Specific question about the canon 24-70 mkII for owners/users only

[MrSmith]

I have the old lens in my bag purely for the odd occasion I have to run around and work quickly which doesn't happen very often but I feel its a lens I have to have access to, i mainly do still-life, landscape and interiors and use other lenses like the 90ts-e 24ts-e as they give me the quality I demand, I use the 1.4converter with the 24 for interiors as the 45 ts-e is just not up to scratch.
 I'm looking at getting a shorter lens around 50mm that I can use in the studio but wondering if the new 24-70 can cover this? Specifically does it have a flat field? Or is it curved as bad as the old one? And are the corners o.k? I remember shooting an overhead still-life when i first got the lens with a 5D and the textured background was out of focus in the corners and had bad c/a that was unfixable in post, since then I have only used the lens for the odd people shoot where corners and flat field do not matter.

I'm also thinking ahead to the higher MPixel bodies that are around the corner (been holding off for high iso/live view MFD back but that's years away) which would probably render the old lens useless for a professional.
Do working users of this lens think it will be up to scratch? I'm not interested in 'print size anecdotes' the 'print' I go to is client runs on litho and adshel/billboard.

Thanks.

[Hulyss]

Hello MrSmith,

I do not have this lens but to have a flat field, you need an orthoscopic lens. As far as I know, the Macro lenses are orthoscopic (more or less) and I don't know any zoom on this very planet who is orthoscopic, even the "macro" zoom.

So, if you really want a good 50 go prime and if you really need AF go for the 50mmf2.8 Macro SIGMA (who resolve very well the D800). Otherwise, jump on a MACRO 50f2 Zeiss.

I might be wrong, but I'm curious and wait for ppl giving me samples out of the new Canon (but I doubt).

If you don't mind going a bit longer, the 70mm Macro f2.8 SIGMA is on of the most orthoscopic lens that exist (in regular Market).

[MrSmith]

I guess an absolute flat field is not essential but at 50mm f8 I was getting rubbish corners with 3-5ft subject to camera distances. Not aware of the sigma 50mm macro, I'll look into that. 70mm is a bit long when I have the excellent 90mm ts-e already.

[Hulyss]

Yes I understand. The 90 is a gem. But if you can give a try to the Sigma, if you can rent it, you will maybe like it for your use

[Ken Doo]

I had the old 24-70 f/2.8 L (Ver I) for many years---and it was a "good" lens for events, weddings, and some portraits---not the subject matter which you use this lens.  I recently upgraded to the new 24-70 f/2.8 L (ver II).  It definitely is a better performer (using an old 1DsMark III) in all aspects.  It does have a larger filter diameter (77 vs 82) but is also lighter.  Whether a lens performs up to snuff is always a personal and subjective decision.  I'd try renting first if possible, or just stick with primes.

ken

[duane_bolland]

While I am not an owner or user of the mkII, I think this will answer some of your questions:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

[MrSmith]

"However, there's is one really good news here - unlike its predecessor the field curvature (flatness of the focus field) has been substantially improved."

Which is good to hear.

[DaveCurtis]

Stopped down and focused at infinity for landscapes you shouldnt have any problem with field curvature. However focused at closer distances there is forward curvature also focus shift.

Diglloyd.com has info about this on his paid site.