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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 7, 2012)

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II


----------



## almograve (Nov 7, 2012)

Totally agree! I think this is a good resume of the lens.

I have a 17-40 and a 70-200 and I kinda miss the 24-70 for a lot of things....I need it....

When can I hope for the next rebate program? Nothing before Xmas? right after?

thank you!


----------



## thedman (Nov 7, 2012)

I think one factor to explain the missing IS is that this lens is aimed at landscape photogs who are always shooting on a tripod and turning off IS anyway.


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 7, 2012)

While IS is great and I'm reluctant to even consider lenses over 70 mm without it, the 24-70 falls under this range. If you can effectively hand-hold a lens at a shutter speed equivalent to the focal distance, 1/60th of a second ain't that bad, and you really need at least that just to stop motion, with or without IS.


----------



## trulandphoto (Nov 7, 2012)

I've said this before. Although bulkier and heavier, I appreciate the hood setup on the old 24-70 for moving around without a lens cap on. When you bring the barrel back to 70mm there's a lot of protection there. And when the barrel is extended, it's all inside the hood.

Not so with the new lens, where the barrel has no protection at all when extended. If I knock up against something with the old lens, or drag it through the brush, nothing touches the lens itself.

Just my preference, I guess.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 7, 2012)

I found this review VERY TRUE and straight forward. 

How do I know? I own one.


----------



## thedman (Nov 7, 2012)

JVLphoto said:


> While IS is great and I'm reluctant to use it on lenses past 70 mm,



Really? I thought longer lenses were what IS was really made for. It's harder to handhold 300mm than it is 24 mm.


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 7, 2012)

thedman said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > While IS is great and I'm reluctant to use it on lenses past 70 mm,
> ...



Oops, totally mis-wrote that - edited and revised.


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 7, 2012)

trulandphoto said:


> I've said this before. Although bulkier and heavier, I appreciate the hood setup on the old 24-70 for moving around without a lens cap on. When you bring the barrel back to 70mm there's a lot of protection there. And when the barrel is extended, it's all inside the hood.
> 
> Not so with the new lens, where the barrel has no protection at all when extended. If I knock up against something with the old lens, or drag it through the brush, nothing touches the lens itself.
> 
> Just my preference, I guess.



Yeah, owning the version 1 24-70 the extension never bothered me because I never noticed it with the lens hood attached. It did bulk things up a big, and made for an intimidating lens attached. I *was* able to cram more in my bag when on assignment with the new lens though - which is a plus.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 7, 2012)

One character of the lens is the starburst effect it achieves when light goes direct into it. Very characteristic of this lens. Hands down better than the previous and worth every penny.


----------



## BL (Nov 7, 2012)

thedman said:


> I think one factor to explain the missing IS is that this lens is aimed at landscape photogs who are always shooting on a tripod and turning off IS anyway.



saying this lens was aimed at landscape photographers is a bit of a stretch, no? i'm always looking for the widest, lightest piece of kit to bring with my tripod when i go hiking/camping for days at a time

more like wedding photographers imo


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 7, 2012)

almograve said:


> When can I hope for the next rebate program? Nothing before Xmas? right after?



At least in the European rebate programs Canon in just discounting older and standard lenses and some tele zooms - I wouldn't hope for an official discount on this one for one or even two years to come I'm afraid to say. More likely they'll do a kit with the 5d3 sooner or later, I remember it's been seen in Australia.


----------



## Scott911 (Nov 7, 2012)

What do lens, in general, cost Canon to make?

macrumors, for example, usually reports to the penny what an i-device costs after a tear down.

I know R&D costs will very between lenses, and that those R&D cost are distributed in much different rates due to the popularity of a lens, but anyone have any thoughts?

For example, let's take this lens - at $2200. It is claimed to be a kit lens, so a relatively high number will be made, spreading our R&D. 

What's canon making on this lens - $400 or $1800 ?


----------



## shtarker (Nov 7, 2012)

Kit Lens? For which camera? I don't think this will ever be a kit lens.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 7, 2012)

Only a Canadian would post a photo of a car with its winter tires installed. Of course, I guess, it takes a Canadian to notice something like that.


----------



## turtle (Nov 7, 2012)

I have various L lenses (135, 85 II, 24 1.4 II etc) and this lens knocked my socks off. Brilliantly sharp from wide open and the edges are something else. Contrast and pop is first rate and all in all it performs like the best primes yet is a zoom. Its ability to hold onto contrast in backlit subjects is breathtaking.

I could not care less about the plastic build as the military have been using plastic for decades and if you use the right stuff, it is often better than metal because it is lighter and deals with shock better quite often. It handles beautifully and, while shocked by the price (esp in the UK), this lens is going to be a workhorse on my 5D III and also the film bodies I love to use.

This lens is probably the most satisfying SLR lens I have ever used. Along with a long zoom and a fast portrait lens, you really do have 95% of the optics most will ever need.

Well done Canon.


----------



## gmrza (Nov 8, 2012)

BL said:


> thedman said:
> 
> 
> > I think one factor to explain the missing IS is that this lens is aimed at landscape photogs who are always shooting on a tripod and turning off IS anyway.
> ...



Probably more likely - reportage is usually regarded as being one of the primary uses of this lens - i.e. wedding photographers and photojournalists. They usually need to shoot with shutter speeds fast enough to stop the normal motion of people (walking, talking, moving arms etc). For that they will need to shoot at shutter speeds fast enough to obviate the need for IS.

Of course, if you have a good copy of this lens, it looks like it is shaping up to be very nice for landscapes.


----------



## pwp (Nov 8, 2012)

Yesterday I finished a 48 hour test-drive of the new 24-70 f/2.8II. After four utterly hopeless copies of the MkI over a number of years I was going to take some convincing. 

I worked the lens hard across half a dozen highly varying locations shooting from wide open to f/11. This morning I had a very close look at yesterday's work and have to say I'm gob-smacked. The new lens has a subtle, almost indefinable, exquisite quality all its own, and the IQ was equal to my L primes, even at the f/2.8-f/5.6 range. In a brickwall style test I shot a tall stack of shipping containers, as square on as I could get. The f/2.8 shots were fundamentally indistinguishable from the f/5.6 & f/8 frames. Amazing. 

In a nutshell, this is the best short zoom I have ever used. At last, a 24-70 I can trust enough to use for the most demanding commercial work. 

-PW


----------



## liberace (Nov 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> almograve said:
> 
> 
> > When can I hope for the next rebate program? Nothing before Xmas? right after?
> ...





shtarker said:


> Kit Lens? For which camera? I don't think this will ever be a kit lens.



As Marsu42 posted, this is already a kit lens in some markets (Australia/NZ and maybe others).


----------



## station16 (Nov 8, 2012)

It seems like a great lens, but the price just kills it for me. I still can't understand how Canon keeps coming out with new products at higher price points than ever while the world has been in a global recession and economies continue to suffer. It's very short sighted and clueless of Canon. I would buy this in a heart beat if it was $1,700.


----------



## pwp (Nov 8, 2012)

station16 said:


> It seems like a great lens, but the price just kills it for me. I still can't understand how Canon keeps coming out with new products at higher price points than ever while the world has been in a global recession and economies continue to suffer. It's very short sighted and clueless of Canon. I would buy this in a heart beat if it was $1,700.



After my 48 hour evaluation I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I could just get my hands on one. It's a two-three week wait where I live.

The price? I think I paid around $2200 when the MkI was released in November 2002. After ten years Canon would have well and truly made back their ROI on the MkI, enabling price reductions. I'd say for a new model this could be seen as a price drop when seen in its historical context. Canon has profit obligations to its shareholders. They're not a charity. Study supply & demand. Sometimes it's a valid & viable business strategy to be reassuringly expensive. It works for me.

-PW


----------



## dave (Nov 8, 2012)

station16 said:


> It seems like a great lens, but the price just kills it for me. I still can't understand how Canon keeps coming out with new products at higher price points than ever while the world has been in a global recession and economies continue to suffer. It's very short sighted and clueless of Canon. I would buy this in a heart beat if it was $1,700.



I'd buy a 1D X, 600mm f/4 and so on if they cost less than a week's pay. But they don't. So I work out what I want most and save until I can afford it.

Find a company that makes a better 24-70mm for $1700 and buy it. Canon are among the best few in the world at what they do and charge the price that suits them based on the market as it fluctuates and evolves. Blame the consumers because they are the ones who really set the prices (See 5D Mark iii).

To me, the 35L and 24L ii and 85L ii are not cost-effective - but the 24-70mm ii is. An appropriate price is judged against your use and your needs. What you are saying is that you feel the 24-70mm ii is worth $1700 to you. Fair enough. It just means waiting.


----------



## Zlatko (Nov 8, 2012)

station16 said:


> It seems like a great lens, but the price just kills it for me. I still can't understand how Canon keeps coming out with new products at higher price points than ever while the world has been in a global recession and economies continue to suffer. It's very short sighted and clueless of Canon. I would buy this in a heart beat if it was $1,700.


The new products are at higher price points because they are better than the old products. It costs more to build things better. If they built them for lower price points, they would be worse products than they are.


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 8, 2012)

dave said:


> Find a company that makes a better 24-70mm for $1700 and buy it. Canon are among the best few in the world at what they do and charge the price that suits them based on the market as it fluctuates and evolves. Blame the consumers because they are the ones who really set the prices (See 5D Mark iii).


I did. I traded my 5D Classic and 24-105 for a Nikon 24-70 2.8 and bought a used D700. I couldn't be happier with my decision.
Canon's pricing the past couple of years has been too high on everything.


----------



## turtle (Nov 8, 2012)

Before getting my 5D III and 24-70 L III had been tempted by to do to Nikon and buy the D800 and 24-70, switching all my lenses across just the same. I desperately wanted the DR I am used to with film, when factoring in the dev and printing flexibility.

I am very glad I did not, because what the 5d III lacks in outright sensor performance, it makes up for with responsiveness and great all round utility. The new lens is a good deal shorter than the Nikon and I did not feel comfortable with such a long standard zoom. That might sound silly, but with the incredible performance of the new lens, I will be well set for higher res cameras of the future. I have little doubt after all the hoo-ha, Canon will pull a finger out re DR and banding in the next full generation leap of sensors.

I don't think the new 5D III will cut it sensor wise for the documentary work I do (often in extreme contrast), but it will for weddings and the like. In the meantime, that incredible 24-70 II will do nicely on my Eos 3s


----------



## calydus (Nov 8, 2012)

I suggest you guys read this review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff

These guys are VERY thorough with their review.
Based on this, I decided to go for the Tamron (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff) as each of the lenses has their pros and cons, but the price vs the pros of the Canon 24-70 II wasn't enough for me justifying buying this lens against the Tamron one.

It seems that a lot of people just like to have the "fame" or "high end image" that seems to come with a red ring on the Canon lenses, but they aren't necessary the best, just because it's "Canon" and the price tag is crazy high.

Don't get me wrong I love Canon lenses and all the other lenses that I got, are Canon lenses. But I had high expectations and they didn't came. Many of the reviews had high expectations too... and I find Canon failed to impress with this one, mainly because of the price tag... but still no IS, or any other thing you would expect in this price range.


----------



## RVB (Nov 8, 2012)

Just got one of these a couple of hours ago,excellent glass,wide open at 24mm and it is sharp across the frame,expensive but superb.IS would add weight and complexity and I am not convinced its needed at these focal lengths.. the price will drop over the next few months.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 8, 2012)

I Love the IQ of the 24-70 II, Its just I can't afford it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 8, 2012)

Scott911 said:


> What do lens, in general, cost Canon to make?
> 
> macrumors, for example, usually reports to the penny what an i-device costs after a tear down.
> 
> ...



Where did see this lens as kit lens? Have you ever see mk1 as a kit lens before?


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 8, 2012)

liberace said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > almograve said:
> ...



There is no confirmed as of(Nov 8th, 2012) that 24-70 II is selling as kit lens with 5D III at discounted price.


----------



## liberace (Nov 8, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> liberace said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



It most certainly does exist as a kit lens in Australia - I own it. The discount is only $100 when buying together. A shot of the box is a few posts back.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 8, 2012)

liberace said:


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



Thanks for confirm this. Nothing here in the US...yet


----------



## mpetersheim (Nov 8, 2012)

I've got one question unrelated to the lens, regarding the comment that, given the crop factor on a non-FF body, "the 70mm range effectively results in 112mm making it a ideal portrait lens". 

I've seen comments in this vein in many places online, and I don't understand them; how is it more of a portrait lens on a 60D than a 5D MkII? Is it just because it gives you a further working distance from your subject? Because that's the only benefit I see...

I understand the definition of a good portrait lens to include such aspects as compression/distortion and background blur in addition to the field of view, but when using the same lens on a 60D as compared to a 5D MkII, we get:
*Compression/Distortion*: this doesn't change between bodies, so it's still 70mm, not 112mm.
*Background blur*: for the same composition, a 60D requires a further distance from subject, increasing DOF = decreasing background blur at the same aperture. This makes it _less_ of a portrait lens, no?
* Field of view*: for the same composition, a 60D requires a further distance from subject; in isolation (i.e. not considering effect on DOF) this may be good, as the subject is likely to be somewhat less self-conscious.

I'm not wanting to be controversial; this is a question I've long harbored and for which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer, so confirmation or correction of my stated understanding is welcomed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2012)

mpetersheim said:


> *Compression/Distortion*: this doesn't change between bodies, so it's still 70mm, not 112mm.



These are referring to perspective, and the _only_ thing that determines perspective is distance to subject, i.e. focal length is irrelevant. Since you're further from your subject for the same framing on APS-C, there will be more perspective compression, which is usually viewed as a 'good thing' for portraits.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 8, 2012)

Nice job of reviewing, Justin. I've had five of the Mark I copies. None really bad, but not good enough for me to keep them.
I've been watching and reading the reviews, and deliberating if f/2.8 is fast enough for my low light use. Right now, I use fast primes, and usually find them at f/2 or faster even with extreme high ISO settings.
I did purchase a D800 with 24-70G lens, and found myself at ISO 12800 much of the time, and the D800 requires a ton of NR at 12800. The images still look good, but I need a supercomputer to do that level of NR on a 150mb image. I gave up pretty quickly on that idea.


----------



## mpetersheim (Nov 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> mpetersheim said:
> 
> 
> > *Compression/Distortion*: this doesn't change between bodies, so it's still 70mm, not 112mm.
> ...



Really?!? So if I shoot a portrait on a medium format body with a 150mm lens and do another from the same distance with a 60D and 50mm lens, then crop both photos to identical framing the perspective will be exactly the same?


----------



## ahab1372 (Nov 8, 2012)

mpetersheim said:


> Really?!? So if I shoot a portrait on a medium format body with a 150mm lens and do another from the same distance with a 60D and 50mm lens, then crop both photos to identical framing the perspective will be exactly the same?


Yes exactly. 
I don't have a MF camera available, but it's also fun to test with the same camera and your favorite zoom.


----------



## mpetersheim (Nov 8, 2012)

ahab1372 said:


> mpetersheim said:
> 
> 
> > Really?!? So if I shoot a portrait on a medium format body with a 150mm lens and do another from the same distance with a 60D and 50mm lens, then crop both photos to identical framing the perspective will be exactly the same?
> ...


Wow... apparently I don't know much about some of the more technical aspects of photography; I think I'll do just what you suggested. Thanks for confirming, and thanks to neuroanatomist for the initial correction. Now to go test for myself...


----------



## gmrza (Nov 8, 2012)

pwp said:


> station16 said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like a great lens, but the price just kills it for me. I still can't understand how Canon keeps coming out with new products at higher price points than ever while the world has been in a global recession and economies continue to suffer. It's very short sighted and clueless of Canon. I would buy this in a heart beat if it was $1,700.
> ...



I haven't spent nearly as much time as you with this lens, but what I have experienced so far is similar to what you describe. So far my perception is also that the colour rendition is very good.

In my mind, the only concern so far with this lens is that there seems to be some copy variance, which may be significant. - I can't help but wonder if the guys at photozone.de got one of the "inferior" copies.


----------



## gmrza (Nov 8, 2012)

liberace said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > almograve said:
> ...



I can confirm it is available as a kit in AU. I think the single box for the kit is taking longer to reach all dealers - we got ours as 2 separate boxes (not the one shown in the image).

You will find almost all Australian dealers are advertising this kit, which is advertised for about $6099 (including GST) but which can be had for around $5800 if you haggle a little. - That's about $5272 excl GST for those wanting to compare to American prices.


----------



## turtle (Nov 9, 2012)

Calydus, they are thorough, but sadly there is sample variation. Their results certainly don't square with mine, which would suggest their copy is towards the bottom of the pile. I don't even need to run a test chart. Its blindingly obvious from the few hundred files I have shot. I thought my 70-200 F4 L was good, but this lens is a definite notch up on that and light years ahead of my Sigma 24-60 f2.8. I might test it against my 24 1.4L II, but I can already see the new zoom will match it, if it does not surpass it. Gut feeling tells me the zoom has more contrast than the prime too. 

A little internet research suggests most people are amazed by their copies, some ambivalent and think it 'very good but not astounding' with one or two people not seeing the fuss at all. There will be some calibration issues in there along with a few dog lenses. I have no reason to think mine exceptional as plenty of others seem to share my amazement at the performance.

The one thing I will agree with is that the lens gets noticeably weaker towards 70mm, but it is still very good indeed. Distortion could be better too.... but on resolution, contrast and bokeh, its an a stunning lens.



calydus said:


> I suggest you guys read this review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff
> 
> These guys are VERY thorough with their review.
> Based on this, I decided to go for the Tamron (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff) as each of the lenses has their pros and cons, but the price vs the pros of the Canon 24-70 II wasn't enough for me justifying buying this lens against the Tamron one.
> ...


----------



## gmrza (Nov 9, 2012)

turtle said:


> Calydus, they are thorough, but sadly there is sample variation. Their results certainly don't square with mine, which would suggest their copy is towards the bottom of the pile. I don't even need to run a test chart. Its blindingly obvious from the few hundred files I have shot. I thought my 70-200 F4 L was good, but this lens is a definite notch up on that and light years ahead of my Sigma 24-60 f2.8. I might test it against my 24 1.4L II, but I can already see the new zoom will match it, if it does not surpass it. Gut feeling tells me the zoom has more contrast than the prime too.



I am now beginning to think that is probably the only place were photozone.de's process falls down.

In order to review a lens properly, you need to review a statistically relevant sample of the overall population of that lens. That probably represents a cost which the guys at photozone could not stomach.

Ultimately, a really thorough review would also give a view of the expected sample variation in the population, as this is also an important characteristic of the quality of a lens - i.e. the lower the variance of the quality the better the manufacturing and QA process is, and the higher the likelihood that you as a purchaser will get a good copy.

Now if the guys at Photozone.de had access to the stock at Lensrentals.com..... (Unfortunately, that would require some tectonic engineering to achieve.)


----------



## Invertalon (Nov 9, 2012)

I agree, Photozone definitely had an off copy of the lens. It seems there is some serious variation with many 24-70 type lenses. Must be due to the complexity of the optical design. Tends to be more than any other it seems.

I have tried (2) copies of this lens. The first was excellent all around except for the fact at 24mm the right edge of the frame was soft compared to the left, MOST of the time. It is like the focus plane was very far forward on that edge. Very strange. 

I swapped it for another and no longer have that issue. Equally as sharp on both sides of the frame at 24mm... I am guessing a decentered lens element for sure. The lenses were very comparable sharpness wise on both ends wide open, though. I see no real difference besides the softness I had at 24mm on the first. 

Amazing lens though... Made that range fun again simply due to the amazing IQ. I rarely ever used my 24-105 for the years I had it. Great lens, but the IQ was decent at best. The 24-70 II has become a staple in my shooting, much like the 70-200 II has. Will be in my bag for a long time, no doubt.


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Only a Canadian would post a photo of a car with its winter tires installed. Of course, I guess, it takes a Canadian to notice something like that.



lol - well played - it was a shot of my buddy on the way back from a commercial shoot. 4 hours of driving, we just wanted to have some fun with the sky and all the equipment on-hand.

And the winter tires


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 9, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nice job of reviewing, Justin. I've had five of the Mark I copies. None really bad, but not good enough for me to keep them.
> I've been watching and reading the reviews, and deliberating if f/2.8 is fast enough for my low light use. Right now, I use fast primes, and usually find them at f/2 or faster even with extreme high ISO settings.
> I did purchase a D800 with 24-70G lens, and found myself at ISO 12800 much of the time, and the D800 requires a ton of NR at 12800. The images still look good, but I need a supercomputer to do that level of NR on a 150mb image. I gave up pretty quickly on that idea.



Thanks! Noise all depends on what your final output is required for. I'm thankful so much of my work is for web, I neither need the MP's or to worry too much about noise as it's suppressed when downsized.


----------



## LSV (Nov 10, 2012)

Good review, but I was distracted by multiple instances of incorrect usage of "it's" for the possessive pronoun "its". It's worth mentioning because it is a formal review.


----------



## julescar (Nov 10, 2012)

I have both the Tamron which I paid $1000 for and the 24-70 ii I paid $2200 in Australia, I own heaps of Canon & Nikon Lenses many of them expensive primes and without any doubt after a week of shooting with it the 24-70 ii is the best lens I have ever used. The Nikon 24-70 is only $300 cheaper (best price non grey market) and the Canon is much better.


----------



## JVLphoto (Nov 10, 2012)

LSV said:


> Good review, but I was distracted by multiple instances of incorrect usage of "it's" for the possessive pronoun "its". It's worth mentioning because it is a formal review.



Thanks man, I'm the worst at checking my own work, I have an editor for future reviews, hopefully CRG can make some edits to the live site (since I don't have access).


----------



## Razor2012 (Nov 30, 2012)

Yes good review. Now just waiting for the 14-24 2.8 to show up (then I can trade it for the 16-35).


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 30, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Yes good review. Now just waiting for the 14-24 2.8 to show up (then I can trade it for the 16-35).


+1.....get ready to put another thousand on top of that 16-35 II ;D


----------



## al-toidz photography (Jan 11, 2013)

@ trulandphoto
I agree with you. I have the mark I and even if I have the money to buy the mark II, I wouldn't. The lens design of the mark I and including the 28-70 is much better than the mark II. Given that it is lighter and smaller it doesn't justify the new design as it is vulnerable in some situations. For example, from DigitalRev, Kai have mentioned and showed on youtube video that he dropped there company's 24-70 mark I and the only damage it has is the dent filter thread. Now imagine that happening to the new mark II lens. With its plastic filter thread, I cant imagine whats going to happen with that lens. Now I know that the chances of that happening is slim to none but if that happens, well, you better pray to the God of lenses. 

On several occasions, one, when I was shooting a model on location, someone just pass by and bump in with my 24-70 mark I on it with the hood on. I was confident that nothing happened with the barrel because the hood protected the lens while I was shooting approximately at 35mm. On a separate occasion, I was walking around for a casual street photography, someone bump in again to my lens. And sure enough, I wasn't worried the lens was damage because the barrel was protected by the lens hood.

As I mentioned, even if I have the money to buy the mark II lens, I wouldn't, just simply because of the lens design. I just wish that the sharpness it has is also at the mark I version (based from users and reviews). However, when I was watching the review of SLRLounge on youtube comparing the mark I and mark II side-by-side, I can't see *any or *big difference against the mark I. Maybe because of the fact that I own the mark I and not the mark II that the ownership ego is getting the best of me to *blindly not admit the difference between the two versions. I would like to hear some comments regarding this issue after you watch the lens review from SLRLounge.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 11, 2013)

al-toidz photography said:


> @ trulandphoto
> I agree with you. I have the mark I and even if I have the money to buy the mark II, I wouldn't. The lens design of the mark I and including the 28-70 is much better than the mark II. Given that it is lighter and smaller it doesn't justify the new design as it is vulnerable in some situations.



According to Roger at LensRentals the mkI was very vulnerable to becoming banged out of calibration because of its construction that he deemed quite inferior to the new version. Not only was the new version better made but was much more likely to stay aligned and calibrated throughout its life.
After hearing years of wailing about the problems of unsharp ver1 models I am glad to be able to buy this one.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 11, 2013)

>>The Front Group of the 24-70 Version I
I put this part separately because I’m convinced the front element design of the original 24-70 f/2.8 accounted for a lot of its problems.<<
Roger Cicala-teardown review of the 24-70mkI

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii


----------



## al-toidz photography (Jan 11, 2013)

@NormalNorm
That's good to know. However, canon and other lens/camera manufacturer, professional lens rental stores, professional and experienced individuals recommends to annually (preferably 2X a year) to send lens to their own respective manufacturers or other professional camera store that offers calibration to calibrate lenses in order to 1. calibrate the lens for optimal use and 2. to service the lens itself for longer life. But point taken, the mark I version has its own flaws and one of which is the front area being too heavy thus making it vulnerable for easy misalignment. It is undeniable that LensRental is also bias on there review because they don't want people to buy their own lens but instead rent it. *People* will not call it a workhorse for no reason if this problem occurs a lot. LensRental review is very subjective as it does not portray a real world accidents that happens in terms of the lens being bump-in while walking in real world. After all, why would they have such lens on their store if the mark I is really vulnerable on this area. Don't you think that is a little pain in their *ss to keep fixing it the mark I lens every time this happens. Furthermore, why would they still keep the mark I on their inventory if mark II is been out already. I mean, sure, people still wants to rent it to see what is the mark I all about, specially for people that are thinking of buying one in the used market. But why keep many? I called LensRental and ask them how many do they have in their inventory as I told them I might need several copy for my friends and they said they have a lot.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 12, 2013)

al-toidz photography said:


> @NormalNorm
> That's good to know. However, canon and other lens/camera manufacturer, professional lens rental stores, professional and experienced individuals recommends to annually (preferably 2X a year) to send lens to their own respective manufacturers or other professional camera store that offers calibration to calibrate lenses in order to 1. calibrate the lens for optimal use and 2. to service the lens itself for longer life. But point taken, the mark I version has its own flaws and one of which is the front area being too heavy thus making it vulnerable for easy misalignment. It is undeniable that LensRental is also bias on there review because they don't want people to buy their own lens but instead rent it. *People* will not call it a workhorse for no reason if this problem occurs a lot. LensRental review is very subjective as it does not portray a real world accidents that happens in terms of the lens being bump-in while walking in real world. After all, why would they have such lens on their store if the mark I is really vulnerable on this area. Don't you think that is a little pain in their *ss to keep fixing it the mark I lens every time this happens. Furthermore, why would they still keep the mark I on their inventory if mark II is been out already. I mean, sure, people still wants to rent it to see what is the mark I all about, specially for people that are thinking of buying one in the used market. But why keep many? I called LensRental and ask them how many do they have in their inventory as I told them I might need several copy for my friends and they said they have a lot.



People were complaining about it going soft after time before LR ever mentioned that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 12, 2013)

calydus said:


> I suggest you guys read this review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff
> 
> These guys are VERY thorough with their review.
> Based on this, I decided to go for the Tamron (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff) as each of the lenses has their pros and cons, but the price vs the pros of the Canon 24-70 II wasn't enough for me justifying buying this lens against the Tamron one.
> ...



The near 24mm range is super important to me. The Tamron is good there but it's not a match for a 24 1.4 II or anything and yet the 24-70 II is. The 24-70 II tests out better almost everywhere on PZ other than edges and corners at 70mm, that is a little bit of a shame, but I mean it tests better everywhere else, including center frame 70mm including wide open so in a more portrait, low DOF mode it does better than the Tamron there and it does better as corner to corner landscape lens everywhere else so to me the Canon is the one. The only one to finally bring truly stunning performance to a standard FF zoom. Plus, it also has the super precision AF for use with 5D3/1DX. I don't believe the Tamron does.

The tamron is a solid value though, no doubt. And it does have VC.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 12, 2013)

mpetersheim said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mpetersheim said:
> ...



think about it this way, without magic the lens could have no idea what is behind it, a large or small sensor, the lens projects what it projects and that is that, the exact same image is projected onto a wall behind it, different sensor sizes are just like drawing different size boxes on the wall, draw a large box for MM and then draw a small box inside that frame, erase the outer box and the smaller box inside is the APS-C frame and it is still the same box you were able to draw inside th MF box and nothing about the image projected into it suddenly changes as you erase the larger outer box that you draw on the wall (unless maybe you are a witch or warlock ;D)


----------



## Klick (Mar 7, 2013)

Hi everybody,

I was a tiny bit 'scared' buying this lens with the price in mind. It is quite a commodity to have on your 5DmkII in a land like Indonesia.

After using it on my last trip to Bali i must say; this is THE lens. It is not only the best Canon lens but also the first lens you should get if your budget allows you to, at this point in life, get just one lens.

I used to own the 24-105 because it came with my camera but sold it years ago when the first rumors of the 24-70 II appeared. Haha... Yes, i waited a long, long time for this lens. I even bought the 50mm 1.2 to fill the gap between my 16-35 II and my 70-200 IS II 2.8.

If there is one thing i want to point out here is; don't even consider the 24-105 IS in favor of this lens ! It is such an inferior lens in comparison. The IS ? I have been able to be successful with the 24-70 II many times at shutter speeds as low as 1/40 th of a second. Tag sharp ! Not streetphotography-blurry-style. No, tag sharp images during daytime on the steets of Bali.

So, IS ? For me it is a non-existent barrier. And the optical quality of the 24-105 is a joke in comparison. Making video ? Buy a 50$ Joby flexible tripod and use it as a shoulder-stabilizer if you have to.

But... I am extremely happy with my new all-round lens. It is so much sharper and faster that it bumps your focusing success rate of your 5DmkII considerably. (Yes, i also considered to buy a 5DmkIII instead of this lens to be more successful in photographing moving objects but i am so glad i made this decision since the image quality of the mkII and mkIII are on par)

So overall, for those of you who are not sure for whatever reason; the price, the IS or family planning; it hurts a lot in your wallet but it's worth every penny in my opinion.

Thx for reading,
Cheers !


----------



## JVLphoto (May 29, 2014)

Update: I've been using this lens now as part of my regular workflow since December. In this time I've found the lens hood has become quite loose. While it hasn't fallen off completely, I find that when it's at my side (like at events) the hood twists a bit which makes the petals mis-align with the format of the sensor, essentially resulting in them showing up in ~24mm wide shots. I might want to add a bit of gaffer tape to the hood just to keep it in place and avoid this problem later on.

So yeah... FYI.


----------



## philmoz (May 29, 2014)

JVLphoto said:


> Update: I've been using this lens now as part of my regular workflow since December. In this time I've found the lens hood has become quite loose. While it hasn't fallen off completely, I find that when it's at my side (like at events) the hood twists a bit which makes the petals mis-align with the format of the sensor, essentially resulting in them showing up in ~24mm wide shots. I might want to add a bit of gaffer tape to the hood just to keep it in place and avoid this problem later on.
> 
> So yeah... FYI.



The hood should lock in place and only come off when you press the release button - if you can twist it off without pressing the release button then you probably need a new one.

If it's coming loose hanging down at your side, then it could be the release button getting bumped against your hip/leg - I had this happen a few times, then I just started putting the hood on with the button facing away from me when the lens is hanging down.

Phil.


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 29, 2014)

My hood on the 24-70 Mk II is pretty loose too... Bit of a design flaw


----------

