 L II. This is one of the new lenses, but I moved it to the Sample 1 position because this is what the tool shows by default for a lens. The real first and second lenses are listed as Sample 2 and 3. The other new lens is listed as Sample 4. Sorry about the confusion this creates.
While not a "perfect" lens, I'm loving the 24-70 L II. It has very impressive sharpness and contrast wide open and into the corners. It has been working very well for the landscape shooting I've been doing.
I'm hoping to do some outdoor comparison testing with other lenses before completing part II of that review. That of course requires a clear sky and my schedule to align. The former has not happened much here recently.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote