# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 28, 2013)

```
<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/2013/01/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-is-a-peerless-performer/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/01/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-is-a-peerless-performer/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>According to DXOMark


</strong>DXOMark has completed their review of the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II lens and have found to be the best zoom lens currently in their database.</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark

</strong><em>“With an DxOMark score of 26, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 MkII is the highest scoring professional fixed-aperture mid-range kit zoom of any brand in the DxO Mark database and comfortably outperforms rivals as well as the firm’s earlier Mark I version, particularly with regard to the sharpness levels across the frame. We’re used to seeing a noticeable deterioration in performance in the outer fields at longer focal lengths even with high-quality optics from the big-name marques but the new Canon bucks that trend.”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-EF24-70mm-f-2.8L-II-USM-A-Peerless-Performer" target="_blank">Read the entire DXO Mark review</a> | <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii/" target="_blank">Read the Canon Rumors Review</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><strong>Buy the 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>
```


----------



## Viggo (Jan 28, 2013)

It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it :


----------



## infared (Jan 28, 2013)

I am not a fan of DxO (miss the) Mark...but after the chunk of change I drop on the II Version...all the good reviews I read make the hole in my wallet feel a little better.
It is nice to go out shooting with a midrange zoom that has much less less compromises and that instills confidence.
I am a primes guy...but this is a great lens.


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jan 28, 2013)

Viggo said:


> It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it :



Why so much? It doesn't cost that much..

But yes, this is the only zoom lens that i would actually use without thinking twice...it really is that good and i actually stopped using my primes for shoots because of this...i only touch my 85 now becuase that is still better than this


----------



## dave (Jan 28, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Remember everyone that DxO reviews are useless and biased towards Nikon.
> 
> So DxO saying the 24-70/2.8L II is great means nothing.



Well it's outstanding regardless. DxO's reviews are still rubbish.


----------



## bornshooter (Jan 28, 2013)

Yeah but the 70-200 v2 sucks lol dxo sucks.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 28, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Remember everyone that DxO reviews are useless and biased towards Nikon.
> 
> So DxO saying the 24-70/2.8L II is great means nothing.



You are correct. "With a DxOMark score of 26"--and that is supposed to mean something? ???

However them saying that it's a great lens does not mean that it isn't (i.e. just because you're paranoid doesn't mean their not out to get you; a broken clock is still right twice a day; even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, etc.)


----------



## Viggo (Jan 28, 2013)

spinworkxroy said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it :
> ...



When you live in Norway it does...


----------



## PhotoCat (Jan 28, 2013)

Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED with a D3X has a score of 24 whatever that means.
Not that far behind considering the Nikon was introduced 2007!

I think the DXO lens score has a lot to do with which camera it is attached to.


----------



## iso79 (Jan 28, 2013)

Viggo said:


> It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it :



Just start saving up. I sold my Mark I on Craig's List for 1200 so the Mark II only ended up costing me 1k.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 28, 2013)

iso79 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it :
> ...



Yeah, only have no mk1 to sell. I was going to sacrfice my 24 f1.4 for it, but I just can't sell that hunk of glass, it's just too awesome iin a way the 24-70 couldn't be. So I'm starting from scratch


----------



## pierceography (Jan 28, 2013)

Hopefully the price of this lens will drop to a more reasonable level in the next year or so. Otherwise, the mark 1 will work just fine for me.


----------



## EvilTed (Jan 28, 2013)

I got mine from B&H for $2050 

Tested my 24mm F/1.4 II at all apertures against it and the F/2.8 performance and up is better with the 24-70, so I sold the 24mm...

ET


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jan 28, 2013)

Wow, i had no idea it cost that much in Norway or Sweden..
That's really high tax..
I got it under USD2.3k for a local set but i'm in Asia so i guess it's still cheaper to buy here than overseas


----------



## kbmelb (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm with Viggo. I personally wouldn't trade speed for sharpness.


----------



## that1guyy (Jan 28, 2013)

This lens is only "peerless" because dXO hasn't reviewed the Tamron 24-70. It said "no rating" for that lens when I searched their database.


----------



## Ricku (Jan 28, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> In Sweden incl taxes 3016 USD
> As a pro 2400USD with VAT deduction
> Theres in no problem to buy the lens from US but Canon Europe does not like to take care of the lens from US if something is wrong. And there are a 25% VAT of gods from US if the lens are declared into Sweden in a proper way


So don't declare. ;D

I actually have a friend from Sweden who travels to NYC twice a year. During every visit, he goes to B&H and packs his bag full of gear. He never declares it when he gets back home. Just walks through the customs with a smile on his face.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 28, 2013)

I am more interested in a long discussion and comparison of the Tamron 24-70 vs the Canon 24-70 since the Tamron has received so much positive attention. Is the Canon really worth all the extra $$ over the Tamron? That's the question in my mind...


----------



## Viggo (Jan 28, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > In Sweden incl taxes 3016 USD
> ...



I've done that a few times, not myself, but buddies of mine travelling. The problem is, IF you get pulled over at customes it's YOUR responsibillity to prove to them that it has been either declared (if bought from elsewhere) or that you bought it in your country, Norway in this case. That means if I travel with a Norwegian-bought lens, used or new, and I get pulled over on my way back and can't provide a receipt from Norway for the item in question, I have to pay the taxes of NEW retail price. This is even if I buy the item used and it's 10 years old and it's still in sale. So I might save quite a bit with sneaking it in, but if I'm unlucky, it would cost through the teeth to keep it.

The other thing is you can't sneak anything in unless someone you know is actually going to BH, buy online and taxes are autmatically added, and yes, they add taxes to the SHIPPING costs as well.. Greedy bastards...

I shoot my 24 veryvery much between 1.4 and 1.8 and I've tried a 24mm f2.8 for the same type of shots, and it lacks that nice soft 3D-feel the f1.4 gives. However I could use both, because out shooting with flash or something I could change the perspective in 0.1 seconds by zooming and have much more options for my images. 

It took my a while back in the day to realize that 24-70 isn't about getting closer, it's about changing the perspective. By then it was already sold.


----------



## HoneyBadger (Jan 28, 2013)

Just move to Oregon. I never have to pay any sort of tax on my gear.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 28, 2013)

It is a very good lens no doubt. That said DxO can't be trusted when it comes to lenses (unless you also accept that the 70-200 2.8 IS is the best at f/2.8 200mm and the 2.8 IS II the worst of all the Canon 70-200s and that the 70-300L is worse at 300mm than the non-L which I think they might have even had better than the 300L prime and I think it was that the 16-35 II has the sharper corners wide open than stopped down, etc. etc.).

As good as this one is, I don't think it can quite match the 70-200 2.8 II if you are talking about to the corners at all focal lengths and maybe not even the 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L.

But it is very good, the best standard zoom ever. It truly rivals my 24 1.4 II at 24mm.


----------



## wayno (Jan 28, 2013)

EvilTed said:


> I got mine from B&H for $2050
> 
> Tested my 24mm F/1.4 II at all apertures against it and the F/2.8 performance and up is better with the 24-70, so I sold the 24mm...
> 
> ET



Agreed the 24-70ii is dead good compared to the 24ii but only the prime can render the sort of shallow portraits like no other lens. Enough to keep the 24L? For me, yes. Obviously not everyone's call.


----------



## neighborsgoat (Jan 28, 2013)

Dear DxO / Canon,
Sorry for not instantly purchasing such a diamond lens, but I am just in the middle of mastering the full capabilities of my MK 1 I have purchased 1 and 1/2 years ago. I hope you will not mind, since you will earn a lot of cash from selling that "gorgeous" 6D.

Love and the usual, 
goatie


----------



## EvilTed (Jan 28, 2013)

wayno said:


> EvilTed said:
> 
> 
> > I got mine from B&H for $2050
> ...



I didn't really like my 24mm wide open, it had too much fall off until F/2.8, so it was a pretty easy comparison.
I actually preferred the results from the 24-70 and contrary to most other reviews, my copy is actually better @ 70mm...

I have my second copy of the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and they are about equal in sharpness to my eye @ F/2.8.

ET


----------



## wayno (Jan 28, 2013)

It's the light fall off and the 'magic' of that aperture combined with that FL that captivates me. Granted I don't use it much but when i do, particularly for child portraits, it makes a huge impression. With the advent of the 24-70 ii, the 24L has become quite a specialized lens but I'm ok with that.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 28, 2013)

wayno said:


> It's the light fall off and the 'magic' of that aperture combined with that FL that captivates me. Granted I don't use it much but when i do, particularly for child portraits, it makes a huge impression. With the advent of the 24-70 ii, the 24L has become quite a specialized lens but I'm ok with that.



Couldn't agree more! I use it wide open to F2 when shooting my kids and it just makes the subject pop and f2 gives that slightly shallow and very pleasing soft feel. Sometimes is subtle, but it's there and I have used it a lot lately at 2.8 too see if I could live with that instead, but I really can't get the same feel, again, sometimes the difference is sublte, but it's there, and it makes a difference I reallyreally love.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jan 28, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> This lens together with 70-200/2,8 mk2 is an excellent reportage combo



Yes, these are the 2 most used lenses I own. Great combo. Just waiting for the 14-24 now.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Jan 28, 2013)

Viggo said:


> It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it :


Wow that is a lot for this lens. I only payed around $2300 US for a non-grey marketed copy. And living in Australia, I'm surprised I managed that.

And the 24-70 II is ALWAYS on my 5D mark III. The only other lens I'd probably switch between (if I owned it) would be an 85 f/1.2L II


----------



## Viggo (Jan 28, 2013)

BrandonKing96 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > It's great no doubt, but I have to pay 3650 USD to get one, so I simply have to live vicariously through the people who own it :
> ...



I know, that's norway for ya, but at least we hardly pay anything for healthcare 

I also paid 9935 usd for the 1d X. Loooooaaads of fun that was.. But I've put it to good use and it never dissapoints me.


----------



## BrandonKing96 (Jan 29, 2013)

Viggo said:


> BrandonKing96 said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


I supposed it's evened out then 
And well as long as it does what you want and you're willing to pay the price, I don't see the problem! 

And off a tangent- although it cost me $2300 US for my 24-70 II, in another store I went to, I paid $2000 US for a 70-200 f/4 IS. But it works for me so I'm happy with it


----------



## charlesa (Jan 29, 2013)

Add the 14-24 mm and we will be in heaven... or will we? What is the point of having a 24 mm TS-E f/3.5 II, a 14-24 mm and the 24-70 II all in the same camera bag? Sometimes I believe we are just too gullible and blinded by gear lust!


----------



## Razor2012 (Jan 29, 2013)

charlesa said:


> Add the 14-24 mm and we will be in heaven... or will we? What is the point of having a 24 mm TS-E f/3.5 II, a 14-24 mm and the 24-70 II all in the same camera bag? Sometimes I believe we are just too gullible and blinded by gear lust!



For me I would then have 14-200 2.8, which is a pretty good range not to mention the 'holy trinity'.


----------



## tron (Jan 29, 2013)

Viggo said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


I see from your signature you have very nice lenses that cover the 24-70 range more or less. Are you sure you need it and that you will not feel strange/bad/guilty (whatever) if you do not use your prime lenses ?

Unless you need it for landscapes and do not want to change lenses in the cold :-X


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 29, 2013)

charlesa said:


> Add the 14-24 mm and we will be in heaven... or will we? What is the point of having a 24 mm TS-E f/3.5 II, a 14-24 mm and the 24-70 II all in the same camera bag? Sometimes I believe we are just too gullible and blinded by gear lust!



well 14mm is a LOT wider than 24mm and T&S can be useful so I could certainly understand someone having a 14mm, a T&S and a 24-70.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 29, 2013)

tron said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > iso79 said:
> ...



I use the Elinchrom Quadra light a lot outside, and with kids you don't get two chances for shots, so be able to shoot a fun and dramatic shot at 24 and pop it to 70mm for a nice portrait in a split second can be essential. And for those shots, even with the ND8 on, I usually have to stop down to 2.8 anyway. So for me they have very different uses. So I think I would use them equally much. PLUS another BIG advantage for the 24-70 is the AF-speed when tracking. Shot the 24-70 at 2.8 with that AF would give me 100/100 images sharp whilst the 50 L would give me shiftet focus at 2.8 and maybe 30-40/100 sharpish.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 29, 2013)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/a-24-70mm-system-comparison

Canon MK II is a champ at f/2.8 resolution, look at that center frame f/2.8 performance on an optical bench! Even for MTF80 it is still near 0.8 while Nikon is down to under 0.65 and Tamron 0.55. The Mk II is capable of really driving high-density sensors super well wide open.

Of course it also shows, that as people say, a body with more MP + a lesser lens always outdoes a body with less MP but the most amazing lens when it comes to total detail. So D800 + either option captures more detail than 5D3+MkII (as expected). The D800 could use an even cheaper lens and still deliver the same total detail. Which again goes to show all the talk about high MP needing the best lenses to work well compared to lower MP sensors doesn't (and has never begun to) make sense (although it does make sense if the goal is to get every last bit of performance out of them, which a MkII seems it could do better than the other options).

But the MkII should still rock really nice micro-contrast center frame on a 7D at f/2.8 while the Tamron probably won't resolve the tiniest finest details quite as well.


----------



## Gcon (Jan 30, 2013)

I am purchasing the 24-70 II in about 2 weeks and will be taking it on a 1-week hike in mountains where it will be my only lens. I'll know it intimately by the end of that. I'll pano with Really Right Stuff on a lightweight tripod and ballhead to get more width than 24mm, when the need arises. Really looking forward to it.


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2013)

Viggo said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Pretty good arguments. I have the TS 24 II L , the 35mm 1.4L 50mm 1.8 (version 1) 85mm 1.8 and 24-105/4L among others (talking about the 24-70 range more or less) so I myself feel hesitant for 24-70 2.8 II (although in addition to sharpness and versatility there is a sentimental reason to get it: my original 24-70 2.8 had been stolen 3.5 years ago  )


----------



## wayno (Jan 30, 2013)

Whilst the IQ is a treat, the thing I find most noticeably pleasing is the handling/weight. The old one was heavy and felt not as 'balanced'.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 30, 2013)

wayno said:


> Whilst the IQ is a treat, the thing I find most noticeably pleasing is the handling/weight. The old one was heavy and felt not as 'balanced'.



+1 and the old one with the narrow zoomring that, on both my copies, was seriously uneven in how much resistance the zoom ring had across the range. First time I picked up up a mk2 and stuffed it infront of my 5d2 it just felt soo much nicer.


----------

