# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Arrived



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 14, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-arrived/"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-arrived/"></a></div>
<strong>Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II


</strong>I finally got my hands on the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. I’ll be using the lens for the weekend and then it’ll be thrown into the rental fleet.</p>
<p>My first impression of the lens is very positive. I love the feel, weight and size of the lens. I actually have an event this weekend that I’ll be shooting, so I can put the lens through the paces in a real world situation. I’ll have it paired with the EOS-1D X, apparently they were born to be together.</p>
<div id="attachment_11205" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1C1A1409.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-11205 " title="1C1A1409" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1C1A1409.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="383" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Born to be together | Canon EOS-1D X & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</p></div>
<p>I still get a lot of people asking why the lens has no IS. I’m of the belief a medium range lens such as this doesn’t require it. This lens is going to be most used in event photography, or portrait and that kind of thing. If you’re looking for a walkaround tourist lens, then the EF 24-105 f/4L IS exists for that purpose. When you see the ISO performance of the EOS-1D X, that’s another reason not to care much about IS. That’s just my opinion!</p>
<p><strong><strong>Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II at: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA2470.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0076BNK30/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0076BNK30&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## DzPhotography (Sep 14, 2012)

Still thinking that that hood looks stupid ;D


----------



## hammar (Sep 14, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> Still thinking that that hood looks stupid ;D



It looks alright like this, but when the lens is fully extended, that looks stupid! 

I just got my 40mm/2.8 for my 5D3, that looks stupid as well: http://blog.erikhammar.se


----------



## Shnookums (Sep 14, 2012)

What I'd like to know is how the extending part of the lens react when the body + lens pressure is put on the lens hood. Juste like in the picture. The full weight of the camera is resting on a moving lens part... On the old 24-70, thehood was fixed to the lens my body, not the extending part. 

I worry that the extending part if the new 24-70 might loosen up and degrade the performance of the lens in a long run.


----------



## Jesse (Sep 14, 2012)

Need IS for video!


----------



## M249 (Sep 14, 2012)

Beatutiful!


----------



## Caleb Luke (Sep 14, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> ...When you see the ISO performance of the EOS-1D X, that’s another reason not to care much about IS. That’s just my opinion!



Exactly my thoughts when choosing the 24-70 II and Tamron 24-70 VC...Thanks for solidifying my decision to purchase! Enjoy!


----------



## DzPhotography (Sep 14, 2012)

hammar said:


> DzPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Still thinking that that hood looks stupid ;D
> ...


I got one too, looks funny on my 1Dx


----------



## DB (Sep 14, 2012)

Jesse said:


> Need IS for video!



Absolutely not! You need a tripod/monopod or glidecam. Some sort of rig, but definitely not handheld. Handheld video looks awful and is amateurish.


----------



## DB (Sep 14, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> Still thinking that that hood looks stupid ;D



+1

It would appear that Canon opted for this smaller petal-shaped hood in an effort to minimize weight. I much prefer the fixed larger hood on my 24-70 mark I, it gives one a greater sense of protection too


----------



## canonian (Sep 14, 2012)

I don't understand why some of you even give a $4!t about what the hood "looks" like. 

It's just the hood, people!  ;D


----------



## dadgummit (Sep 14, 2012)

Shnookums said:


> What I'd like to know is how the extending part of the lens react when the body + lens pressure is put on the lens hood. Juste like in the picture. The full weight of the camera is resting on a moving lens part... On the old 24-70, thehood was fixed to the lens my body, not the extending part.
> 
> I worry that the extending part if the new 24-70 might loosen up and degrade the performance of the lens in a long run.



it is now just like every other extending Canon zoom. After years of use the 24-105 has been just fine as is the 70-300L and the 17-55 I had with my crop cams.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 14, 2012)

I just think IS is a value added option and is useful. Wouldn't have cost them much to incorporate it, seen as tho a lot of Canons lenses have IS. Also in 8 years when its ready to be replaced people will be desperate as every other lens will have it... so does this mean a sooner upgrade. I find it useful on my 17-55mm.

But really its not necessary I use a 70-200mm L 2.8 without IS and dont have any problems with it and it would benefit more at that range. But still for a £2200 lens bit of a skimp without it.


----------



## DzPhotography (Sep 14, 2012)

canonian said:


> I don't understand why some of you even give a $4!t about what the hood "looks" like.
> 
> It's just the hood, people!  ;D


It's important 

:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2012)

DB said:


> It would appear that Canon opted for this smaller petal-shaped hood in an effort to minimize weight. I much prefer the fixed larger hood on my 24-70 mark I, it gives one a greater sense of protection too



It's not about weight, it's about optical design trade-offs. The original 24-70 has a reverse zoom - extending as the AoV gets wider. That allows a hood to be attached to the fixed part of the lens. The 24-70 II has a typical zoom design where the focal length gets longer as the lens barrel is extended. If you used a hood like that of the original 24-70 with such a design, a wide angle shot would have the hood blocking out much of the frame. I assume Canon had valid (optical) reasons for abandoning the reverse zoom design - for example, I've often wondered if that design accounted for the original 24-70's excessive field curvature.


----------



## DB (Sep 14, 2012)

So Canon did not set out with the objective of making the mark II standard zoom lighter and smaller? They've used a similar design as the 24-105 IS, the new hood looks flimsy.

I personally prefer the reverse zoom design with the longer hood for the narrower FoV, and I have no clue whether or not there was any optical trade-off in such a design, but I know it worked well in practice for many wedding photographers over the last two decades


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 14, 2012)

mine is on UPS driver truck "out for delivery"...I'm taking a morning off from work and wait for UPS driver.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 14, 2012)

DB said:


> So Canon did not set out with the objective of making the mark II standard zoom lighter and smaller? They've used a similar design as the 24-105 IS, the new hood looks flimsy.



I'm sure they did, but since the manufacturer-specified weight does not include the lens hood, a smaller and lighter hood would not help them achieve a smaller and lighter lens, technically. 

I, too, would prefer the old design, in that the hood is effective across the whole focal range, not just at the wide end as it is for the new lens (and almost every other zoom lens out there, eleven non-extending zooms like the 70-200's).


----------



## KitsVancouver (Sep 14, 2012)

DB said:


> Jesse said:
> 
> 
> > Need IS for video!
> ...



Yes, but for home video, I would have personally appreciated it. Oftentimes, I just want to grab a video of my kids and it's not often convenient to use a tripod or monopod. The lack of IS just means I can't keep that lens on as an all-around lens. 

I may still buy this new Mk II but only when I know I won't shoot any video. Video with my 24-105 without support, is totally acceptable.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Sep 14, 2012)

canonian said:


> I don't understand why some of you even give a $4!t about what the hood "looks" like.
> 
> It's just the hood, people!  ;D



Not just a hood, the Mark I lens hood provided protection to the barrel when extended, from rain and dust etc

when the mark II lens is extended that barrel is exposed to the weather


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 14, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> mine is on UPS driver truck "out for delivery"...I'm taking a morning off from work and wait for UPS driver.



UPDATED: The lens has arrived ;D ;D ;D...I'll take this lens with me this coming business trip to Hong Kong and China - Sep 15th to 25th.


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 14, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > mine is on UPS driver truck "out for delivery"...I'm taking a morning off from work and wait for UPS driver.
> ...



Nice. Post some pics quick.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 14, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


@ Razor2012...here are couple JPEG shots @ f2.8. straight out from camera. ZERO PP, except resize the pics for uploading.

*my 2 cents:*
1. AF is SUPER FAST - faster than 70-200 f2.8 IS II
2. SHARP end to end
3. Doesn't feel like plastic

Final thought: IT'S A KEEPER....I LOVE IT...a MUST HAVE LENS for Canon shooters


----------



## iTasneem (Sep 14, 2012)

Great pictures!!


----------



## VanWeddings (Sep 14, 2012)

DB said:


> Jesse said:
> 
> 
> > Need IS for video!
> ...



even on a monopod IS is useful. it's not just a handheld thing.


----------



## t.linn (Sep 14, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> I still get a lot of people asking why the lens has no IS. I’m of the belief a medium range lens such as this doesn’t require it. This lens is going to be most used in event photography, or portrait and that kind of thing. If you’re looking for a walkaround tourist lens, then the EF 24-105 f/4L IS exists for that purpose.



I completely disagree with this sentiment. Though not as effective, IS can be useful at any focal length and LOTS of customers have requested it. I'd love to know why the decision to omit it was made. Perhaps there was an optical, size, or weight trade off which made omitting it the best compromise.


----------



## drjlo (Sep 14, 2012)

I guess I will have to sell one of my expensive primes if I get the 24-70 II, perhaps the TS-E 24mm II :'(


----------



## michi (Sep 14, 2012)

t.linn said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I still get a lot of people asking why the lens has no IS. I’m of the belief a medium range lens such as this doesn’t require it. This lens is going to be most used in event photography, or portrait and that kind of thing. If you’re looking for a walkaround tourist lens, then the EF 24-105 f/4L IS exists for that purpose.
> ...



I also disagree. Image Stabilization is helpful at any focal length. Think of all the beautiful low light pictures you could take if you don't happen to have a tripod with you. Anything helps. And let's be realistic, of all of the new 24-70's used, only a fraction will be sold to actual working professional photographers. So those of us who actually fund this lens (call us "tourists, I don't care), would still really appreciate IS.


----------



## dswatson83 (Sep 14, 2012)

The reason for IS is mainly for video. I want 1 lens as an all around lens and if I want to use this for video, I either need a tripod or another lens. That is not cool. Plus, a big use of this lens will be event photography and anyone shooting a wedding has taken pictures of the church, flowers, scenery, and other items where the shutter could be slowed down and ISO lowered. Not to mention in a wedding, people hardly move and it would be great to get away with 1/60 or slower shutter in my nervous hands. I'm shooting at ISO 1600-3200 alot in these ceremonies and every little bit helps.


----------



## KMRM (Sep 14, 2012)

_"I finally got my hands on the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. I’ll be using the lens for the weekend and then it’ll be thrown into the rental fleet."_

You don't have to put it in the rental fleet when you're through with it. You can sell it to me! I'm so behind, I'm never going to catch up to the big kids! :'( 

I get my sights set on a new camera so I can use my 60D as a 2nd body and then the rumors start about a Canon that might be released in December. What should Santa bring me? A body (which one) or this lens? :-\


----------



## FunkyCamera (Sep 14, 2012)

Digital Rev are talking rubbish about this being a plasticy lens unlike the nice metallic original. Can someone set my mind to rest and confirm that this is made of all metal like a lens of this class should be?


----------



## chabotc (Sep 14, 2012)

FunkyCamera said:


> Digital Rev are talking rubbish about this being a plasticy lens unlike the nice metallic original. Can someone set my mind to rest and confirm that this is made of all metal like a lens of this class should be?




The outside barrel is made out of plastic - mind you it's industrial strength plastic so about as strong as a metal exterior would be - think EF 100mm 2.8 Macro type material


----------



## chabotc (Sep 14, 2012)

Ok so it's only been 3 hours since my copy arrived but the initial impressions are very good:

1) Focus is out of this world fast and accurate, more so then the 70-200 II which was my previous benchmark of best focusing system

2) Sharpness is incredible - so much so that I think it'll make me watch the shutter speed and/or use tripods even more then before - it's so sharp that you'll be able to tell when you moved a tiny bit, and when it lands perfectly, well it does blow away the sharpness of my 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2 and 70-200 II by a decent margin - boy do pixels look amazing with this lens!

3) Feels great on a 1DX, balance works out great, even though it's not a super light lens its a pleasure to hold and use on that body

4) Color, saturation is damn good as well - relieved about this since sometimes sharpness / saturation are a trade-off in optical design, and this lens is nailing both of those

In short - it's looking like this will be my new most used lens!


----------



## Jim K (Sep 14, 2012)

hammar said:


> DzPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Still thinking that that hood looks stupid ;D
> ...


With the 40mm it looks like you took the lens off and left the extension tube on.


----------



## infared (Sep 14, 2012)

I want to know if you are WOW'ed by the lens. Hopin so.


----------



## papa-razzi (Sep 14, 2012)

FunkyCamera said:


> Digital Rev are talking rubbish about this being a plasticy lens unlike the nice metallic original. Can someone set my mind to rest and confirm that this is made of all metal like a lens of this class should be?



Roger at Lensrentals.com took this lens apart and was impressed with what he saw build-wise.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii

His summary quote "But it’s apparent to me that Canon has taken the time to design the lens well and build it sturdily. I totally agree, that for the price, it should be well designed and well built. But experience has taught me that is not always the case for a more expensive lens. I’m glad it is the case here."


----------



## Act444 (Sep 15, 2012)

About the IS thing - it "IS" really nice to have for events, though, because I like to try to use slower shutter speeds when people are posing- this lets in as much light as possible and 1) keeps ISO as low as possible or 2) keeps the backgrounds from getting too dark if I'm using flash. Of course, when people are moving about, shutter speeds need to be reasonable anyway, so IS is not so important in that regard.

The 17-55 is my perfect lens for this type of work for that reason. I just wish it were more durable/weather sealed, kinda flimsy considering its price. I would have been interested in an IS version of the 24-70...sounds like this is a good one, though.


----------



## jdear (Sep 17, 2012)

Had my 24-70II on friday. Used it for a few shoots. 
Hoping to test it against the v1 and also pit against my 24L and 85L sometime. 

First impressions is its really nice. Controls flare well, and is sharp. Not quite as sharp ast my 85L (by which all my lenses are now measured) but its pretty damn good. 

_*Attached is a 100% zoom from a quick unedited photo I took on saturday.*_
Settings on photo.


----------



## Caleb Luke (Sep 17, 2012)

I took my 24-70 II along with me and my wife on our wedding anniversary this weekend. I attached a low-light handheld shot, no editing, just converted to JPEG from our trip. I enjoyed using the lens and the sharpness and contrast are great...But I must say after everything I read on the web, I was expecting a little more. It certainly isn't the lenses fault, just over-hyped myself during my research on whether to purchase or not. Do I think it was worth the price? No. But then again, I haven't owned the original version to make a fair judgement. Anyhow, it is a fantastic lens nonetheless.


----------



## photogaz (Sep 17, 2012)

Digitalrev are really taking the michael with the 24-70 II

In GBP, it comes to £2200. That's £950 more than if I went to the US and picked one up (minus import duty)

No thanks at that price, no matter how sharp it is.


----------



## Invertalon (Sep 17, 2012)

I am looking forward to this lens... I kept telling myself to wait until it was under $2,000 but the gear-head in me could not resist. Placed an order yesterday through Adorama. 

I have been using the 24-105 for years... Recently alongside the 35L.

I am selling both to fund the 24-70 II... Never had the mark I, but I believe it will be a great tool for me. I have more and more events coming my way (paid work) and I think the versatility of the zoom will be a better match. Especially with my 70-200 II.

All I need now is the 16-35 II... But that will not be in any immediate future. I have my Samyang 14mm when I need the wide stuff.

Looking forward to it!


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 18, 2012)

I am in desperate need  of more updates here - are folks still getting these in? I am really curious to know the supply and demand of these lenses as I wait for mine.

Thanks!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 18, 2012)

chabotc said:


> Ok so it's only been 3 hours since my copy arrived but the initial impressions are very good:
> 
> 1) Focus is out of this world fast and accurate, more so then the 70-200 II which was my previous benchmark of best focusing system
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing that. I had one pre-ordered and can't wait for it to arrive.


----------

