# Just got my new 24-70 ii and it is so nice how is everyone else liking it?



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 13, 2012)

I am on my way to completing my 2.8 zooms. Just think it is so sharp and I love the way the hood locks on like the 70-200 ii. I had to part with my 24-105 but feel it will be worth it during low light shots. Plus it seems sharp wide open. Just need to learn to live without IS. Anyone else just as happy?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 13, 2012)

It sounds like it will be a very good lens. Some are reporting issues at the long end, so I'd check that out.
I'm waiting for the eventual price drop to decide if I'll get one. By then,there will be a lot of feedback from users.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 13, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It sounds like it will be a very good lens. Some are reporting issues at the long end, so I'd check that out.
> I'm waiting for the eventual price drop to decide if I'll get one. By then,there will be a lot of feedback from users.



What issues?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 13, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds like it will be a very good lens. Some are reporting issues at the long end, so I'd check that out.
> ...


Softness, particularly at the edges and 70mm. 
Two pretty respected reviewers have seen this. There have been some that claim to have seen the issue in poosts on this forum, but I tend to look to experienced testers with a good track record of spotting issues.
It is undoubtedly a fantastic lens, and there may be some samples with issues, which is why I'm waiting for more reviews to come in. I've had 5 of the old version and they were not impressive. I have high hopes for this one.

Let us know what you see.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=2


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 13, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Yeah that sounds the case but I feel it's much better than the 24-105 and if I go professional I could always get another copy later if that's the case. Either way after selling the old lens it cost me an additional $1,400 and I figured I could use it for the holidays so not sure how much waiting I could endure. I hope I made a wise investment. Let me know if you get one. How could I check if my copy was soft?


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 13, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...



I have 4 friends(pro-wedding), all their 24-70 II are sharp end to end. My is sharp even before AFMA.

Do you use Reiken FoCal? I ran my 5D III with 24-70 II through FoCal, results I got from the software are -5 @ 24mm and +1 @ 70mm.

If not, you can always try to compare Live View Focus Vs regular focus.

Enjoy your new lens


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 13, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I think I will get that. @ questions would you recommend plus or pro and is there a way to calibrate without a tripod. I do not have one?


----------



## Radiating (Oct 13, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...




Just an FYI I compared 4 different copies of the 24-70mm II to the 24-105mm (which is a consistent lens). When averaging the areas where each lens was better or worse overall there was NO difference between the quality of the 24-105mm and the 24-70mm II.

Here's the write up for the comparison:

vs 24-105mm (@ f/4.0) 

24mm

Center: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 1: Much Better

Mid Frame Copy 2: Much Better

Edge Copy 1: Much Better

Edge Copy 2: Much Better

28mm

Center: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 1: Much Better

Mid Frame Copy 2: Better

Edge Copy 1: Better

Edge Copy 2: Equal

35mm

Center: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 1: Equal sagittal resolution, better meridonial resolution

Mid Frame Copy 2: Much Worse

Edge Copy 1: Equal

Edge Copy 2: Much Worse

50mm

Center: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 1: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 2: Worse

Edge Copy 1: Much Worse

Edge Copy 2: Much Worse

70mm

Center: Equal

Mid Frame Copy 1: Equal sagittal resolution, better meridonial resolution

Mid Frame Copy 2: Better sagittal resolution, equal meridonial resolution

Edge Copy 1: Better sagittal resolution, equal meridonial resolution

Edge Copy 2: Much Worse

Conclusion:

(formula is +1 per copy that: shows better -1 for worse -1.5 for better +1.5 for much better (+0.5 per partial improvement)

Total score. 0 ZERO between these two copies and the 24-105mm it's equal.


Source of the info:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Note on their testing methodology:

The camera/lens is multiple-laser-aligned to the target which is mounted on 60" , 1/2" thick sheet of glass.

Tests are conducted using externally-magnified Live View manual focusing and center-point-only autofocus (initial focus is gained using autofocus and then adjusted manually). The best of the many re-focused shots (typically at least 10 sets - often 15-20) are used for the results for EACH camera/lens/focal-length/aperture combination.

His variances are measured in a few ten thousanths of a degree.

Live view focusing laser aligned cameras and lenses on a target so flat that it needs a 40 lb sheet of glass to keep it level is a pretty serious way of testing that will show few errors, especially when doing 20 repeated trials and refocusing each time. He gets the depth of field within at the least 99% of the sharpest possible setting by my calculations (99.3% to be exact) for an f/1.4 lens. His testing method is so accurate, that the actual thickness of the chart he uses is at the least 14 times greater than the deviation he has from ideal focus for a f/1.4 lens. The tests are done to the accuracy of small fractions of a sheet of paper.

It's also worth mentioning when comparing the 24-105mm to the 24-70mm II that the 24-70mm II is better than it if you get a good copy, but worse if you get a bad copy, so it depends, and this is just speaking with a 4 copy sample which may or may not represent the norm or future improvements in manufacturing tolerances form Canon.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 13, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...



To be honest...I would go for PRO version. It worth it. One of most important steps is setting your target. YOU HAVE TO HAVE decent tripod for this test. Why? - Your lens and target need to be in same height.

I'm currently using this one. Not the best, but it's good enough to do landscape. 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/687335-REG/Oben_AC_1410_BA_0_AC_1410_Aluminum_Tripod_w.html

I will get a decent tripod, 22lbs load, in the future though.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 13, 2012)

Radiating said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok So your telling me I spent all that extra money for nothing to gain an extra stop but not IS. Is that what your saying. That does not make me feel good about my purchase anymore.


----------



## Ryanide (Oct 13, 2012)

I also sold my 24-105 (don't miss it at all!!). Just got the new 24-70II in yesterday. I only had a chance to snap a few shots and will do more testing this weekend. From what I can see this lens is everything that I was hoping for. The images are SHARP and have nice contrast and saturation, similar to my other favorite lenses 35L & 24L. I did a few shots directly into the sun and it handled the situation very well with almost no flare (I really couldn't ask for better). 

I'm very happy with my purchase and the way I look at it, I only spent $1500 for it. ($2300 - $800 from the 24-105 sale = $1500) :

Now I have the perfect kit with the 5D3, 24-70 2.8II & 70-200 2.8II. And then I have primes for when needed 24LII, 35L, 50L, 100macro. Oh and the 17-40 for interiors.... I think Canon is planning a 14-24L 2.8?? Can't wait.


----------



## 87vr6 (Oct 13, 2012)

my god. just go out and shoot pictures. Jesus. Peeping pixels is like saying my one dollar bill has a better ratio of red and blue threads than yours. Christ, use the lens what it's meant for, making memories, not seeing who has a better pixel than you. 

I rented a 24-70II a few weeks ago, it was spectacular, but I'm still probably going to buy a version one because in reality, the zoom/hood design is superior. However, I have seen the reviews and the II is definitely crisper at the edges than the I, and that's without viewing at 100%, which I don't do, because no one looks at my pictures on a 80" screen...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 13, 2012)

My 24-105 is very good, and I have some fast primes for low light. Thats why I can wait. One stop better is significant, but I won't need it until about Christmas when I start my low light photography. I used a Nikon D800 with their 24-70mm f/2.8G, and found myself at f/2.8 and ISO 12800 much of the time. The fast primes can drop this to ISO 6400 or less.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Oct 13, 2012)

The new 24-70 II is making me re-think my 'primes only' theory. It is sharp end to end, fast and puts a vote of confidence in every shot. I had it with me yesterday while out with a grey sky. Had a Lee Big Stopper filter on the front so the attached shot is a bit degraded. :-\


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 13, 2012)

MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> The new 24-70 II is making me re-think my 'primes only' theory. It is sharp end to end, fast and puts a vote of confidence in every shot. I had it with me yesterday while out with a grey sky. Had a Lee Big Stopper filter on the front so the attached shot is a bit degraded. :-\


Its all relative. I'd call that good light. Its trying to catch dancers when the lights are very dim at 1/320 sec that the rubber meets the road. I'm not confident that my 5D MK III will be that good at ISO 12800. Exposure will have to be perfect. Shooting sports in a dimly lit stadium is still 4 stops better than I see.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 13, 2012)

"Ok So your telling me I spent all that extra money for nothing to gain an extra stop but not IS. Is that what your saying. That does not make me feel good about my purchase anymore."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a camera geek, I just take my new lens attaches to my 5D III and go out take pictures. If the pictures look sharp on my 24" monitor, then I'm good. If pictures are soft, then return it and get another one.

When budget is allowed, 24-105 users will end up with 24-70 II. Until then, their 24-105 is the best.

Just like food....see and smell are not enough, you gotta taste it. 

JUST ENJOY YOUR NEW TOY and take picture of kid(s)


----------



## rpt (Oct 13, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> and take picture of kid(s)


From experience - you must remember to take pictures of your second born too... Not just the odd one here and there...
And if you have a third and... Well, they need to be photographed as much as the first (and second...)


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 13, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> "Ok So your telling me I spent all that extra money for nothing to gain an extra stop but not IS. Is that what your saying. That does not make me feel good about my purchase anymore."
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not a camera geek, I just take my new lens attaches to my 5D III and go out take pictures. If the pictures look sharp on my 24" monitor, then I'm good. If pictures are soft, then return it and get another one.
> ...


Thanks that makes me feel better so far pretty pleased. I think i will do a 70mm comparison to my 70-200 and see what I get. The colors are way better to me and it is sharp. So far I am not pro so really this kit is waaaaaay over kill for candids of my family but someday I want to do this professionally and I love the art of taking pictures and capturing that moment. The thing about primes are yeah they can shoot at lower iso's but you doc is so shallow too much is oof. I generally shoot 2.8-8 depending on what I want in focus. To shoot at 1.2 or 1.8 would be too hard.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I've gotten to look at a few copies. One was utterly stunning 70mm, f/2.8, center frame, others VERY good there but not the match for that one, one was quite noticeably softer (at 70mm, f/2.8, center frame) than that one and noticeably softer than the other two. Even the worst at 70mm f/2.8 was still better than a good Tamron 28-75 at 75 2.8 though and maybe similar to a 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4 (with the copies I've seen the 70-200 f/4 IS is weakest at 70mm, f/4 though, but still solid). The worse ones at 70mm f/2.8 are softer at 70mm f/4 than the better ones are wide open at f/2.8. The best ones peak in sharpenss, center frame, 70mm, early, the lesser ones there peak later having f/6.3 definitely better than f/4, while the other copies having f/4 sharper than f/6.3 (and f/6.3 a bare trace sharper than f/6.3 on the worse copies).

All copies seemed to place edge DOF at different depths compared to the focal point compared to any other copy, which is a bit odd. If you focused on any given point, edges wide to mid were maybe not so different, some a bit better but whatever, but if you focused on some central object then you might have much more different results in the corners depending upon the scene.


----------



## Sitting Elf (Oct 13, 2012)

I'm absolutely LOVING mine. I've taken it to shoot with my 7D, 5DIII, and my 1DX. Perfect with all of them. Trying to figure out why I still have my 24-105...Not even close!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 13, 2012)

It is a pretty amazing lens, one that can give a 24 1.4 II a super close run for the money at 24mm stopped down a little (not one of the three 24-105 I tried were remotely close to giving my 24 1.4 II a run for it's money, not even at f/8-f/11) and, wide open at f/2.8, center frame, easily beat 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4 center frame and even beat a 70-300L at 70mm f/4 center frame (at the far edges, maybe outer 1/8th or less of the frame, the 70-200/300 do do better at 70mm though it seems).


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 13, 2012)

rpt said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > and take picture of kid(s)
> ...



Thank you for remind me on this 

This is so true. I took alot of pictures with my 1st, but not quite same amount on my 2nd. I kinda noticed that after my 2nd child first birthday. I promised myself picture will be taken evenly from there on.

Because of the kids, therefore, I spent quite a bit of money into camera gear. And I'm proud that I'm only dad carries the best camera gear in the Montessori Pre-school at Saint Columbun Church ;D ;D ;D...sorry couldn't help it


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 13, 2012)

Sitting Elf said:


> I'm absolutely LOVING mine. I've taken it to shoot with my 7D, 5DIII, and my 1DX. Perfect with all of them. Trying to figure out why I still have my 24-105...Not even close!



You saving the 24-105 for A Bright-Sunny-Day ...........JK


----------



## tatsu (Oct 13, 2012)

Mine arrives on Monday! So excited.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 14, 2012)

I am glad I started this thread. I actually was dreaming of taking my 60d with 17-55 to a FF setup and now I have all the new toys
5d3 24-70 II + 70-200 2.8IS and 600ex-RT. Really cannot ask for more Much better shots along the way.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 14, 2012)

This one I shot at 70mm f 3.2 iso 3200 and for an ooc jpg its pretty sharp and very accurate color.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 14, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> This one I shot at 70mm f 3.2 iso 3200 and for an ooc jpg its pretty sharp and very accurate color.



It's a keeper to me...nice shot


----------



## Act444 (Oct 14, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> ...I actually was dreaming of taking my 60d with 17-55 to a FF setup and now I have all the new toys
> 5d3 24-70 II...



same here


----------



## kidcharles (Oct 20, 2012)

87vr6 said:


> my god. just go out and shoot pictures. Jesus. Peeping pixels is like saying my one dollar bill has a better ratio of red and blue threads than yours. Christ, use the lens what it's meant for, making memories, not seeing who has a better pixel than you.



Why do people feel the need to hang out on gear forums and then chastise people for talking about gear?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 20, 2012)

Well let me put it this way, I just got 140 shots in a row with the 5D3+24-70 II at f/2.8 under indoor lighting 100% in focus. 

(by far the best result I've ever had from any lens+body combo)


----------



## gmrza (Oct 20, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Well let me put it this way, I just got 140 shots in a row with the 5D3+24-70 II at f/2.8 under indoor lighting 100% in focus.
> 
> (by far the best result I've ever had from any lens+body combo)



Also very happy. 5DIII + 24-70 II is giving some great results.

This one is at ISO 1250 - 1/125s @ f/5, 600EX-RT to camera left in a softbox, fired using an ST-E3-RT. No real post processing - just loaded into LR, cropped and exposure moved back to the left (-0.45EV in lightroom as flash was set +0.3EV).

Plus a 100% crop for the pixel peepers.


----------

