Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post
Contrary to Rogers tests at lensrentals, I'd still give sharpness to the 70-200 II. But, for example, someone on CR is considering dropping a 35 mm L for the new 24-70. Here is that comparison at f/2.8:
Brant,

A short sunday morning rant; I just typed a long winded post in response, hit the send button and got the dreaded "you are not logged in" screen and lost every bit of it. I hate when that happens.

Now to a short version of the original reply;

First it appears to be a great lens.

I am disappointed in the ISO charts, they do not look as good as what one might expect based on lensrental.com's review. The new lens is much improved, but it doesn't beat the 24mm or the 70-200mm, and it comes close to the 35mm but in the corners the 35mm still wins.

A few things that we have not seen tested or reviewed yet are distortion, flare and chromatic aberration all of which were worse on my old copy than the primes.

I to had the thought would this lens replace my primes, but what makes the 35mm a great lens is what it does between f/2.0 and f/2.8. It's ability to isolate subjects and deliver great bokeh in that range. If a person only uses the 35mm at f/2.8 or greater, or uses it on a crop body, there are far fewer reasons now to keep it over the new 24-70mm II. I still think for what makes it great on a ff camera, the 24-70mm can never duplicate.

The lens I have that I think this can replace, is the 16-35mm F/2.8L II. I am thinking about selling it to fund this one, and later on buy the 14mm f/2.8L.