# Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II - Your thoughts



## Dylan777 (Apr 30, 2012)

Looking at the new Canon 24-70 Spec and MTF chart, I wonder how many CRs member going to buy this lens? and what is your number ONE reason to buy mrk II?

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm


Dylan


----------



## JR (Apr 30, 2012)

If the lens is as good as the chart, i plan to buy it. Main reason is flexibility of having a zoom with near prime sharpness for when i need it - simply for convenience. I will not replace my primes, but sometime i feel i could really benefit from a zoom in the 24-70 range instead of switching lens all the time...


----------



## Aaron78 (Apr 30, 2012)

I will buy it because i don't have a zoom lens in that range, and have held off on getting one until the 24-70 II was announced. I have a 16-35, 50, 100, and 70-200, and also shoot with a 7D and a (sold now, being replaced by 1DX) 5D II. This lens sounds to be of equal or better IQ than my 70-200 2.8 IS II, so as much as i think the price is high, i think it will be worth it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 30, 2012)

I plan to buy one. I have the 24-105mm f/4L IS now, and it's a very convenient lens, but often I want an extra aperture stop for better OOF blur, and sometimes more light. 

My current plan is to buy the 1D X (preordered day 1 from B&H), then sell the 5DII, then buy the 24-70 II. That will give me the 'holy trinity' of f/2.8 L zooms (all in the Mk II versions) to complement my holy trinity of L primes (35/85/135).


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 30, 2012)

I will get one as well. I sold my 24-70 V1 when the rumors started flying about the MK2. Now I've just been using my 24-105 waiting patiently for the new 24-70!


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 30, 2012)

JR said:


> If the lens is as good as the chart, i plan to buy it. Main reason is flexibility of having a zoom with near prime sharpness for when i need it - simply for convenience. I will not replace my primes, but sometime i feel i could really benefit from a zoom in the 24-70 range instead of switching lens all the time...



I hope this lens will be sharp as 70-200 f2.8 IS II, or *"Better"*. I don't mind spending another $2300 as long the lens can deliver it. I bought 3 different copies of mrk1 in the past (2 new, 1 used). No luck


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 30, 2012)

4-105Hey Neuro!

Would you favor this lens over the 2 for use on a 5D II or a 5DIII based on iq alone, and not aperture?

Thanks.

sek



neuroanatomist said:


> I plan to buy one. I have the 24-105mm f/4L IS now, and it's a very convenient lens, but often I want an extra aperture stop for better OOF blur, and sometimes more light.
> 
> My current plan is to buy the 1D X (preordered day 1 from B&H), then sell the 5DII, then buy the 24-70 II. That will give me the 'holy trinity' of f/2.8 L zooms (all in the Mk II versions) to complement my holy trinity of L primes (35/85/135).


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 30, 2012)

If it would only be compatible with coatings preventing from CA.


----------



## akiskev (Apr 30, 2012)

From what I've read on the INTERNET, the 24-70 II is a masterpiece. If I had the money, I'd buy it. No second thoughts.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 30, 2012)

For 2000$, Ill probably wait on this one. Perhaps a Sale during christmas Season? 8)


----------



## photophreek (Apr 30, 2012)

I have a very sharp 24-70 Mk I that is less than a year old. I'm going to wait on the Mk II until I see some reviews and it's performance wide open and at 24mm and 35mm before making the decision.


----------



## Invertalon (Apr 30, 2012)

Given the MTF and how well Canon has done with the 70-200 II and such, I am sure it will be an amazing, prime like lens from end to end.

However, I feel the price is too high lacking IS. I mean, I could do without IS at that focal length, but would make the price make more sense to me. I think it should be priced at around $1800 myself (but will sell fine at current price for sure).

I am highly interested in it... I may rent one from CPS once they get them. But I will not buy them until I can snag a 20% off Canon refurb or something of the sort. I mean, the 70-200 II's just a few months ago you could of got as cheap as $1700 or 1800, so I figure the same will come with the 24-70 II with time. In which I may jump on it then.


----------



## pwp (Apr 30, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Looking at the new Canon 24-70 Spec and MTF chart, I wonder how many CRs member going to buy this lens? and what is your number ONE reason to buy mrk II?
> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm
> Dylan


Dylan I'll definitely get one if real world user feedback delivers what we all hope is true...a stellar lens right up there with 70-200L IQ or even better. Maybe prime level IQ. Wouldn't that make it a must-have lens? 

The three 24-70 f/2.8 lenses I've had over the years have all been appalling disappointments. There has been plenty written on this subject. A handful of fortunate shooters have good copies, but too many Mk1 lenses were dogs. 

Paul Wright


----------



## re:k photographie (Apr 30, 2012)

I'll rent it for a test drive for sure.

But it is going to need to pretty damn special to make me sell my 24-70L mk1 (it is a good copy) AND add an extra $1000 to own it. Plus I hate paying sticker price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

scottkinfw said:


> 4-105Hey Neuro!
> 
> Would you favor this lens over the 2 for use on a 5D II or a 5DIII based on iq alone, and not aperture?



Based on the _theoretical_ MTF charts (since that's all we have to go on at this point), the 24-70 II easily beats both its predecessor and the 24-105. If the real world performance (which includes things like field curvature, CA, etc.) is aligned with the MTF charts, then yes, I'd pick the 24-70 II for IQ.


----------



## squarebox (May 1, 2012)

I'm picking it up because I lack a zoom in that range and have found my 35L being too long (on a crop) or too short for those longer shots. The plan is to have this and my 35L be my main lens whenever I finally make the jump to FF.


----------



## Axilrod (May 1, 2012)

If it performs as well as the 70-200 II, I think it'll probably be worth the price, especially with the high ISO capabilities of the Mark III. If I could ditch my primes for one lens that would be pretty awesome.


----------



## Fandongo (May 2, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> I will get one as well. I sold my 24-70 V1 when the rumors started flying about the MK2. Now I've just been using my 24-105 waiting patiently for the new 24-70!



I thought about selling my V1 as well.
But then I remembered part of the reason I purchased it was its density.
If anyone tries to steal your stuff, you can crush their skull with it.

I'd hesitate to do so with V2, so I'd be out the equipment AND be deprived of sweet, sweet justice.
=)


----------



## Razor2012 (May 5, 2012)

I just picked up the 5DIII and 70-200 2.8II, so I'm going to be seriously looking at the new 24-70II for this range. Now Canon needs something like a 14 or 10-24 to fill in that gap.


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 5, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> I just picked up the 5DIII and 70-200 2.8II, so I'm going to be seriously looking at the new 24-70II for this range. Now Canon needs something like a 14 or 10-24 to fill in that gap.



I guess that an 14-24 or 12-24 or 10-24 would be one of the best selling L lenses Canon could produce if they do it right (meaning corner sharpness at least equal to the 14mm f2.8 L II Prime, better if possible) ... Just look at the Nikon crowd ... about everyone who takes serious landscape shots has a 14-24 ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 6, 2012)

Having had 5 different 24-70mm MK I lenses that were less than what I'd call excellent, the MTF curves are much better for the MK II, so I'm interested, but will wait for the lens reviewers as well.

Remember, Canon's MTF curves are calculated based on a perfect lens (the best possible - and that does not exist), so I'll see how they actually turn out. I expect that production delays have happened because the lens is difficult to build and be in spec, which does not bode well.


----------



## bestimage (May 6, 2012)

Tamron has image stabilization built in in same range, I guess Canon and Nikon would be forced to add IS soon also


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 6, 2012)

bestimage said:


> Tamron has image stabilization built in in same range, I guess Canon and Nikon would be forced to add IS soon also



It still puzzles me why Canon left out IS with such an important lens like the 24-70 II ... 
People who say that IS is of no importance with such a lens are clearly the ones who either only shot in studio or are only doing landscape/architecture with a tripod ... if you ever come in a situation where you are in a dark place (Church, Temple, Library etc ...) where you are not allowed to use a tripod you immediately realize that IS is of major importance if you want to keep ISO within reasonable range (5D III and 1DX are of course less critical now the previous generation of bodies but the issue still remains)... that is really a major advantage of the 24-105 regarding versatility and I wonder why Canon did not address it (If Tamron succeeded with integrating an IS module in a smaller lens design it can't be a size issue)...


----------



## scottkinfw (May 6, 2012)

Great, thanks.

sek



neuroanatomist said:


> scottkinfw said:
> 
> 
> > 4-105Hey Neuro!
> ...


----------



## Hugo Fisher (May 6, 2012)

Do you know, if the lens hood is attached in the same way as 24-70 mk I? It looks that it should be attached on front of a lens - so it will be moving with "zooming"? Does anybody know? (thanks)


----------



## Dylan777 (May 6, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Having had 5 different 24-70mm MK I lenses that were less than what I'd call excellent, the MTF curves are much better for the MK II, so I'm interested, but will wait for the lens reviewers as well.
> 
> Remember, Canon's MTF curves are calculated based on a perfect lens (the best possible - and that does not exist), so I'll see how they actually turn out. I expect that production delays have happened because the lens is difficult to build and be in spec, which does not bode well.



Compared to mrk I...mrk II is smaller, lighter and SHARPER. I bought 3 different copies of mrk I in the past - all 3 were bad(soft).

Longer story short, I placed pre-order through B&H. If mrk II has same sharpness or better as 70-200 f2.8 IS II - I will be set with lenses. Unless Canon has SUPER rebate for 50mm L.

Otherwise my: 16-35 II , 24-70 II, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, and 50 f1.4 will be fine with 5D III.


----------



## Z (May 6, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> It still puzzles me why Canon left out IS with such an important lens like the 24-70 II ...
> People who say that IS is of no importance with such a lens are clearly the ones who either only shot in studio or are only doing landscape/architecture with a tripod ...


A big target group of the 24-70 f/2.8 is likely wedding & events shooters, i.e. people who shoot people. It's _generally_ good practice to keep shutter speeds above 1/80 sec or so in those instances, which would negate most camera shake in usual situations. That being said, IS is always handy and who knows, maybe an IS version will be released in future (MSRP $100 trillion).


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 6, 2012)

Z said:


> 1982chris911 said:
> 
> 
> > It still puzzles me why Canon left out IS with such an important lens like the 24-70 II ...
> ...



I guess that the target group you are thinking off is somehow true - however these ppl also can often use flash - the IS + wide lens without flash combination is still something I would like to have, knowing how well it works with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II ... It somehow feels a bit like Canon was lazy here not including the IS module ... None the less I am waiting to see how good the lens really is (I have the MK I - but a really really good one so I maybe won't need an update soon)


----------



## bycostello (May 6, 2012)

if i had a 5d3 i would as it was redesigned for that camera..


----------



## TotoEC (May 6, 2012)

“Based on the theoretical MTF . ._ {snip}. _ . . the 24-70 II easily beats _{snip}_ its predecessor . ._ {snip} . . {snip}. _ . “

“Compared to mrk I...mrk II is smaller, lighter and SHARPER. . . . ._ {snip} _ . . .”

I have v1 and it provides me with an exceptional image. If I use DPP and PS to adjust the IQ, I get a stellar image.

I am satisfied with what I have and I will replace my copy only when I see irrefutable evidence that vII is what everyone claims it to be.

After all, *PICTURE SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS*

;D


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 6, 2012)

TotoEC said:


> “Based on the theoretical MTF . ._ {snip}. _ . . the 24-70 II easily beats _{snip}_ its predecessor . ._ {snip} . . {snip}. _ . “
> 
> “Compared to mrk I...mrk II is smaller, lighter and SHARPER. . . . ._ {snip} _ . . .”
> 
> ...



I am also waiting for real world images ... The NEW Tamron 24-70 is also said to be better than the MKI resolution wise (from some lab tests) but does not deliver when I look at the tests here: 

http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Dylan777 (May 7, 2012)

1982chris911 said:


> TotoEC said:
> 
> 
> > “Based on the theoretical MTF . ._ {snip}. _ . . the 24-70 II easily beats _{snip}_ its predecessor . ._ {snip} . . {snip}. _ . “
> ...



My 2cents - What do you have to loose when B&H offers 30 days return policy(maybe $20 shipping fees). 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/ReturnExchange.jsp?cm_sp=Footer-_-Help-_-RtrnPolicy

JUST BUY IT - touch it, feel it, and shoot it - IF the lens is not for you, then return it within 30days. Why wait for the world passes by. If you at look 70-200 f2.8 IS II MTF chart and the lens real world results - I don't see a lot people complain about this lens at all.

If I had waited for real world reviews on 5D III, I guess I'm still waiting for B&H to ship my 5D III. 

Again...this is just me


----------



## Chris Burch (May 9, 2012)

I'm an event and wedding shooter and I use my 24-70 about just about all of the time unless there is a stage to shoot -- switch to a 70-200 for that. Even though it's my most used lens, it's by far my least favorite. Even after sending it to Canon for calibration, it's still not even close to the sharpness of my 70-200 f/2.8. I try to never use it for portraits if I can avoid it. It would be soooo nice to be able to shoot location portraits and just roll right into candids with the same lens. I've had the MarkII version on order since the day it was announced and would pay even more if I had to. I REALLY hope it lives up to the hype.

As for IS, I had no use for it until I started shooting video. I have a 24-105 (came with 5Diii kit), but this lens is varifocal and a few extra stops with video shooting would be invaluable. It's hard enough to pull focus on the 5Dii -- way harder when you want to zoom while shooting and need to adjust focus along the way. Adding IS would have made the MarkII a perfect video lens. I think I'll be adding the Magic Lantern hack soon and am hoping some of those tools will help.


----------



## Axilrod (May 9, 2012)

JR said:


> If the lens is as good as the chart, i plan to buy it. Main reason is flexibility of having a zoom with near prime sharpness for when i need it - simply for convenience. I will not replace my primes, but sometime i feel i could really benefit from a zoom in the 24-70 range instead of switching lens all the time...



+1, I love my primes, but there are plenty of times I wish I could just grab one lens and not worry about carrying too much/swapping. If it performs anything like the 70-200 II I will definitely be picking one up. And plus with the ISO capabilities of the 5DIII I'm sure f/2.8 will be fast enough for most situations.


----------



## infared (May 12, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> I will get one as well. I sold my 24-70 V1 when the rumors started flying about the MK2. Now I've just been using my 24-105 waiting patiently for the new 24-70!


I sold my 24-105mm back in April in anticipation of the 24-70mm II....I can't believe I have to wait until July (if then?)....but the cool thing is I have been forced to use my primes more witch is a definite plus...I have to find the shot and work more at it. Can't be lazy with a zoom!


----------



## wickidwombat (May 15, 2012)

interesting comparison
tamron looks sharper in the center
less fall off in light on the corners but man does iq go to hell in the corners on the tamron
tamron looks to have better contrast than the mk1
overall looking at that I hate to say it but the tamron looks better since the mid frame sharpness is pretty much a wash between the 2.

I really wonder if buying the tamron and a 35 f1.4 might be better than buying the 24-70 mk2
the 35 f1.4 has been tempting me to buy it for quite a while now. knowing my luck i'd buy it and they would anounce the mk2

cant wait to see the mk2 results though


----------



## RuneL (May 15, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Looking at the new Canon 24-70 Spec and MTF chart, I wonder how many CRs member going to buy this lens? and what is your number ONE reason to buy mrk II?
> 
> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24_70mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm
> 
> ...



Buying it if the quality holds up, I did have the chance of trying one and I did look extremely good. The number one reason is that the zoom range is good, if it wasn't I'd have sold that horrible 24-70 a long time ago.


----------



## birdman (May 15, 2012)

I think it will be a great addition for wedding photogs, but as a walk around a little too large....and zoom range a little too short on FF. 

It looks to be incredible, and it is incredibly priced as well. It'll be the definitive 24-70 zoom of ALL manufacturers, besting Nikon's counterpart, Sony's counterpart, and killing the new Tamron 24-70 VC in IQ alone. 

If they'd included IS the image quality would have taken a slight hit I honestly believe. I'm sure they researched it, tested it, and developed the lens according to those factors. I will never get it, opting for the 24-105 or it's replacement if that ever comes to fruition. I need IS on a zoom, no doubt.


----------



## h4ldol (May 15, 2012)

birdman said:


> I think it will be a great addition for wedding photogs, but as a walk around a little too large....and zoom range a little too short on FF.



Really? I was thinking about getting one as a walk around. I know it's rather long and with the hood, really long, but you think it would be that cumbersome or uncomfortable (bulk/weight) as a walk around? 

Just like that I'm wondering if the 24-70mm is not the right lens for me, although I don't know about the 24-105mm since I would mostly be using it to take pics of my 10 month old baby who does move around rather a lot.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 16, 2012)

h4ldol said:


> birdman said:
> 
> 
> > I think it will be a great addition for wedding photogs, but as a walk around a little too large....and zoom range a little too short on FF.
> ...



Wait until the baby is 3yrs...you gonna need 1D X & 24-70 II ;D


----------



## h4ldol (May 16, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Wait until the baby is 3yrs...you gonna need 1D X & 24-70 II ;D



That's the plan! Well, by then maybe it'll be IDX mark II and 24-70mm mark III IS. 

j/k... I will be using my current gear for many more years than that probably...


----------



## sovietdoc (May 16, 2012)

I am scared to get my 24-70 II because currently my only walk-around lens is f/2.8L 70-200 II. I really don't want to keep swapping lenses and at the same time I'd need to make a choice to which will be my primary and I absolutely love the 70-200.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 16, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> I am scared to get my 24-70 II because currently my only walk-around lens is f/2.8L 70-200 II. I really don't want to keep swapping lenses and at the same time I'd need to make a choice to which will be my primary and I absolutely love the 70-200.



I understand your concern. But I'm thinking the new 24-70 f/2.8L II will be as sharp or nearly as sharp as the 35L and 50L at similar apertures, so maybe this will have a lot of bang for the buck? We'll see, but I definitely preordered one.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (May 16, 2012)

in the end it's all about IQ. And Canon is ready to provide another stellar zoom lens. To me that's no mean achievement.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 16, 2012)

Between the 24-105mm f/4 and primes such as 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, & 85mm f/1.8, I'm not really waiting for a 24-70mm f/2.8

If the 24-70mm f/2.8 would have stellar IQ, and the primes are not updated, I might dump the 35mm f/2 & my search for a goof 24mm prime, and buy it.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 16, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> I really wonder if buying the tamron and a 35 f1.4 might be better than buying the 24-70 mk2
> the 35 f1.4 has been tempting me to buy it for quite a while now. knowing my luck i'd buy it and they would anounce the mk2



My thought exactly: Buy the Tamron 24-70/2.8 and/or 35L instead of one Canon 24-70ii, though I'm interested if it'll live up to the hype, too.

It's the same thing like the 5d3 - you can get two 5d2 for the price of one 5d3, two Tamrons for the price of one updated Canon lens. Now of course few people need a similar backup body, let alone two equal lenses - but it helps getting the price vs. iq/feature relation straight.


----------



## ssrdd (May 16, 2012)

its too expensive..
[its not wide and close enough focal length].


----------



## Marsu42 (May 16, 2012)

ssrdd said:


> its too expensive.. [its not wide and close enough focal length].



As far as I see it, the 24-70ii is designed as an event and wedding lens to work in combination with Canon's other standard for these occasions: the 70-200ii. I guess Canon figured that when shooting people, you don't really need IS for this zoom range because of the min. shutter speed for moving objects, and that for professionals it's in the exact 70-200ii price range they're used to get for their work.


----------



## HarryWintergreen (May 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ssrdd said:
> 
> 
> > its too expensive.. [its not wide and close enough focal length].
> ...



very good point!


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 16, 2012)

HarryWintergreen said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > ssrdd said:
> ...


----------

