Canon EF 24-70 mm f/2.8L II USM
- solid casing,
- excellent image quality in the frame centre,
- very good image quality on the edge of the APS-C sensor,
- negligent longitudinal chromatic aberration,
- great coma correction,
- slight astigmatism,
- low vignetting on APS-C,
- silent, quick and accurate autofocus.
- lateral chromatic aberration corrected in a worse way than that of the rivals,
- huge vignetting on full frame,
- weak performance against bright light,
- exorbitant price.
I admit that, while writing a summary of this test, my feelings are mixed. On the one hand I am pleased that the new lens is much better than its predecessor in almost all categories. Its high build quality and good optical properties are exactly those features professional photographers are looking for. In regard to that aspect the lens won’t disappoint you for sure.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On the other hand the competitors also didn’t let the grass grow under their feet and their new 24-70 mm f/2.8 products can momentarily outperform the new Canon. The failures concerning lateral chromatic aberration, vignetting and flares are especially painful – the Canon, although the most expensive device on the market, had also the worst results in those categories. You must honestly say, though, that when it comes to the resolution the Canon, along with the Nikkor and the Sony/Zeiss, fares the best, leaving all the products of the rival companies far behind. Still if you take into account the fact that those lenses, produced by independent manufacturers, are two times cheaper than the Canon, a small resolution difference stops being such a huge problem. Especially that those rival lenses are not without other assets: the Sigma is physically small and the Tamron comes with image stabilization.
What could be say…I can understand the fact that new constructions, with cutting edge optics and mechanics solutions, have to be expensive. Their designing and production have involved considerable financial outlays which should be returned. However I can’t accept the fact that in some categories those expensive and new constructions perform the worst among all other devices available on the market, lagging behind older and much cheaper lenses. In such a situation I have a distinct impression somebody tries to trick me a bit…