Comments on: A Peek Inside the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii Photo/video thoughts from the largest rental house Thu, 23 May 2013 14:28:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Roger Cicala http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii/comment-page-1#comment-18591 Roger Cicala Mon, 01 Oct 2012 20:01:26 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9260#comment-18591 Sudhir, I'm not familiar with repair centers in your area, but definitely the nearest Canon factory service center if at all possible. Sudhir,

I’m not familiar with repair centers in your area, but definitely the nearest Canon factory service center if at all possible.

]]> By: Sudhir http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii/comment-page-1#comment-18578 Sudhir Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:22:11 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9260#comment-18578 hi there..i have a canon 24-70 zoom lense,its not working properly,bymistake it was dipped in d water.currently am in oman.plz suggest me where should i give it for repair. hi there..i have a canon 24-70 zoom lense,its not working properly,bymistake it was dipped in d water.currently am in oman.plz suggest me where should i give it for repair.

]]> By: Marin http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii/comment-page-1#comment-18114 Marin Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:28:17 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9260#comment-18114 Hi Roger, I'd like to see how Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2 lens compares to this one. If you could do it on OM-D via an adapter, it would be great. Hi Roger,
I’d like to see how Olympus ZD 14-35mm f/2 lens compares to this one. If you could do it on OM-D via an adapter, it would be great.

]]> By: Roger Cicala http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii/comment-page-1#comment-17731 Roger Cicala Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:03:21 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9260#comment-17731 Martin, I agree with you, but given the number (and it's dozens) or dented filter rings we've replaced, I can only assume lots of people leave the hood off. Roger Martin,

I agree with you, but given the number (and it’s dozens) or dented filter rings we’ve replaced, I can only assume lots of people leave the hood off.

Roger

]]> By: Adarsha http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii/comment-page-1#comment-17729 Adarsha Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:08:41 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9260#comment-17729 OMG!! Roger/Aaron, how do you control your anxiety when are removing those screws of such a high price lens.. I have disassembled my TV/laptop which are pricy too just for the sake of curiosity, but could not be dare enough open 70-200 L :) Really well done, and well written article. OMG!! Roger/Aaron, how do you control your anxiety when are removing those screws of such a high price lens.. I have disassembled my TV/laptop which are pricy too just for the sake of curiosity, but could not be dare enough open 70-200 L :) Really well done, and well written article.

]]> By: Martin Datzinger http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii/comment-page-1#comment-17728 Martin Datzinger Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:36:23 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9260#comment-17728 Thank you very much for the insight! I didn't know anything about the decentering risk of version I. But I do have to beg the question, who in their right mind would use the lens without the hood in place, which, as it is mounted to the outer barrel, should protect the innards of the lens from any sort of minor bump, or even heavy impact? Now I can absolutely believe that this design had to be traded in for better resolution - and it seems to have paid of in that regard. But now, even more so with the added leverage of the hood in place, there is always stress on the inner tube, every time you put down the camera with the lens attached, let alone if you bump its front. Don't you think that undoubtedly better inside construction and significantly worse mechanical protection plus higher adjustment effort will even out somehow? You loose the far more favourable flare (and even rain) protection properties of the old design as well, btw. Best regards, Martin Thank you very much for the insight! I didn’t know anything about the decentering risk of version I. But I do have to beg the question, who in their right mind would use the lens without the hood in place, which, as it is mounted to the outer barrel, should protect the innards of the lens from any sort of minor bump, or even heavy impact? Now I can absolutely believe that this design had to be traded in for better resolution – and it seems to have paid of in that regard. But now, even more so with the added leverage of the hood in place, there is always stress on the inner tube, every time you put down the camera with the lens attached, let alone if you bump its front. Don’t you think that undoubtedly better inside construction and significantly worse mechanical protection plus higher adjustment effort will even out somehow? You loose the far more favourable flare (and even rain) protection properties of the old design as well, btw.

Best regards,
Martin

]]> By: RP http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii/comment-page-1#comment-17709 RP Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:42:33 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9260#comment-17709 Excellent Roger. And regarding having or not having IS what is your opinion? Excellent Roger. And regarding having or not having IS what is your opinion?

]]> By: Roger Cicala http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii/comment-page-1#comment-17704 Roger Cicala Thu, 13 Sep 2012 19:00:51 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9260#comment-17704 Randy, I don't have enough math to say it always lowers resolution. What I can say is it's always an additional optical element in the light path, and that optical element changes the entire design of the lens. If you have a great design, you can't "add IS" as people like to say. You design an entirely new lens with an IS unit. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a great example. The VC 'version' isn't a version at all. It's an entirely different lens, and one that doesn't resolve nearly as well as the original. Does that mean an IS unit lens always has lower resolution? No, not at all. The Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II is sharper than the NON IS version. But it's an entirely different design with 23 element compared to the non IS 18 elements. The higher price tag isn't because 'they added an IS unit'. It's because they completely redesigned the lens. In the case of the 24-70 II, the resolution is incredibly good. Several supposedly reliable sources said there were actually three 24-70 designs that were prototyped, one of which did have IS. I'm making an assumption that the IS lens didn't make the cut because it didn't resolve as well as this lens does. I think Canon decided to go with the better resolving lens instead of the IS lens. Even if the prototype rumor is false and this just happened on the drawing board, I'm pretty sure someone made the decision "we can get better resolution in this design without IS". Plus they had to think about things like "we've got to make this more reliable, so no more adjustable front element, and no more heavy internal zoom barrel on small helicoid screws". One way or another, something had to give and they decided it was the IS unit. I'm totally, completely speculating now: I think maybe Canon is designing a set of lenses that are superbly high resolution because they plan on releasing a camera that requires such lenses. If they knew, for example, a 40 Mpix sensor was in their future, I suspect the design team was charged with "Make the highest resolution possible". Roger Randy,

I don’t have enough math to say it always lowers resolution. What I can say is it’s always an additional optical element in the light path, and that optical element changes the entire design of the lens. If you have a great design, you can’t “add IS” as people like to say. You design an entirely new lens with an IS unit. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a great example. The VC ‘version’ isn’t a version at all. It’s an entirely different lens, and one that doesn’t resolve nearly as well as the original.

Does that mean an IS unit lens always has lower resolution? No, not at all. The Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II is sharper than the NON IS version. But it’s an entirely different design with 23 element compared to the non IS 18 elements. The higher price tag isn’t because ‘they added an IS unit’. It’s because they completely redesigned the lens.

In the case of the 24-70 II, the resolution is incredibly good. Several supposedly reliable sources said there were actually three 24-70 designs that were prototyped, one of which did have IS. I’m making an assumption that the IS lens didn’t make the cut because it didn’t resolve as well as this lens does. I think Canon decided to go with the better resolving lens instead of the IS lens. Even if the prototype rumor is false and this just happened on the drawing board, I’m pretty sure someone made the decision “we can get better resolution in this design without IS”. Plus they had to think about things like “we’ve got to make this more reliable, so no more adjustable front element, and no more heavy internal zoom barrel on small helicoid screws”. One way or another, something had to give and they decided it was the IS unit.

I’m totally, completely speculating now: I think maybe Canon is designing a set of lenses that are superbly high resolution because they plan on releasing a camera that requires such lenses. If they knew, for example, a 40 Mpix sensor was in their future, I suspect the design team was charged with “Make the highest resolution possible”.

Roger

]]> By: Randy http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii/comment-page-1#comment-17702 Randy Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:21:45 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9260#comment-17702 Roger - Are you saying there is something about IS that reults in lower resolution--or that they couldn't design around the IS mechanism without losing quality? I guess I don't see what one has to do with the other. Roger – Are you saying there is something about IS that reults in lower resolution–or that they couldn’t design around the IS mechanism without losing quality? I guess I don’t see what one has to do with the other.

]]> By: Tobias http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii/comment-page-1#comment-17665 Tobias Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:02:53 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9260#comment-17665 Roger - I appreciate your response. Those were the lenses on my mind :) I actually have both- The 24-70 from Tamron needed serious AF adjustments and I still feel it is on the soft side that coupled with your finding about the front element has me packing it up to return. The 28-75 is a little slow to focus in low light but otherwise I have been seriously impressed with the lens and after 4 solid years of use it is still sharp and solid as ever. Thanks for all you do! --T Roger – I appreciate your response. Those were the lenses on my mind :) I actually have both- The 24-70 from Tamron needed serious AF adjustments and I still feel it is on the soft side that coupled with your finding about the front element has me packing it up to return. The 28-75 is a little slow to focus in low light but otherwise I have been seriously impressed with the lens and after 4 solid years of use it is still sharp and solid as ever.

Thanks for all you do!

–T

]]>