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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 7, 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/2013/03/dpreview-canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-review/"></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/2013/03/dpreview-canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-review/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>From DPReview</strong>

The folks at DPReview have completed their extensive review of the pretty great <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">Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</a>. Did they like it? It seems so, although the usual price complaint comes up again.</p>
<p><strong>Says DPR..

</strong><em>“The answer, as usual, isn’t necessarily clear-cut, and depends on each individual photographers’ needs and preferences. Compared to the previous version, it offers weathersealing and a welcome reduction in weight. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/596257-REG/Sigma_571101_24_70mm_f_2_8_IF_EX.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">The Sigma</a> can’t match it optically, especially on full frame, but is so much cheaper that many users may well be willing to overlook this, particularly if they use APS-C cameras. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845339-REG/Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">The Tamron</a> looks like a very worthy competitor, offering impressive image quality, image stabilisation and weathersealing all in one package, and we aim to assess it fully in the near future. But quite simply the Canon offers such exceptionally good optics that, if you’re after the very best, there’s simply no other choice.”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <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">Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II $2049</a> (add to cart)</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2013)

More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.

Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?


----------



## miejoe (Mar 7, 2013)

Did Canon really manage a 1/2-stop transmission improvement over version I?

DPreview didn't mention it at all in their review but it shows in the lens widget when you compare the two lenses.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
> 
> Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?



A few pros I know have retained both. I had put the same question to them and the reason they cite is that for long shoots and weddings, IS is extremely important to them once tiredness sets.

Personally, I'm not too sure of what I would do ... After reading such reviews of the 24-70 II, it feels like its time to try it out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Personally, I'm not too sure of what I would do ... After reading such reviews of the 24-70 II, it feels like its time to try it out.



Yeah, I've decided that I'm getting the 24-70 II. Just trying to decide if I should accelerate that purchase by selling the 24-105L to offset the cost. 

For normal use (shooting people), I'm not too fussed about giving up IS. Looking at my stats for the 24-105L on the 1D X, less than 4% of my shots are at slower than 1/125 s (I set a 1/125 s minimum shutter speed) - and the ones that are slower are mostly 1/60 s (likely flash shots). Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm, but I suspect the better IQ will make that a worthwhile trade. Also, the improved AF accuracy with the combination of the newer bodies and 2012- lenses is a big factor.

I just have this feeling that after getting the 24-70 II, I really won't use the 24-105L at all...and if that's going to be the case, why not get the new zoom that much sooner?


----------



## miejoe (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm



I would think that the higher sharpness at 70mm, especially stopped down to f/4, would give you the latitude to crop your photos to at least 85 or 90mm and still match the sharpness of the 24-105. This starts getting pretty close to matching the 24-105's usefulness as a walkaround lens, especially if you're not worried about shutter speed.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 7, 2013)

miejoe said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm
> ...


....all true...and then there is that 70-200 f/2.8 II _if_ you _really_ need 70-105 mm range. 

I have been having similar thoughts and a potential plan for myself is to up grade to the 24-70 f/2.8 II in about a year and sell the 24-105. My concern is at the other end, I like to use IS and the equivalent (just moved to FF from crop) of 24 mm to hand hold waterfall shots. Of course, my other thought is to keep the 24-105 as a general purpose/travel lens and buy primes.


----------



## iowapipe (Mar 7, 2013)

about pricing - one thing I read a while back; when the previous version was released, it was very close in price to the new version. So when people quibble about this new version being so much more expensive... it just isn't the case. And I believe that in the posting I read, when the $ were adjusted for inflation, the old version (when first released) may be been slightly more expensive in adjusted dollars.

I have rented the 24-70 ii lens for an event coming up at the end of the month and I will be eager to compare it to the 24-105. At work I do a lot of shooting in low light situations, so the f2.8 may sway me to budget for it in 6 months or so.

I know when I let friends borrow my camera they really enjoy the extra reach of the 105... and I find about 20% of my shots are in the 75-90 range. It is nice at outdoor events to have the slight extra reach without having to pack my 70-200 f4. About 60% of my photos are between 30 and 45mm. If I were brave enough to drop the flexibility of the zoom, a 35mm prime would make me fairly happy. It would be silly to retain both the 24-70 and 24-105 for me. I don't want to have a collection of lenses in 10 years time, I would rather 'try' to keep to the minimum.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, I've decided that I'm getting the 24-70 II. Just trying to decide if I should accelerate that purchase by selling the 24-105L to offset the cost.
> 
> For normal use (shooting people), I'm not too fussed about giving up IS. Looking at my stats for the 24-105L on the 1D X, less than 4% of my shots are at slower than 1/125 s (I set a 1/125 s minimum shutter speed) - and the ones that are slower are mostly 1/60 s (likely flash shots). Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm, but I suspect the better IQ will make that a worthwhile trade. Also, the improved AF accuracy with the combination of the newer bodies and 2012- lenses is a big factor.
> 
> I just have this feeling that after getting the 24-70 II, I really won't use the 24-105L at all...and if that's going to be the case, why not get the new zoom that much sooner?



Probably true. Never had the 24-105 and used primes instead after getting rid of the crop camera and the 17-55 f/2.8, so I'm used to not having IS at these FLs anymore. I'll still opt for the primes for shallow DOF and for inside use (with and without flash) because of the lighting flexibility they give, but I'll probably use the 24-70 for most outdoor applications.

You might want to check how much of that 30% that is used at 105mm. I often find large spikes in the usage spectrum at the focal length limits, which often tells me that I should have brought one additional lens.


----------



## klickflip (Mar 7, 2013)

iowapipe said:


> ... and I find about 20% of my shots are in the 75-90 range. It is nice at outdoor events to have the slight extra reach without having to pack my 70-200 f4. About 60% of my photos are between 30 and 45mm. If I were brave enough to drop the flexibility of the zoom, a 35mm prime would make me fairly happy. It would be silly to retain both the 24-70 and 24-105 for me. I don't want to have a collection of lenses in 10 years time, I would rather 'try' to keep to the minimum.



I am in exactly the same boat here, using my 24-105 75% of the time.. infact its my second one and whats annoying me is it doesnt seem quite as sharp especially at the corners as my previous one, but that had gone way out on AF and was beyond recalibration. 
75% of my shots on this lens are at 24-50mm, other 25% are at 75-100mm and i use my 50mm 1.4 when I can (but its focussing and build is awful but is sharp ) plus the lovely 135L for longer shots or needing more compression but I dont use this focal length that much and dont ever need any longer (so the 70-210 would be wasted)

So should I get the 24-70L II or go for primes 24 or 35L, plus 50L and 85L - Will the 24-70 be a noticeable difference compared to the 24-105 at 24-50 range. Some reviews have said the 24-70L II is sharper at 24mm than the 24L prime, can anyone comments? 

OR get the 24-70L II , sell the 24-105 and get 50mm L + 85mm 1.8 or sigma 85, plus sigma 35mm 1.4 ?

Or look at getting the 16-35L for my wide shots - how sharp is this lens ? Plus primes? 

Although check out the compare lens charts / data on DPRreview and if you do 24-70L II vs 24-105L then it actually makes the 24-105 look pretty good, which has thrown me a bit I thought that this new lens was a lot sharper...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-widget-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=canon_24-70_2p8_ii&cameraId=canon_eos5dmkii&fl=35&av=5.6&view=mtf-ca&lensId2=canon_24-105_4&cameraId2=canon_eos5dmkii&fl2=35&av2=5.6

Love to hear form others in this dilemma. As the 24-105 is such a nice range and decent quality for the cost... but is the 24-70 L II worth it?


----------



## SteenerMe (Mar 7, 2013)

Yes the new 24-70 is worth it. And No you will not need or use the 24-105. I sold minewithin days of receiving the new lens....and I loved the 24-105. It is simply just awesome!


----------



## candyman (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
> 
> Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?




I am in the same phase as you are - only 24-70 tamron


I tell you that I have decided to keep my 24-105.
I will continue to use it as walkaround in my setup for landscape/average to good weather:


5DMKIII with 24-105 (and switching to 16-35 if needed)
7D and 70-300L


The 24-70 on the 5D MKIII mostly for indoors with the versality of zoom (and switching to 135L if needed)


----------



## ahab1372 (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> [...]
> Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm, but I suspect the better IQ will make that a worthwhile trade.
> [...]


What is the percentage for the range of, let's say 80-105? I doubt you will 10mm much at that focal length, assuming that cropping from a 70mm FOV to 80mm FOV will not degrade IQ much


----------



## wayno (Mar 7, 2013)

Neuro - the 24-70 ii is in another optical league. The 24-105 is stale in comparison, IQ-wise. For that reason alone I feel you won't think too much about the 24-105.


----------



## raptor3x (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
> 
> Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?



At the moment I've kept both the 24-70 ii and the 24-105 thinking that there were situations where the IS would be way more useful than the extra stop from f/2.8. What I've found though is that if f/2.8 is not enough, then I'm either shooting something where I'm using a tripod or using the IS of the 24-105 just leads to subject motion, so the 24-105 hasn't seen much use at all. At the moment I think I'm going to get rid of the 24-105 and replace it with a 35 1.4 instead.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2013)

ahab1372 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



80-105mm is ~25%, and as expected there's a spike at the end of the zoom range. Also worth noting is that I shoot quite a lot at the wide end (30% of my shots are at 24mm), and there in particular the 24-70 II is significantly better than the 24-105 from an IQ standpoint.

I think I'm talking myself into selling the 24-105L. Did I mention that last night, I shot a few pics of the lens for a CL listing?


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
> 
> Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?



I sold my 24-105 after I got the 24-70 II. I found it was a little redundant. I do miss the flexibility of the extra reach but I have the 70-200 for that anyway. I also sold my 50mm 1.4 when I got the 24-70 as I was only using it (the 50) at 2.8 or smaller anyway. Also, since then, I've found that I probably could've lived with the 24-105 and 50 instead of upgrading. I've improved my skills in PP since last year (made the jump to Lightroom) so the difference between the old setup and the new setup is even less but I like not having to switch lenses as often when I need a little more light.

The biggest difference I "feel" is in the sharpness and clarity of my pics. I have less to do in post which I'm sure adds up to a lot of time saved. Colors are better. I'm overall very happy with the new setup. To me, it was worth the difference of ~$1000 (after selling off the old lenses).


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 7, 2013)

miejoe said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm
> ...



+1


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
> 
> Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?



I already had the 24-105L, but purchased the 24-70 II back in December. I was thinking I'd keep it and find good use for the IS and extra reach. ... Long story short, the one time I pulled out the 24-105L since then was enough to convince me I really just need to sell it. 

No comparison. The 24-70 II is so darn sharp and has great color, I don't miss the extra zoom or IS. I've just been throwing the 135 L in the bag for when I want to get a little closer.

Hope it helps.


----------



## ahab1372 (Mar 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think I'm talking myself into selling the 24-105L. Did I mention that last night, I shot a few pics of the lens for a CL listing?


Yeah, why wait? ;D


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
> 
> Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?



I have a hunch you won't want the 24-105.

But, just to put a different perspective on it...I've decided that I'm most unlikely to replace my 24-105 with a 24-70 II. The 24-105 is a wonderful lens, even if the 24-70 II is better...and, to be honest, I only ever grab the 24-105 when I haven't a clue what I'll be shooting. And, when I don't have anything already planned out, whether the resulting shots are superlative or merely very good doesn't make a bit of difference to me.

Seems rather silly to me to blow that kind of money on a "whatthehell" kind of lens, at least as I'd use it.

If I did a lot of event photography, if I already used the 24-105 a lot, if any of the other common conditions applied, I'm sure I'd upgrade. But I don't, I don't, and they don't, so I won't.

One other thing I know...if I _did_ upgrade, I wouldn't keep the 24-105. It's probably just me, but I'd rely on a second lens to cover the missing length...either I'd already be doing events with a two-body setup with a 70-200, or I'd just pocket one of the short telephoto primes (with the new 100L being on the short list) and swap at leisure.

So, that's my advice. You use the 24-105 a lot, so it's very likely worth the upgrade. Those of us who don't get a lot of use out of a standard zoom, it's too much money for not enough extra.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## wayno (Mar 8, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
> ...



To put an alternative spin on that, I never used my old 24-70, preferring to use primes. However once I got the 24-70ii, the IQ and handling completely put a new perspective on it. I now use it much more. The 24-70ii was a questionable purchase to be honest - but it has proven to be good investment as I use it regularly and love doing so.


----------



## jasonsim (Mar 8, 2013)

Sold my 24-105mm right after getting the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Also sold a 35mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/3.5L TS-E II. I probably should sell the 50mm f/1.2L too, but....

Don't get it, if you don't want your primes to collect dust.



neuroanatomist said:


> More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
> 
> Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.
> 
> Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'. Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?



Hells no I didn't keep it. To be honest I actually got rid of it before I even got the 24-70 II.
24-105L never did it for me, I wanted to love it but blah.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Doesn;t your 70-200 do 80-105mm miles better than the 24-105 anyway?


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 8, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> Sold my 24-105mm right after getting the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Also sold a 35mm f/1.4 and *24mm f/3.5L TS-E II*. I probably should sell the 50mm f/1.2L too, but....
> 
> Don't get it, if you don't want your primes to collect dust.



I was unaware that the 24-70 has movements. Because only a lens with movements could be a reasonable substitute for the TS-E. Or, if the 24-70 really is a reasonable substitute for the TS-E for you, then the TS-E was a waste for you in the first place.

Similarly, the only reason to get the 50 L over the 50 f/1.4 is to shoot it wide open. If you're considering the 24-70 as a substitute, again, there wasn't any point in getting the 50 L to begin with.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 8, 2013)

I have no problem selling my 50L & 16-35 II, but *NOT* 24-70 f2.8 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 12, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I just have this feeling that after getting the 24-70 II, I really won't use the 24-105L at all...and if that's going to be the case, why not get the new zoom that much sooner?



I'm sat here at the moment just thinking about the 24-70mm 2.8 II - I've still to sell my 10-22mm which was replaced by the 16-35mm on the 6D, I'm not using the 70-300mm since I bought the 135mm - cropping into a shot taken on the 135mm really is better than anything taken on the 70-300mm (non L) and then pondering about would I really use my 50mm 1.4mm if I got the 24-70 ? Probably less, if at all... 

Need to stop looking at these threads, ou guys are costing me serious money ;-)


----------



## lastcoyote (Mar 12, 2013)

Haydn1971 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I just have this feeling that after getting the 24-70 II, I really won't use the 24-105L at all...and if that's going to be the case, why not get the new zoom that much sooner?
> ...



an uncontrollable desire is a terrible thing 

i've recently purchased the 135L and love it to bits.
my next purchase when money allows (end of the year probably) will be either the 24-70 2.8L II or the 35 1.4L. i seriously can't decide which to go for. i love primes but a standard zoom is missing from my kit...what to do what to do? :-\ then of course there's the thought in the back of my mind that possibly a replacement will happen soonish for the 35L. but i guess you can't go on thinking like that...


----------



## jcatterino (Mar 12, 2013)

lastcoyote said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lastcoyote.. I am in the same boat .. I have the 

Canon 5D Mark III | 40D |35 F1.4L / 24-70mm F2.8L MKI / 24-105 IS F4L/50 f1.4 | 100 f2.8L IS Macro | 135 f2L | 70-200 f4L IS | 580EX II/KENKO 1.4x and Canon 2x III
I have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS MKII and a 430EXII on the way .. 

I want the 24-70 MKII ( already getting rid on 70-200 F4 IS (since 2.8 is on it's way) was thinking of getting rid of 24-70 MKI and keeping the 24-105 but looking at how good the 24-70 MKII is considering selling both and 50 F1.4...choices, choices..aaarggg. 
I have purchased a 24-70mm 2.8 MKI, 135mm F2L, 100mm IS F2.8 Macro, 35mm F1.4L, 1.4x Kenco and 2X III teleconvertors and now the 70-200mm IS 2.8 IS and a 430EXII in less than 4 months...just for vacation shots and family photos.. explain that one to your wife (That's after buying the 5D MKIII for my Christmas gift to myself..lol)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## lastcoyote (Mar 12, 2013)

jcatterino said:


> lastcoyote.. I am in the same boat .. I have the
> 
> Canon 5D Mark III | 40D |35 F1.4L / 24-70mm F2.8L MKI / 24-105 IS F4L/50 f1.4 | 100 f2.8L IS Macro | 135 f2L | 70-200 f4L IS | 580EX II/KENKO 1.4x and Canon 2x III
> I have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS MKII and a 430EXII on the way ..
> ...



man alive that's a lot of gear in such a short time 

i reckon you should sell the 24-70 MK I and the 24-105 to then get the 24-70 MKII.
keep the 50 f1.4 though as it can come in handy.


----------



## RVB (Mar 16, 2013)

lastcoyote said:


> jcatterino said:
> 
> 
> > lastcoyote.. I am in the same boat .. I have the
> ...



Good advice...


----------



## RVB (Mar 16, 2013)

I don't know why people keep banging on about the price,the RRP is high but street price's are 25% lower in the UK and europe..


----------

