# Thoughts on L lenses and the 24-70 2.8 II



## drmikeinpdx (May 9, 2015)

I finally purchased a 24-70 2.8 L II and did my usual obsessive-compulsive autofocus accuracy test before taking it out in the field (or into the boudoir as the case may be.)

As with all my L lenses, the autofocus is perfect. No AFMA needed, no inconsistency. Also, very fast! No clicking noise from the zoom ring.

When I look back on all the problems I had with autofocus accuracy in the past, I find myself wishing that I'd spent the money on L lenses from the beginning. I think the 5D3 deserves some of the credit too. 

BTW, the price on this lens is getting pretty reasonable. I paid 1729 USD through the excellent street price program: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/street-prices/ and I will get an additional 100 USD back via the Canon rebate program. $1629 is a fair price for this lens, I think.

It's still a very heavy lens if you have to hand hold it for long periods. I'm going to be using a monopod or tripod more in the future, I suspect.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 9, 2015)

My thoughts on L lenses and the 24-70 2.8 II...I like them, that one in particular.


----------



## Sporgon (May 9, 2015)

Well we'll be looking forward to seeing some pictures taken through it


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 10, 2015)

I have only had mine a short time and have had few opportunities to use it yet. However it is looking very good so far! I came to this lens from the 24-105 F4 L IS and the 24-70 F2.8 L V2 is definitely a step uo in IQ.


----------



## jdramirez (May 11, 2015)

I started with $500 ish in my pocket to buy gear... so I took a very normal route of a Canon xs with kit and a 75-300mm... I'm actually pretty surprised I didn't quit because it was slow blah. But... the want of the 55-250mm kept me in the game... and the presumption was would solve all of my wants. 

But... the real lens that kept me in the game was my little 50mm f/1.8 mkii. It was cheap... was blurry wide open... but it was the best lens I had and it gave me the best results.

Then there were plenty of L lenses... and all of them were sharper than the next, and the 50mm f/1.4, and throw in a fisheye and the like... but... the 50 is still much in my heart.

So... for me... I'm glad I started off cheap... I'm glad that for $75 I found what I was looking for in photography... 

I haven't used the 24-70 yet... I was actually waiting for the 24-70 sigma f/2... but it looks like they scrapped that... so I have my 24-105... and I use it only when I need to.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 11, 2015)

Its a keeper. I had five of the MK I versions and felt they did not meet my expectations. My 24-105mm L was good, but I wanted f/2.8. I ended up using this lens so much that I sold my 24-105, three 50mm lenses, my 85mm f/1.8, and my 35mmL. They were all good lenses, but were not getting any use. I'm pretty much down to a combination of the 24-70 MK II, 70-200 MK II, 100-400 MK II and 100L. I also keep a old Tokina 17mm f/3.5 prime because I like it, but it is rarely used.

I'm always buying used lenses on Craigslist to try, and keep if I like them, but I find I have sold most of them right now. I'm pretty happy with what I have. Rather than buy lightweight lenses, I went for a G1 X and find it reasonably good. I have far too many cameras, but I haven't sold any, I'm waiting for a new one that has features that are a big improvement over my 5D MK III. I have problems holding a larger camera, my wrist is hurting as I type this. Getting old is not recommended.


----------



## Viggo (May 11, 2015)

And they just keep getting better, the 16-35 f4 L is excellent and feels, imo, much more solid than the 2470 II. But I use them both heavily and they just work


----------



## Northstar (May 11, 2015)

I've shots dozens of basketball games in poor light at f2.8 with this lens...it's fantastic! Quick and accurate Af, great IQ wide open.


----------



## romanr74 (May 11, 2015)

drmikeinpdx said:


> It's still a very heavy lens if you have to hand hold it for long periods. I'm going to be using a monopod or tripod more in the future, I suspect.



I love the lens and would consider it a featherweight really; its predecessor was near-20% heavier and much more bulky by its zoom and lens hood design.


----------



## eninja (May 11, 2015)

ef 24-70 F4L not bad also, really, if you want to consider weight. Its my main work horse shooting wedding plus the 6D.

I don't get a lot of bokeh with F4L, but I tell myself, F2.8 will not give much difference either.
For my uses, I usually shoots group shots on the event, so F4 at least is the case.

F4L version is 200g lighter and Its sharp enough, compared from photozone.de.

Also got IS. 

Should I want more?

For my event use, I want to have a second camera that can do bokeh, 
I even think 24L + 50L to shoot an event, and just crop as needed.

Then I get luxury of apperture choices.


----------



## Sporgon (May 11, 2015)

eninja said:


> ef 24-70 F4L not bad also, really, if you want to consider weight. Its my main work horse shooting wedding plus the 6D.
> 
> I don't get a lot of bokeh with F4L, but I tell myself, F2.8 will not give much difference either.
> For my uses, I usually shoots group shots on the event, so F4 at least is the case.
> ...



The 24-70 f4 IS is a really good lens, but there is more to the f2.8 version than just the extra stop. Not only is the 2.8 faster but it also has elements designed in such a (expensive) way as to provide better separation between in focus and out. More 'pop' if you like. The link to the block diagram shows how different the 24-70 f/2.8 II is compared with the 24-70 f/4 lens. 

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_24~70_28l_ii_usm.html?p=2

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/lens/ef/data/standard_zoom/ef_24~70_4l_is_usm.html?p=2


----------



## pwp (May 11, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its a keeper. I had five of the MK I versions and felt they did not meet my expectations. My 24-105mm L was good, but I wanted f/2.8. I ended up using this lens so much that I sold my 24-105, three 50mm lenses, my 85mm f/1.8, and my 35mmL. They were all good lenses, but were not getting any use. I'm pretty much down to a combination of the 24-70 MK II, 70-200 MK II, 100-400 MK II and 100L.


It's a keeper alright. That's extraordinary...my experience is just about an exact duplicate of Mt Spokane's. Five pretty hopeless Mk I's, a good 24-105 f/4is but wanted f/2.8, and after a short time with the 24-70 f/2.8II sold a bunch of good, no-longer-relevant primes. The 24-70 f/2.8 MK II, 70-200 MK II are far and away my most used lenses (+ 16-35f/2.8II, 100L f/2.8is Macro, 90mm TS-E and 300 f/2.8is)

-pw


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (May 11, 2015)

pwp said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Its a keeper. I had five of the MK I versions and felt they did not meet my expectations. My 24-105mm L was good, but I wanted f/2.8. I ended up using this lens so much that I sold my 24-105, three 50mm lenses, my 85mm f/1.8, and my 35mmL. They were all good lenses, but were not getting any use. I'm pretty much down to a combination of the 24-70 MK II, 70-200 MK II, 100-400 MK II and 100L.
> ...




Likewise. The 24-70 f/2.8L Mk II and and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk II are my two workhorse lenses. I use the other tools selectively to round out the work. Been using my 85L Mk II a lot lately, and the 200L - love these lenses wide open.


----------



## iso79 (May 11, 2015)

The 24-70 2.8 L MKII is my favorite lens. I'm glad I wised up early after buying crappy 3rd party lenses like Tamron when I was starting up. I bought mine for $1000 after I selling the MK I on Craig's List.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 12, 2015)

Sporgon: _Not only is the 2.8 faster but it also has elements designed in such a (expensive) way as to provide better separation between in focus and out. More 'pop' if you like. _

I took a few family photos for Mother's Day yesterday and I noticed that right away. The amount of separation/pop is similar to a good 50mm F/1.4 wide open, but without quite as much background blur. That is really interesting. No wonder people like this lens so much.


----------



## eninja (May 12, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> eninja said:
> 
> 
> > ef 24-70 F4L not bad also, really, if you want to consider weight. Its my main work horse shooting wedding plus the 6D.
> ...



Thanks for the insight. So you say there's this called bokeh, there is also called separation which depends on glass elements use to bend light to emphasize the focus plane.

Now thinking bout this, which prime lenses got this separation feature.
Now that you identify it, 
if I remember my feelings correctly, I saw this on 35mm IS and 40mm pancake a bit.
And true I got this 'pop' look feeling on my 24-70 ii I rented before.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 13, 2015)

I took the new lens out for a little street photography today. It was dark and cloudy. I don't have any shots showing the subject separation, but I have one that shows the amazing sharpness this lens is capable of.

This was shot hand held at 70mm, F/2.8, 1/250, ISO 100, 5D3. I wasn't braced against anything, so I imagine some of the sharpness must be due to the massive, road-hugging weight of this lens. Here is the full frame:





And here is what I cropped out of it:






I added some vignetting to suite my mood. There was none that I could detect in the original. If you click on the image, I think it will expand so you can see more detail.

I'm very impressed with this lens!


----------



## eninja (May 13, 2015)

Nice bench mark, would love to try one similar shot on my 24-70 F4L. I also usually like to crop. Never heard anyone complaining on resolution.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 27, 2015)

I've done a couple more photoshoots with the 24-70 II and I'm beginning to see why people stop using their primes after they get this lens. I hope I didn't waste a lot of time and money buying prime lenses!

I would share some photos, but since I shot the one posted above, all my images have been too naughty for this forum. Sorry, I will try to find some suitable for posting.


----------



## cid (May 27, 2015)

I have to say 24-70 mk II is spectacular lens. 8)

One thing I noticed is that with each new Canon L lens release there is new benchmark level set. Lenses are getting better and better. In some cases they are opening completely new possibilities (i.e. 11-24L)

Personall I'm looking forward to 35L mk II. I already thought about Sigma 35art and it's very nice lens, but those AF inconsistencies would spoil the experience shooting with it.

*I like when things work and work well - that's why L glass*


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 27, 2015)

I'm sure some of you guys will think this sounds crazy, but for a glamour/pinup/boudoir photographer, this lens may actually be too sharp!

Here is a shot I took yesterday. It isn't quite full frame, but pretty close. The aperture is around F 5-ish, because I didn't want the shoes to be too blurry. There is daylight coming from camera left and a gold umbrella on the right.

The second shot is a crop of the eyes. 














I see a lot more retouching in my future if I use this lens for closeups! LOL
It would be a fantastic lens for a photographer who only works with 19 year old supermodels and has a team of makeup artists on hand.

Fortunately, most of my photos are never enlarged beyond about 1000 pixels, so hopefully it won't be a big issue. In any case, I'm not throwing away my 50 L. Sometimes that "dreamy" look serves another purpose, you know.


----------



## TeT (May 27, 2015)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I'm sure some of you guys will think this sounds crazy, but for a glamour/pinup/boudoir photographer, this lens may actually be too sharp!
> 
> Here is a shot I took yesterday. It isn't quite full frame, but pretty close. The aperture is around F 5-ish, because I didn't want the shoes to be too blurry. There is daylight coming from camera left and a gold umbrella on the right.
> 
> ...



It will allow you to back off of the sharpen setting in profiles on your camera. Most portrait profiles are at +2 (?) try neutral on the sharpen which will also clip a little color noise as well....


----------



## privatebydesign (May 27, 2015)

TeT said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure some of you guys will think this sounds crazy, but for a glamour/pinup/boudoir photographer, this lens may actually be too sharp!
> ...



Or.......

Soften the light. That is the issue here, the umbrella is far too small to provide the natural softness you could easily create. You can have razor sharp detail and no pores or wrinkles but to do it you need a much bigger apparent light source.


----------



## bereninga (May 27, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Or...Stick with babies! ISO 640, 1/250th, f/2.8, 50mm. Morning light, before breakfast.



This is really adorable. Great shot, YeungLinger.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 27, 2015)

bereninga said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Or...Stick with babies! ISO 640, 1/250th, f/2.8, 50mm. Morning light, before breakfast.
> ...



Thanks! She's a born ham.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 27, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> bereninga said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Very cute!


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 28, 2015)

Photographing babies sounds like a nice change of pace to me!

And I do agree that the light was harsh. The new lens is going to make me change some of my old lighting habits. Or maybe I will keep my old Tamron 28-75 in my camera bag for use with harsh lighting or with models over a certain age.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 28, 2015)

The 24-70 II is the best all-around canon lens w/o question. The only 'L' lens I have AFMA'd is the 100L that received a +2.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 3, 2015)

I'm obviously in the minority but the sharper, the better! You can ALWAYS soften an image but you cannot add back details...

Another minority opinion - not a fan of the "dreamy portrait look"...ultimately not realistic. Of course, I will still do minor editing like getting a nice skin tone, etc. but I never remove details. Many times I find shots come out soft-looking anyway due to the lens, lighting or some other variable.

Then again, I don't do this professionally, so...I can get away with it I guess.


----------



## sleepnever (Jun 3, 2015)

Rented the 24-70 mkII once and fell in love. I have and currently use the crap out of my 24-70 mkI. I guess I'm lucky because it has been pretty sharp for me for a long time. Recently sent it to Canon when I noticed some oddities after a trip, and they fixed some things and now its sharper than ever. At some point I want to trade up though, even though I loathe that they changed the filter size from 77mm (all my other lenses) to 80..


----------

