# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II



## well_dunno (Feb 7, 2012)

Hello all,

Have not thought thoroughly about the alternatives but just out of curiosity, how many of us remain interested in Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II? 

Cheers!


----------



## Dianoda (Feb 7, 2012)

Interested? Sure, once I've gone full-frame, and after I've seen some reviews, and once the lens is on rebate for $200 off, then we'll talk. For the price, IQ needs to be better than the 70-200 IS II (or at least match). If Canon includes this lens as a kit with the successor to the 5D2, then the chances of my jumping on board would increase quite a bit.

Then again, I tend to prefer larger aperture primes once the focal drops under 100mm, so what I really want to see is a 35mm f/1.4L II. It would be awesome to have a weather-sealed, auto-focusing 35mm lens with smooth bokeh and kickbutt across the frame IQ wide open. I mean, hey, it's okay to dream, right?


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 7, 2012)

Good point!


----------



## kdw75 (Feb 7, 2012)

I just received my 24-70 yesterday and I love the lens. When I saw the Mark II was coming out I had already decided that I would upgrade if it had IS. Well I was willing to spend up to $500 more for it but a $1000 premium means I will have to see reviews and hear a lot of praises before I would commit.


----------



## silversurfer96 (Feb 7, 2012)

I'd been holding off on purchasing the version 1 because version 2 was coming out. Now that the cat's out of the bag, I am not impressed. Judging by the $1000 price hike, I would consider buying the version 1 instead and take a chance with it. The alternative is wait and see if the Tamron 24-70 IS perform wells and go with that one instead (although I am not a fan of Tamron)


----------



## Ranjoharbri (Feb 7, 2012)

The 28 - 70 mm Mk II - What a joke.
This is just another example of Canon not listening to the people who use their products. 
You should be ashamed of yourselves Canon. Stop cheating your loyal supporters - Give us what we've been asking for, or I for one will be making a switch to a rival company.
Stop trying to rip us off.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2012)

silversurfer96 said:


> I'd been holding off on purchasing the version 1 because version 2 was coming out. Now that the cat's out of the bag, I am not impressed. Judging by the $1000 price hike, I would consider buying the version 1 instead and take a chance with it.



I'm considering the same. Act soon - the MkI will be discontinued, and prices on remaining new ones, as well as used copies, will jump.


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> silversurfer96 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd been holding off on purchasing the version 1 because version 2 was coming out. Now that the cat's out of the bag, I am not impressed. Judging by the $1000 price hike, I would consider buying the version 1 instead and take a chance with it.
> ...



I am in the same boat too...

Neuro, what is your take on the new Tamron? I would want to see some test results of it before deciding but might run short of time it seems...


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 7, 2012)

If it had IS on it then maybe that price would be fine, but the upgrade for what was a mediocre lens anyway that has a range is easily covered and exceeded in all ways by the 16-35 and the 50 f1.4 combo now both those better lenses combined are still cheaper. But who knows maybe it has completely mind blowing sharpness across the frame at f2.8 and no distortion, it will definately be interesting to see some samples and real revies of it once it hits the street


----------



## Act444 (Feb 7, 2012)

I would have actually seriously considered the 24-70 if they added IS _and_ improved IQ, even at this price point. However, without IS- for MY uses, anyway, it definitely falls short. It was a bit of tempting thought to be able to combine two lenses into one- i.e. the 24-105 (which I use for general walkaround) and 17-55 (indoors/social situations, no flash) into a versatile lens usable in both situations.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 8, 2012)

As the Japanese Yen continues to move up in value. new lens models will continue to increase. It gets very expensive to apply those new super coatings, and to build to even tighter tolerances. 

Expect all new lenses to jump in price by a surprising amount.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Feb 9, 2012)

If you rotate the poll results counter-clockwise 90 degrees, seems like a pretty clear message is being sent to Canon.


----------



## Abraxx (Feb 9, 2012)

Anybody thought of that the high price tag now, is also there to make it still attractive to sell the remaining version I lenses.... 
And v2 is not targeted to the mainstream yet, obviously
It will drop as time goes by... the new version seems to be is a huge step ahead, so you have to take some measures when releasing such a product and it won't come alone.

2 cents


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 9, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> If it had IS on it then maybe that price would be fine, but the upgrade for what was a mediocre lens anyway that has a range is easily covered and exceeded in all ways by the 16-35 and the 50 f1.4 combo now both those better lenses combined are still cheaper. But who knows maybe it has completely mind blowing sharpness across the frame at f2.8 and no distortion, it will definately be interesting to see some samples and real revies of it once it hits the street



I may not be reading the MTF charts correctly then... Looks to me like the 24 - 70 II has better over all performance than the 16-35, which also does not have IS... Pretty much when I look at the 24 - 70 II chart, it is getting close to the performance I expect from prime lenses. So you could look at the 24 - 70 II as being close to having the 24, 28, 35, 50, and 75 prime all wrapped into one. (Yes, I know no 75, but it is close enough to the 85). And looking at the 50 1.4, this lens wallops it. 

It is out of my price range, so no argument there, but when I look at the chart I see a zoom lens that really almost negates the need for prime lenses in its range, albeit for those who are looking for 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 and 2 F/stops.


----------



## Abraxx (Feb 9, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> ... Looks to me like the 24 - 70 II has better over all performance than the 16-35, which also does not have IS... Pretty much when I look at the 24 - 70 II chart, it is getting close to the performance I expect from prime lenses. So you could look at the 24 - 70 II as being close to having the 24, 28, 35, 50, and 75 prime all wrapped into one



Yep


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 9, 2012)

DanoPhoto said:


> If you rotate the poll results counter-clockwise 90 degrees, seems like a pretty clear message is being sent to Canon.



;D


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Feb 9, 2012)

i really like the 24-70 range... and i completely understand that the newest and best technology comes at a price.. but nearly doubling the price from the mk I version.. i really want to see reviews and comparisons.. expecially since tamron announced a simular product the same day. yes tamrons version wont be L class glass.. or have the weather sealing.. but it'll be 1/2 to 1/3 the cost.. and probably 1/2 the weight. I look forward to the reviews and comparisons.


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Feb 9, 2012)

I still haven't maxed out the capabilities of my 24-70 v 1. Weight might be an issue, as I am not getting any younger, eh?


----------



## Fandongo (Feb 10, 2012)

Boyer U. Klum-Cey said:


> I still haven't maxed out the capabilities of my 24-70 v 1. Weight might be an issue, as I am not getting any younger, eh?



Neither have I!!

It's such an amazing lens, and I bet II will be better...
Besides weight, I can't Imagine an average person to be able to tell the difference in the final output.
But then, the average person can't tell the difference between DSLR and iPhone photos anymore.

I would have been really tempted to sell and trade up if it had IS (just for handheld video stabilization).
Without it, not a chance.

They add IS to the 24 and 28... but it's only 2.8.
If it's 2.8, it might as well be part of the 24-70 II - since it sports "prime-like" quality through the zoom range.

I don't get it, bad move Canon.

What they really need is a 12-24L IS and 24-70L IS.
Those two lenses on FF, with the added range on a crop - sounds like a no-brainer money machine.


----------

