# 24-70 2.8 L II - any images/first impressions online?



## kasperj (Mar 15, 2012)

I have the 24-70 2.8 L II on preorder and dying to see som test shots with this lens and if possibly mounted on the 5D mrk III (which I also have on preorder). 

Has anyone here seen images and/or impressions posted yet? 

Secondly, has the availability date for the lens been confirmed anywhere yet?

Thanks!


----------



## Tijn (Mar 15, 2012)

That's quite a handsome couple you have on preorder there.  If I had both of those and a 70-200 f/2.8L II, Yikes! Good for you (well, almost anyways!)


----------



## Smith (Mar 16, 2012)

These are the only pictures that I've been able to find online. There are also RAW files you can download which uses the lens. Unfortunately they subject is not the best for judging corner to corner sharpness. 

http://lightingmods.blogspot.com/2012/03/hands-on-5d-markiii-24-70-28-usm-l-ii_15.html?utm_


----------



## aZhu (Mar 16, 2012)

This thread has a lot of pics and info:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3206.0.html


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 18, 2012)

kasperj said:


> I have the 24-70 2.8 L II on preorder and dying to see som test shots with this lens and if possibly mounted on the 5D mrk III (which I also have on preorder).
> 
> Has anyone here seen images and/or impressions posted yet?
> 
> ...


When you receive your lens and 5dmkiii PLZ post some pics of just about everyone types of photography, or just like post some pics of portraits, sports, landscape/cityscape, street, etc coz I'm considering getting the 24-70mm 2.8mkii (would also like to own the 5dmkiii even though I don't need it nor have the money for it).


----------



## pwp (Mar 18, 2012)

Would you believe I bought a 24-70 f/2.8 MkI on the MORNING of the day the new lens was announced. It was my third 24-70 f/2.8, the previous two being huge disappointments especially on FF. The new lens is a little better, the later builds have ironed out most of the bugs.

If the MkII lens lives up to the pre-release hype it should be a _"must have"_ lens. I'll wait to see samples of RAW images and read credible reviews before taking an inevitable hit on the MkI to update to the new lens.

Paul Wright


----------



## Michael_pfh (Mar 18, 2012)

I remember April 17 to be the official release date...


----------



## ruuneos (Mar 18, 2012)

I came up with this one question:
_ -Buy old version of 24-70 f2.8 or wait until II comes out?_
Both of them got amazing image quality so any thoughts about this, get older for $1299 or get newer for $2299?


----------



## Meh (Mar 18, 2012)

ruuneos said:


> I came up with this one question:
> _ -Buy old version of 24-70 f2.8 or wait until II comes out?_
> Both of them got amazing image quality so any thoughts about this, get older for $1299 or get newer for $2299?



Depends what the extra $1000 means to you. If by spending the extra $1000 you're sacrificing food then buy the cheaper lens but if you're spouse will just spend the extra money on something silly then definitely go for the Mark II.


----------



## ruuneos (Mar 18, 2012)

There aren't big difference between old and new versions:

- MK2 9 blade diaphragm, MK1 have 8
- MK2 18 elements in 13 gropus, MK1 16 in 13.
- MK2 82mm filter, MK1 77mm
- MK2 Inner focusing with USM, MK1 front focusing method
- MK2 805g, MK1 950g

So is $1000 worth to cover those changes


----------



## kasperj (Mar 18, 2012)

Thanks to u all for your replies and the links 

I've also seen April 17th stated on B&H as official release date, which means I will have to wait for another month before I can get my hands on that, let alone try it out with the Mrk III :'(

The MTF charts for the 24-70 L Mrk II are posted here: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm 

I compared it at the wide end to the new 24 2.8 IS and at the tele end to the 70-200 L IS Mrk II. You can see a side by side comparison in the attached word doc. (I coundn't figure out how to display a screen capture) and all I can say is that I am blown away at the results. Resolution and contrast wise the 24-70 beats the socks off both of these at 2.8 !! If real world tests get anywhere close, Canon sure has a winner - I would go as far as to say that the price point may actually be justified


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 18, 2012)

ruuneos said:


> There aren't big difference between old and new versions:
> 
> - MK2 9 blade diaphragm, MK1 have 8
> - MK2 18 elements in 13 gropus, MK1 16 in 13.
> ...


 
After having five of the old version, I gave up on them. They were ok, but not so good that I'd keep one. They also look better on full frame, which tends to be more forgiving of lens flaws.

Lens reviewers have had much the same experience, some having had to test multiple lenses in order to find one that was even close to the Canon mtf curves. Even then, the design itself results in excessive curvature of field, which means that, at wide apertures, a flat wall will only be in focus at the edges or the center, but not both. They are better at f/8, but did you pay all that money to get a lens that you had to use at f/8 to hide the curvature of field in depth of field? 

The new one better solve those issues, considering the price.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 19, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ruuneos said:
> 
> 
> > There aren't big difference between old and new versions:
> ...


Yeah that is what has held me back from buying a 24-70mkI coz you get some people saying that it's a 'perfect' walk-about lens and has great focal length, etc but then i hear stories from those like you who dislike the lens coz they cannot find a good copy. With back focussing issues and what have you. I would like to own a 24-70 2.8 lens but cant justify the almost not almost, it is a rip off price point, especially considering it doesnt have IS. if it had IS I would def consider pre-ordering one. If not buying it a few months after its released. Is it worth that extra $1000? canon think so and believe it doesnt need IS even when a lot of photogs in the community wanted IS in the mkii.


EDIT: dunno how or why but this post was posted before i finished :S


----------



## aZhu (Mar 19, 2012)

ruuneos said:


> There aren't big difference between old and new versions:
> 
> - MK2 9 blade diaphragm, MK1 have 8
> - MK2 18 elements in 13 gropus, MK1 16 in 13.
> ...



Keep in mind that some people will feel justified to pay the extra $1000 just merely for the improved image quality (on paper for now that is). The MTF charts look amazing.


----------



## Tijn (Mar 19, 2012)

ruuneos said:


> There aren't big difference between old and new versions:
> 
> - MK2 9 blade diaphragm, MK1 have 8
> - MK2 18 elements in 13 gropus, MK1 16 in 13.
> ...


You missed the most important change, namely the assumed increased sharpness and contrast. For now all we have to go on are MTF charts, but it's a bit silly not mentioning this expected change at all. It's pretty much the only reason why anyone would want this lens (and many people do).


----------



## ruuneos (Mar 19, 2012)

Tijn said:


> You missed the most important change, namely the assumed increased sharpness and contrast. For now all we have to go on are MTF charts, but it's a bit silly not mentioning this expected change at all. It's pretty much the only reason why anyone would want this lens (and many people do).


Well, I just didn't add those because it's kind of obvious they changed too.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 21, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > ruuneos said:
> ...



Haha, ok, been using the 24-70 2.8l for 5 yrs and its is an incredible lens most all Canon Explorers have this lens, Most wedding photogs have this lens. We never needed IS. Especially when isos are sick these days...The lens of the last 2yrs has been flogged thousands of times in my sports photog company too and it just is friggen fast! It prob focusses faster than my 70-200 2.8l II, no kidding. bad copies are prob out there but many times its a bad sensor alignment in which case many probs exist. Ideally you send your gear to canon and get both calibrated to each other. I had a photog friend have a prob with the lens on his 40 d and after trying a couple sent it in and it was the sensor alignment that was the prob. It goes both ways though im sure some lenses are out of their spec when bought new.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 21, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Haha, ok, been using the 24-70 2.8l for 5 yrs and its is an incredible lens most all Canon Explorers have this lens, Most wedding photogs have this lens. We never needed IS. Especially when isos are sick these days...The lens of the last 2yrs has been flogged thousands of times in my sports photog company too and it just is friggen fast! It prob focusses faster than my 70-200 2.8l II, no kidding. bad copies are prob out there but many times its a bad sensor alignment in which case many probs exist. Ideally you send your gear to canon and get both calibrated to each other. I had a photog friend have a prob with the lens on his 40 d and after trying a couple sent it in and it was the sensor alignment that was the prob. It goes both ways though im sure some lenses are out of their spec when bought new.


whatever suits your needs may not suit another photog's needs. I know that the 24-70 2.8 lens is generally used as a portrait/wedding lens (or a walk about lens) however there are those, like me, who would like to shoot handheld video with it. All about perferences.


----------



## squarebox (Mar 22, 2012)

little late to the party, but i'm seeing April 30th as a street date here in Japan.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 24, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> Bosman said:
> 
> 
> > Haha, ok, been using the 24-70 2.8l for 5 yrs and its is an incredible lens most all Canon Explorers have this lens, Most wedding photogs have this lens. We never needed IS. Especially when isos are sick these days...The lens of the last 2yrs has been flogged thousands of times in my sports photog company too and it just is friggen fast! It prob focusses faster than my 70-200 2.8l II, no kidding. bad copies are prob out there but many times its a bad sensor alignment in which case many probs exist. Ideally you send your gear to canon and get both calibrated to each other. I had a photog friend have a prob with the lens on his 40 d and after trying a couple sent it in and it was the sensor alignment that was the prob. It goes both ways though im sure some lenses are out of their spec when bought new.
> ...


I have a friend that bought a 24-70 after renting mine to use to shoot a film for a car. Id say that says something.


----------



## squarebox (Mar 24, 2012)

Just out of curiosity, how long do you think one might have to wait till we would see a price drop in the new 24-70mkii?

It is not a big difference money wise, but psychologically speaking $1900 and $2200 is huge. I'm just thinking that earlier adopters also lose out more when they decide to sell the lens and trying to hedge my bets just in case.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 3, 2012)

ruuneos said:


> I came up with this one question:
> _ -Buy old version of 24-70 f2.8 or wait until II comes out?_
> Both of them got amazing image quality so any thoughts about this, get older for $1299 or get newer for $2299?


Save your dough and get the older version why? Its pretty much a perfect lens, it focusses as fast as my 70-200, no lie i shoot sports with both those lenses and cant see the speed difference. It might be there but i cant discern it.

The new one will be kick butt but IMO not $1000 kick butt. When I get what i do with what i have i dont need it, and i am the beta tester type who has to always have the best and latest. The other thing is i always shoot with a hood on my lens and the old version zooms in and out but you dont notice it on the old 24-70. The new one has the hood locked on to the end of the barrel and the whole hood moves out when you zoom. It looks gay to me and doesn't offer the protection that a hood fixed on the lens protecting the barrel does.
Those are some of my experiences with it. Hopefully new or older version you get exactly the results you are looking for!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 3, 2012)

ruuneos said:


> There aren't big difference between old and new versions:
> 
> - MK2 9 blade diaphragm, MK1 have 8
> - MK2 18 elements in 13 gropus, MK1 16 in 13.
> ...



Umm and what about the fact that the MTF charts for the Mk2 totally, utterly blow the Mk1 out of the water? The MTF charts look even better than the Canon 24 1.4 II prime! Of course the real test will be in the real world but it appears as if it may be the sharpest non-esoteric zoom ever made.

This looks to be the standard zoom that may finally deliver on high-density sensor FF like the 5D2/1Ds3/5D3. Pricey, but the MTF charts look so insanely good, it's probably worth it. A few people tried them at shows and said that f/2.8 there was no hint of purple-fringing on specular highlights and it look crazy sharp.


----------

