I couldn't wait for Christmas

[eldarhau]

This has been an interesting read. I got my 24-70 II a few weeks back and the results it has given me has been outstanding. I did not buy the version I, because I thought it was too big and heavy, so my basis for comparison has primarily been the 24-105mm f4.0L. But I also upgraded to the 1DX at the same time, so in all fairness, I have not done a very thorough quality control on the lens.

Having read your experience H, I became a bit worried and decided to give it a more dedicated check. I have verified it against the 24 mm f2.4L II, 50mm f1.2L, 24-105mm f4.0L IS and the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. I do not have the expensive charts either, so I had to create scenarios I believed would show any weaknesses. I checked focusing with a LensAlign MkII and concluded on an even -1 throughout the zoom range. I shot enough images with it to conclude that AF is both very fast, stable and accurate from very low to very high temperatures.

Color is a bit more difficult to be totally objective about, but it looks good to me on my iMac 27". CA is also very well controlled. The main problem in my view is vignetting. It falls off a bit more than I like, but when required, I fix it in Lightroom or Photoshop.

Sharpness and resolution is then left, and what I have seen from my copy of the lens is very good. Center is as good or better than any of the lenses I compared to, throughout the zoom range. corners are slightly behind the 24mm, but not much. It competes very well with the others. The 70-200 is sharper, but then that lens is just incredible. Compared to the 50mm, I´d have to conclude that the 24-70 is better.

I hope Canon is reading your posts here. When charging USD2300 for this lens, you should certainly expect and get both first class and consistent quality.

Good luck with No.3!

[HDNitehawk]

Center is as good or better than any of the lenses I compared to, throughout the zoom range. corners are slightly behind the 24mm, but not much. It competes very well with the others.

Mine is pretty much as you describe at 24mm. The vignetting is just part of this lens I think.

I posted this earlier, but this is from Bryan's review and talking about the corners;
"In this comparison, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens turns in image quality that is remarkably similar to the incredible Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II Tilt-Shift Lens. This particular location in the frame compares especially unfavorably for the 24-70 L (and the 24 L II)."

In my mind it leaves a few possibilities. Bryan's copy of the 24mm f/1.4L II is not as good as the copy I have, which I have a hard time believing he would have a low performing version considering the amount of testing he does on these lenses. Another option, which is the direction I would tend to believe, is that my copy of the 24-70mm is not performing as well as his fourth copy.

Here is some info that might help, and some charts you can print off to test with;
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010...to-test-a-lens

The same link had a link to this site, I am trying some of their free charts today;
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html#using

For those reading the thread, I have been talking mostly resolution. Then trying to figure out if a zoom lens is resolving better than one of Canon's finest prime lenses. That should speak volumes about the quality of this lens. If we compare other factors like lens distortion, vignetting, flare and chromatic aberration these factors all make the 24mm f/1.4L the better lens.

[bob williams]

HD, I bumped this thread to see where you stand with the new 24-70 II or if you have even rec'd copy 3 yet. This is a lens I have been droooling over and am seriously considering getting rid of both my 50 1.2L and my 100L macro to finance it. But, after reading your experience I am, to say the least, reluctant.

Any new info you have would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Bob

[HDNitehawk]

Bob, I have to agree with Marks logic. Trading two sweet lenses for another sweet lens I would miss the ones I traded. I like the idea of having all three.

After I posted about the second lens I wanted to make sure I gave the lens every chance. I took some test chart pics with it so I could compare the next copy. I requested the RMA on Sunday, B&H got confused though because it appeared to be the same order they already switched out. I called this morning and shipped the lens back UPS today. I paid the overnight fee because I wanted it back quick. B&H is up to about +4 in my book now.

But, I wouldn't let my experience hold you back. Either of the copies I have had would be a huge step up from any Canon Zoom I have had in that range. The first copy delivered better sharpness than my primes, and the second was less sharp but still sharp by zoom standards.

If you order you one do it when you have time to check it out. I think you will be well pleased.

Are you still shooting with the 7D? If so both copies I have had I doubt you would have noticed that one wasn't as sharp as the other. It was in the corners that I could see this and you wouldn't see this on the crop. The center was as good as either of my primes on both copies. My suggestion is that you could really benefit with a FF with this lens.

One other note, while the resolution is a close match to the primes, other things like distortion make the primes the better choice for the specific focal length.