# My justification of buying a 24-70 Mark II or spending silly money



## photogaz (Feb 11, 2012)

I'm really thinking about getting the 24-70 II. I'm mainly a hobby photographer, but I do like having the best.

The way I see it that buying any expensive lens, if the quality is up to par then the lens will last me 10 years. It won't really depreciate like an SLR body would.

Buying older lenses you always have that thought that you might need to replace it with a better model or you've just not got the quality and look for an alternative or a prime.

I'm basically trying to make myself feel better buying the 24-70 II. Is that a justified reason:


----------



## Tijn (Feb 11, 2012)

Just consider the whole pros and cons rather than listing just the pros, if you want to make a balanced decision.

The lens will be the sharpest zoom you've ever had and it'll be lighter than the version 1. You won't need primes in that range (with the exception of demanding low-light photography) and it will indeed last you a long while.

But for the extreme price you could have bought a lot of different stuff as well. The lens itself also isn't perfect. Zoom range is what it is (no tele) and most prominently and importantly, it lacks IS. They might release an IS version 4 years later.

Will you notice the difference between the mark 1 and 2? Do you need its improvement? (Meaning, do you shoot wide-angle a LOT and do you need better corner performance there?) Will it improve your life as much as other "spendings" of that money would? That last question is a difficult one for me. The version 1 has been very popular for a reason; it's just a very good lens. Paying another $1000+ for a wide angle corner sharpness (and minor contrast) upgrade is a lot, even if you do get something that might be 'the best' for a while to come.


----------



## JR (Feb 11, 2012)

I am thinking of getting this new lens as well in spite of its high price. For me it will depend greatly on its sharpness. It is very simple, it the 24-70 II is as sharp at 2.8 as my 24 1.4L II I may have a case for it as I may decide to then sell my 24mm. Why? Because I realised that while I have fast prime, more then 90% of my shooting is done at f2.8 or more...Not sure I would let go of my 50 1.2L though!

Jacques


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Feb 11, 2012)

IF the new kid on the block is better, I sure will buy.
Why? Although its not covering thrilling angles, its simply the lens I need/use very often.
And to have fine sensors makes no sense (!) when you dont have the glass to match them.
I hope it will be as good as my beloved 70-200/2,8 II....


----------



## Bluesmachine (Feb 11, 2012)

I've been waiting for this lens to be released as I want a 'walk around' lens. This is perfect for what (little) I do, as a hobbyist. I'm absolutely gobsmacked at the price of it though! I could have gone to around £1700 at an absolute push, but now they seem to have converted $2299 to £2299 (how's that work exactly?) there is absolutely no way in hell I'm buying it. 

I just cannot see how they can justify such a huge price for this lens. I know there have been all the problems, and Canon will have no doubt had a large drop in revenue, but what exactly leads them to believe that this is a fair price for this lens?

I'm so fed up as I was really looking forward to buying this, with a 5DmkIII (or whatever will come out), then changed my mind, deciding I can't justify the camera too, and now I can't justify the lens. How are these prices supposed to promote healthy sales for Canon?

I'm sad


----------



## BlueMixWhite (Feb 11, 2012)

Bluesmachine, I suggest that u book a budget airline to some Asian country, lens are definitely cheap in country like HK....only problem is warranty issue.


----------



## cezargalang (Feb 11, 2012)

If the IQ from the 24-70II is the same as the 70-200II, well it's good for me. I usually shoot outdoors, and if you're doing indoor events and dont use flash, Bumping ISO helps, and i usually go over 1/160 SS on the ver1 on Low light indoors.. 

But the starting price is too high, i believe that $2000 is a more reasonable starting price for it, then after months or a year, prices start to go down..


----------



## Stone (Feb 11, 2012)

I'm also a hobbyist, I've made money from my photography but it's been completely by accident. Selling the occasional photo to a parent at a school function and a couple of my better landscape shots. Having said that I believe in working hard then playing hard, if photography is your hobby no one has to justify your purchase but you, you and can't take it with you, they'll just rob your grave. 

The 24-70 is a little bit of a disappointment because I was hoping for internal zoom and IS, but I will definitely be buying it once I buy my first FF body this year. Lenses aren't like smartphones or laptops, they last many, many years. Spread the cost of this lens over a 5 year period and the price gets alot easier to swallow....


----------



## Z (Feb 11, 2012)

Do you want it? Can you afford it without changing your lifestyle?

If the answer to both of those questions is 'yes', you decision is justified. Don't sully the happiness of acquiring a new lens with feeling of guilt or remorse. If your situation changes, sell it.

You could get hit by a bus tomorrow.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 11, 2012)

JR said:


> I am thinking of getting this new lens as well in spite of its high price. For me it will depend greatly on its sharpness. It is very simple, it the 24-70 II is as sharp at 2.8 as my 24 1.4L II I may have a case for it as I may decide to then sell my 24mm. Why? Because I realised that while I have fast prime, more then 90% of my shooting is done at f2.8 or more...Not sure I would let go of my 50 1.2L though!
> 
> Jacques



I agree man, I could never get rid of my 50L (unless a v2 comes out of course ) But the 24-70 II does seem very appealing, if it's as sharp as they say it is it my become my new goto lens. The only zoom I have left is the 16-35, which isn't very versatile on FF unless you are shooting a lot of landscapes. I think I'll get the 24-70 II regardless, but I may have to skip out on a 20something prime (was looking at 24L II and Zeiss 21 2.8). We'll see


----------



## jwong (Feb 11, 2012)

Z said:


> Do you want it? Can you afford it without changing your lifestyle?
> 
> If the answer to both of those questions is 'yes', you decision is justified. Don't sully the happiness of acquiring a new lens with feeling of guilt or remorse. If your situation changes, sell it.
> 
> You could get hit by a bus tomorrow.



+1. I'm looking to get other lenses first before this one, but if you can afford it and other lenses aren't a higher priority, then there is nothing wrong getting it.


----------



## jrista (Feb 12, 2012)

The key reason to get the new 24-70 L II is the resolution. If you own or intend to buy a very high resolution body, like the 7D (or any of Canon's 18mp APS-C sensors) or, if Canon releases it, a new 45mp FF body, you'll NEED the resolution such a lens has to offer to fully realize the potential of a high resolution sensor at anything faster than about f/5.6 (assuming aberrations are well controlled.) If you don't have a high resolution body, and don't intend to get one, buying any of Canon's newer Mark II lenses, unless they contain additional features like IS, probably won't do you any good...as lower resolution bodies won't really be able to take advantage of the better lens resolution.

The incredible increases in resolution is one of the reasons I've really been impressed with Canon's Mark II lens offerings (or new entrants, like the 8-15mm L fisheye, 70-300mm L). Owning a 7D myself, its clear that many older lenses simply don't resolve enough detail to take full advantage of the sensor resolution, even when there is zero camera shake. They certainly do tend to be expensive (particularly their telephotos...I'd love to get my hands on a 200-400 L, but its just a tad out of my price range right now), but the expense is worth it if you need tack sharp photos from high resolution cameras.


----------



## vuilang (Feb 12, 2012)

Photogaz... If that lens will stick to your camera and you're using majority of times, I do think it's totally worth it. Having many lenses isnt really much better than having 1 lens you can count on, and having the confidence of its sharpness. While it's pricey, but the joy will be there for years. Plus, IF you need to resell, I dont think you'll lose $ much.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Feb 16, 2012)

Bluesmachine said:


> I've been waiting for this lens to be released as I want a 'walk around' lens. This is perfect for what (little) I do, as a hobbyist. I'm absolutely gobsmacked at the price of it though! I could have gone to around £1700 at an absolute push, but now they seem to have converted $2299 to £2299 (how's that work exactly?) there is absolutely no way in hell I'm buying it.
> 
> I just cannot see how they can justify such a huge price for this lens. I know there have been all the problems, and Canon will have no doubt had a large drop in revenue, but what exactly leads them to believe that this is a fair price for this lens?
> 
> ...


I know, I can't justify the price either. Though I do want the 'best' especially with all the latest and greatest hype that gets attached to a new lens/body. I'm a student and I'm broke as. And not just any student I'm a photography student at that, my school fees are $11,200+ (only tutition fees not including the materials) plus I gotta pay for my own printing - paper and ink for those large epson printers and buy cameras, lenses, computers, etc. very very expensive. 

Now if this lens had IS I would consider buying it since I use my camera to make/record videos as well. But $2399 USD? I would like the lens but way too expensive. What the hell were canon thinking?


----------



## melbournite (Feb 16, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > I am thinking of getting this new lens as well in spite of its high price. For me it will depend greatly on its sharpness. It is very simple, it the 24-70 II is as sharp at 2.8 as my 24 1.4L II I may have a case for it as I may decide to then sell my 24mm. Why? Because I realised that while I have fast prime, more then 90% of my shooting is done at f2.8 or more...Not sure I would let go of my 50 1.2L though!
> ...



I have always considered buying the 50L and have held off thinking a II might appear soon. Now that the 24-70 II is here, if it's what it's promising to be, I am very tempted to buy this instead. It might then see me through till the 50L II comes out, which will also give me time to save up for it. I get jealous when I hear people talking about their 50L so fondly.


----------



## JR (Feb 16, 2012)

melbournite said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



Yes indeed melbournite the 50L is quite special especially for portrait. I think your plan could make sense, however just remember that even if the new 24-70 is razor sharp, its bokeh will likley not be as creamy as the 50L simply because it was not designed that way, wherea the 50L was. Just a difference worth considering depending on your use, it may or may not be important for you.

Jacques


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 16, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Now if this lens had IS I would consider buying it since I use my camera to make/record videos as well. But $2399 USD? I would like the lens but way too expensive. What the hell were canon thinking?



For one, there is nothing that says IS will IMPROVE IQ. IS may help improve the keeper rate, but IS may also add defects to the lens in other areas. 

Second, though the graphs are from Canon, what I have seen and the trickle of people who have played with it, this is a sharp lens, a very sharp lens and stellar performance through out from wide open to at both ends of the focal length. The CA performance I saw in some of the test images of this were fantastic. My personal belief is that IS is not the end all, be all. There are a lot of great benefits to it, but there can be many situations, as enumerated through out these threads where IS causes issues and is better to have off. Yes. Nice to have the option, but I think what we don't always see is is there a trade off on lenses WITH IS versus WITHOUT when it comes to IQ. This is extremely hard to measure, because even with say the 70-200 F/2.8L and the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II... they are different generation lenses, so trying to compare the sharpness is not really relevant, but would be if Canon had produces say a 70-200 F/2.8L II (Non-IS) I don't see them doing that, because IS is extremely helpful at longer focal lengths... much more so than Wide Angle and Standard Zoom ranges. 

The EF 85 F/1.2L II is over $2000 as well is the EF 14 F/2.8L II. These are just PRIME lenses, and they are over $2000. While the 24 is more reasonable at $1600, it still would cost you almost $5000 to purchase the 24, 50 and 85, and while some of these may go down to F/1.2, not one of those lenses has IS. 

What I see Canon doing is creating a Standard Zoom lens that has favorable and comparable performance to their top prime lenses in a range. The primes will almost always be better, but also at least double the price to own across the range. 

Canon really makes no L lens that is 70mm and below only. All the other L lenses with IS push to 100mm and beyond. You will find many of the EF-S lenses that will have IS in shorter ranges, but the IQ is poorer on these, and they are over all cheaper lenses focused on people who are more interested in just getting the shot that top image quality. 

I pose you this question... Would you be happy to have the current 24-40 with IS and the same performance and defects, or would you prefer to have a much improved lens that seems to be a huge upgrade across the whole lens without IS for the same price. 

In a long telephoto... Without a doubt I think IS makes a difference because of distance. 

In a short lens, I will take sick IQ performance because IS is less needed up close in most situations.

That is what Canon was thinking.


----------



## AdamJ (Feb 16, 2012)

This observation applies generally, as well as to this particular thread.

People who frequent this site are naturally a lot more interested in the latest and greatest gear than the general population of photographers. My guess is that fewer than 0.001% of SLR photographers have ever been here, suggesting that the vast majority of photographers are sufficiently happy with their photographic output that they are not concerned about what new gear is in the pipeline.

So why are we, the CR forum members, so very interested in the newest and best gear? Here are a few reasons (you may have your own):

- Because you believe that currently available equipment limits the technical quality of your images in an important, meaningful way.

- Because you believe that currently available equipment limits your photographic capability, creativity or ambition.

- Because you have a psychological need to have the best gear, regardless of whether it discernibly improves your output.

- Because you have an unusually strong appreciation for the finest achievable precision engineering, whether in photographic gear or otherwise. (Like many high-functioning autistics, I fall into this category).

If you tick any of these boxes, then you can justify the new lens to yourself.


----------

