Lens Rentals Review of the 24-70 II

[Scott Stephen]

Scott, I think you have it half right, the 24-70 could really use IS. I was really hoping it would have it.

With my 500mm over 1/2 my wildlife shots are hand held. At twilight and early morning when wildlife is most active, IS can be very important. IS on the super tele is far more important to me than it would be on the 24-70.

You are correct. It is useful for both walking-around lenses and for super-teles. Just saying that if you HAD to choose it for only one, I think it would be missed more on the walking-around lens.

[FastGass]

At BK,

Yes you are right! IS is extremely useful for videos. I didn't bother to go through every thing IS is good for, just tried to make a point without being too dogmatic.

Cheers,
John.

[Scott Stephen]

I think your are talking out of ignorance, even on a tripod unless you lock down your tripod and use mirror lockup or higher than 160th sec you will get a blurred image. But that is not always the case, usually not the case for me, I usually need to handle the camera and point it around and trigger the shot with the shutter button. The new version of IS is useful for faster shutter speeds as well (As per Bryans review) and IS is very helpfull just for aiming at high magnifacations. Most shots are best in early morning or evening because of the sweet light, broad daylight shots are for the most part not ideal lighting and cloudy is much better than broad daylight.
Never mind just hand holding!

While I would love to have IS in the 24-70mm II as much as anybody I can see myself getting around it FAR easier than a super tele.

Sorry but IS is EXTREMELY useful,
John.

And there's another word for what you are talking out of.

[FastGass]

If you read the entire context you would realise that it was CC and not bashing.

Mabye I should have used another word but that was not the intent of the writing. Lets change that to, "I think you underestimate IS in a super telephoto lens."...

Sorry about that,
John.

[shutterdown]

And there's another word for what you are talking out of.

Classy....

[Scott Stephen]

No hard feelings.
I do get it. IS is useful some of the time for all shooters with all lenses and all styles. Was only saying that if you are shooting a soccer match in daytime with a 500mm or 600mm lens, and you are doing the fast aperature/blurred bokeh thing, and you are shooting at a shutter speed in the multi-thousandths of a second, then you can live w/o IS. Previous reviews by Bryan even state he turns it off for outdoor daytime sports. Perhaps the very newest IS can now lend a tiny bit of aid even in these conditions.

But you are not often bringing a 600mm lens inside to shoot your family.

My point (which is far from proven fact) is that many, many people who own only a couple lenses will OFTEN bring the 24-70 inside to shoot. Indoors (not in a studio) you won't have great lighting, nor even a tripod.

If one HAD to have IS on ONLY one lens; EITHER the walking-around lens, OR else on the 600mm soccer lens, I think it would be most commonly appreciated on the walk-around.

But on the other hand, you in particular may be trying to shoot professional football at night, or lions at 5:45 in the morning, or any number of things that would benefit from IS.

Please let me re-phrase the entirety of my last 2 posts as simply "Dang, I do wish they'd have put IS on this new lens."

[Kayaker72]

Significant variation between the two lenses Bryan tested, especially in the center at 70 mm. I guess that is something to watch out for. But, everything I am seeing shows that this lens is an optical beast.

Here is the second copy of Bryan's test against the 70-200 II @ 70 mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0

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:

Bryan's second copy:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=3

Even better, Bryan's first copy:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=3

Call me impressed.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[FastGass]

I see your point Scott, a sports shooter doens't really need IS nearly as much (mabye not at all) but as a birder or wildlife shooter IS can in many situations make a big difference. But I don't think we disagree here. I guess it depends on your shooting style/subject.

I looked at the charts and this is my conclusion;

At 24mm compared to the 24mm tilt-shift , both wide open, the latter wins in the mid-frame and corners while the center actually has a little more contrast and a tiny bit more sharpness for the zoom. A little less difference both at f/4. About the same for both samples.

At 35mm compared to the 35mm f/1.4 the center is virtually the same while the mid frame looks a little sharper and the corners very slightly better for the zoom. Second sample is not as good as the prime in the corners.

At 50mm the zoom is better across the frame compared to the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2!

At 70mm compared to the 85mm f/1.2 the prime is a little better aross the frame, not as big of a difference compared too 50mm.

AT 70mm comparted to the 70-200mm f/2.8 II the zoom is about the same for the center and better in the mid frame and corners, first sample doesn't fair as good as the second.

Overall it's a give or take and if you need zoom versatility with prime IQ the 24-70mm II for the most part fills that niche.

Not quite as good as Lens Rentals review though.

Cheers,
John.

[Busted Knuckles]

From my walk through the samples - Sample 1 is substantially better lens. Sample 2 needs to go back - check out the sample 2 at 35mm compared to the version 1 24-70 - certainly would inspire my dropping the extra dough.