Interesting review on the OH SO EXPENSIVE new Canon 24-70 f/2.8L...

MLeeK · Sep 26, 2012

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L II - Full Format Review / Test Report

Considering the sum of its characteristics we'd still state that the lens has been improved over its predecessor but it is not perfect and regarding its sky high price tag we simply expected a little more.

sovietdoc · Sep 27, 2012

Agree

Overread · Sep 27, 2012

I cannot find it now - but someone over on the Photography on the Net forums sat down and calculated the costs of modern lenses as if they had increased in price year on year from their release price as per inflation. From what I recall they showed that, between the original and the current release of several new lenses the price rises were actually in line (roughly) with the inflation rates.

It gave one reason at least for why the prices on many newer lenses are, apparently, so much higher than they were in the past for the previous versions - esp when many of the improvements over the older versions are not as substantial as the cost in price would suggest.

(Ps don't quote me that it was only inflation used in the calculations, it was a while ago that I read the thread and I'm fairly sure it was just inflation, but I'm no maths/accounting wizard to know better I'm afraid).

Derrel · Sep 27, 2012

OUCH!!!! I personally think the awful "onion bokeh" is the deal-breaker on a lens that would be a bread-and-butter lens for portraiture and MANY other types of "people" work...Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L II - Full Format Review / Test Report - Analysis

The harsh OOF foreground bokeh is also not so good. What's weird is that like, a week ago, Rotanimod here on TPF did a post entitled, "Sharpest zoom lens ever", which touted the new Canon Mark II's outstanding resolution numbers, as tested across five samples, by LensRentals.com's Roger C.. And, in the test above, the Line Widths Per Picture Height figures in the center are OUTSTANDINGLY HIGH!!! It's odd...the testers here refer to the new Tamron 24-70mm VC lens, and Roger also tested the Canon MArk II's against the Tamron 24-70 VC, and the Canon beat out the Tamron 24-70. The Tamron 24-70 in Roger's tests WAS however, significantly better than the earlier MArk I Canon 24-70 zoom.

This lens seems to have no bokeh fringing (ie no longitudinal CA), which is good. HIGH central sharpness across the zoom range, an inexplicable nose-dive at 70mm, bad fall-off, no stabilizer, and pretty average edge performance at the extremes...I dunno...the Tamron VC seems to be like 90% of the lens for half the cost...once again...

Still, I'd want to see pictures from the lens. Lots of them. To see how it shoots in the real-world,and not "the lab".

MLeeK · Sep 27, 2012

Overread said:
I cannot find it now - but someone over on the Photography on the Net forums sat down and calculated the costs of modern lenses as if they had increased in price year on year from their release price as per inflation. From what I recall they showed that, between the original and the current release of several new lenses the price rises were actually in line (roughly) with the inflation rates.

It gave one reason at least for why the prices on many newer lenses are, apparently, so much higher than they were in the past for the previous versions - esp when many of the improvements over the older versions are not as substantial as the cost in price would suggest.

(Ps don't quote me that it was only inflation used in the calculations, it was a while ago that I read the thread and I'm fairly sure it was just inflation, but I'm no maths/accounting wizard to know better I'm afraid).

I think that makes total sense. I'd expect with the economy where it is now that they'd definitely be spendier. However I'd also expect that an upgraded lens would be a serious upgrade. KWIM?

Derrel-I think there is going to be a bias towards the Tamron because of the VC and the let down that the new canon doesn't have IS for the video shooters who are really wanting it. Could that come into play here? Possible? I don't know. I am not sure that I will blindly believe that the tamron tests better without actually having both in my hands and testing them. Might just be my "you get what you pay for" attitude... I don't know. I do believe that Canon is always going to put out a superior product. How MUCH superior? I think that gap may just be closing a whole lot between the two major off brands and Canon. More so on the sigmas than Tamron, but it could just be that Tamron has stepped up to play in the same game as Sigma with this one...

Overread · Sep 27, 2012

MLeeK - agreed I think many would have liked to see more, but I think Canon need to put their prices up, but also know that they really can't do it again on existing lenses which have already gone up by around 40-50% over what their prices were a few years ago. So roll out new stuff and let that take the price rise hit.

Also I get the feeling that, esp at the short ranges, Canon intend you to get the 24-105mm if you want to do video work because it has both IS and also does not shift the focus point as the zoom is adjusted. On the 24-70mm this latter part isn't a feature and I suspect trying to add it might have pushed the lens even further up the scale of pricing - so maybe they decided to have a firm divide and make the lens capable and quality, but focused specifically at photographers and leave the 24-105mm for the video fans.

MLeeK · Sep 27, 2012

Overread said:
MLeeK - agreed I think many would have liked to see more, but I think Canon need to put their prices up, but also know that they really can't do it again on existing lenses which have already gone up by around 40-50% over what their prices were a few years ago. So roll out new stuff and let that take the price rise hit.

Also I get the feeling that, esp at the short ranges, Canon intend you to get the 24-105mm if you want to do video work because it has both IS and also does not shift the focus point as the zoom is adjusted. On the 24-70mm this latter part isn't a feature and I suspect trying to add it might have pushed the lens even further up the scale of pricing - so maybe they decided to have a firm divide and make the lens capable and quality, but focused specifically at photographers and leave the 24-105mm for the video fans.

You could be very right there. Makes a lot of sense. I know as a photographer I don't really want the 24-105 and it doesn't make sense to a LOT of photographers. Putting it in that light makes a WHOLE lot of sense.

bentcountershaft · Sep 27, 2012

I was really excited when this lens was announced but my enthusiasm has cooled a bit over the months. I thought/hoped that the difference between the original 24-70 and the Mk2 was going to be as night and day as the original and Mk2 70-200s. For my purposes that kind of difference would be worth the upgrade. Maybe if I had a sensor that required the increased resolution, but for now and the foreseeable future my original 24-70 is doing fine.