# The First Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Review



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 7, 2012)

```
<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/2012/09/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-video-review/"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-video-review/"></a></div>
<strong>From ThatNikonGuy


</strong>ThatNikonGuy has completed what appears to be the first review of the new Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II lens. It’s a pretty good review as he puts them both through the paces. Lots of sharpness, bokeh and autofocus tests were completed at various focal lengths in the review.</p>
<p>He did notice the lenses differ in focal length at 70mm, this is pretty normal. For example, the EF 70-200 f/4L IS is not as wide at 70mm as the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, it’s more like 85mm in examples I have seen.</p>
<p>His biggest point at the end of the review is how good do you want your 24-70 to be? For an extra $1000 (compared to buying a used 24-70 version 1), is it worth getting the version 2 when version 1 is so great? I can’t help with that yet, as I have not seen one land in Canada yet. It is good to know that when you have to make this decision, there really is no wrong choice.</p>
<p>Version 2 looks to be a little bit better at everything, autofocus, bokeh, sharpness, a more pleasing warmer image, lighter weight. The big downside is you’ll have to go buy 82mm filters, hopefully you have some already.</p>
<p><strong>The Review</strong></p>
<p><iframe width="500" height="281" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rarKH78ObYw?fs=1&feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><strong><strong>Preorder 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>
```


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 7, 2012)

Pretty decent review, mostly because it agreed with my opinion. I own version 1 and didn't/don't intend to upgrade.

Off topic, but in the first part of the video, with the two lenses side-by-side, he really should have set is exposure to manual so that it didn't keep changing as his hands went in and out of the frame.


----------



## risc32 (Sep 7, 2012)

as for the v2 having a warmer image, couldn't that just be from AWB just grabbing a different value? I don't think he mentioned anything about locking that variable down. just saying. Also, in his tree/water/sun flare shot i see better performance from the v2, and he seems to see that the other way around.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Sep 7, 2012)

Slippery-dip, awesome new word! Also, looks like a used version one would be a great idea.


----------



## squarebox (Sep 7, 2012)

I couldn't get over his pronunciation of Bokeh though...

I found his review a little lacking though. Would have liked to see some low light shots or more color variation.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 7, 2012)

Neat review, now this re-affirms my purchase of Good primes. 8)


----------



## hyles (Sep 7, 2012)

I don't see why testing the lens @f8. I am not going to buy that lens to use it closed. I used version I, I find it good stopped down, but i was not impressed when shooting WO. I guess new version is mutch better uset WO in low light. If it is not the case, I can't find a reson to buy a 24-70 2.8. 
Diego


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 7, 2012)

Bob Howland said:


> Pretty decent review, mostly because it agreed with my opinion.



 ... his videos have a very subjective, amateurish approach - see also his reviews of the Tamron 24-70. While this is fine if you want to p&s, it lacks tech knowledge (the fact alone that he expects 70mm to be the same on every lens).

In this case: The new Canon mk2 uses more doublecross af points on the 5d3/1dx, so it being as fast as the mk1 is a good sign since more precision usually means less speed. And a more detailed test might show that the mk2 has a higher af hit rate on Canon newest systems.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 7, 2012)

This review is a "joke".


----------



## K-amps (Sep 7, 2012)

I dare to say... did he have a great copy of the Mk. 1, or are the differences negligible? Looking at the review one would conclude that the mk.1 is the way to go at 60% of the price... is this true though?


----------



## Dylan (Sep 7, 2012)

Look at the full resolution pictures (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7948959388/#in/photostream/) of the two lenses on the concrete slab. You can clearly see that the one taken with the mark II has it's focus an inch in front of the original lens!


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 7, 2012)

K-amps said:


> I dare to say... did he have a great copy of the Mk. 1, or are the differences negligible? Looking at the review one would conclude that the mk.1 is the way to go at 60% of the price... is this true though?



I'd say based on my experience that he had an excellent copy of the v1, but I've had 3 different copies and one was definitely sharper than the other 2. Lensrentals.com did a test of 100 of them and there was a pretty substantial variance in sharpness. I believe the issue was some gasket in the barrel that gets worn down and can throw it out of alignment leading to soft images. But yes, the 24-70 1 is still a stellar lens and the favorite lens of the best photographer I know. He has tons of gear and Canon primes but he said when he was looking back at his favorite pictures he noticed that it was usually the [email protected] or 55mm with a little bit of fill and joked about how much money he could have saved. 

I saw this review on B&H, which was reassuring:

"What a welcome update to the prior 24-70. This one is razor sharp throughout the range, fast focusing, too. I have tested a pre-production copy of this lens extensively and find it to be the sharpest zoom lens I have ever used... maybe tied with the 70-200mm f/2.8L II for outstanding IQ. The single, ultimate wedding/event lens ever from Canon? I'd say yes."


----------



## jseliger (Sep 7, 2012)

> For an extra $1000 (compared to buying a used 24-70 version 1), is it worth getting the version 2 when version 1 is so great?



I think the real question is about the camera/lens combination, since it appears that the newest Canon lenses and cameras, when combined, have substantially better auto-focus. If that's true, then someone with a 5D Mk III will probably want the newest lens, while someone without won't be able to take advantage of its improved auto-focus.


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 7, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > I dare to say... did he have a great copy of the Mk. 1, or are the differences negligible? Looking at the review one would conclude that the mk.1 is the way to go at 60% of the price... is this true though?
> ...



I think that the problem for MK1. The QC of MK1 really has problem. I sold my MK1 because the IQ from it was always soft. Hopefully MK2 has better QC.


----------



## DB (Sep 7, 2012)

This review was a little disappointing in that he did not shoot indoors with both lenses @ f/2.8 with various ISO levels (to take advantage of the new 5D3 too) -> imho this is what wedding pro's want to see.

However, as an owner of the mark 1 (UZ11xx date code - so one of the last batch ever manufactured) that is tack sharp and hyper-fast at AF, would I be tempted to pay +40% more for the mark II for at best a +4% improvement? As an amateur/enthusiast, no way. It's a different proposition for a 'Pro' who will amortize the $2200 cost of this new lens over 10-15 years worth of shooting.


----------



## t.linn (Sep 7, 2012)

DB said:


> ...as an owner of the mark 1...that is tack sharp and hyper-fast at AF, would I be tempted to pay +40% more for the mark II for at best a +4% improvement? As an amateur/enthusiast, no way. It's a different proposition for a 'Pro' who will amortize the $2200 cost of this new lens over 10-15 years worth of shooting.



For me the draw wouldn't be the improved IQ as much as it would be the reduced size and weight.


----------



## Axilrod (Sep 7, 2012)

DB said:


> This review was a little disappointing in that he did not shoot indoors with both lenses @ f/2.8 with various ISO levels (to take advantage of the new 5D3 too) -> imho this is what wedding pro's want to see.
> 
> However, as an owner of the mark 1 (UZ11xx date code - so one of the last batch ever manufactured) that is tack sharp and hyper-fast at AF, would I be tempted to pay +40% more for the mark II for at best a +4% improvement? As an amateur/enthusiast, no way. It's a different proposition for a 'Pro' who will amortize the $2200 cost of this new lens over 10-15 years worth of shooting.



I think it's too hard to judge how great of an improvement it is based on this one review, I'm not sure where you got the 4% figure. The 24-70mm is still a great lens provided you have a good copy, but it's $1599.99 at places that it's still available (gone at B&H), so it's not too huge of a difference. But I agree an amateur/enthusiast can get by with the 24-70 I or 24-105mm no problem.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 7, 2012)

You only have to amortize the difference in value of your sale price. Assuming you needed the money and had to sell off your lens.. you are looking at a $200-300 loss in the next 2-3 years and maybe a BE beyond that looking at the dollar take a slip. It really boils down to cashflow... since no enthusiast buys a lens to "depreciate it". 

However if your V1 is tack sharp, keep it, it is probably not spending the extra $$$ unless yuo have good cashflows and a very "understanding" wife.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 7, 2012)

K-amps said:


> I dare to say... did he have a great copy of the Mk. 1, or are the differences negligible? Looking at the review one would conclude that the mk.1 is the way to go at 60% of the price... is this true though?



The difference is there if you use the mk2 with the new af system of the 5d3 or 1dx. For any other camera body, the mk1 might be as good - and the zoom design with the protective lens hood of the mk1 seems more attractive to me, btw.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 8, 2012)

smithy said:


> After watching the video, I see no reason (other than weight) for me to replace my Mark I with the Mark II version.



Let's hope many people think like you and the mk2 price drops under $2000 asap


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 8, 2012)

I bet it will turn out to be way better than he implies.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 8, 2012)

smithy said:


> squarebox said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't get over his pronunciation of Bokeh though...
> ...



eh whatever, lots of area in the USA people turn 't' to 'd' and he sounds like he isn't even from the States, maybe Australia originally at least?


----------



## munkiboy (Sep 8, 2012)

definitely australian. 

who gives a crap how someone says a word?


----------



## dave (Sep 8, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty decent review, mostly because it agreed with my opinion.
> ...



I think he is a little too preoccupied with the 'world's first' moniker. He said it in the video that he borrowed it for a day. I felt the same about the Tamron reviews. To me it is very much a sitting on the fence approach and trying not to piss anyone off.

Among other things, I would have liked to have seen discussion of distortion as this area has long been an area where major improvement could be generated on zooms that have a wide end.

My overall impression was that he said that it basically does what Canon says it is supposed to do.


----------



## squarebox (Sep 8, 2012)

munkiboy said:


> definitely australian.
> 
> who gives a crap how someone says a word?



I don't mind an Australian accent placed upon English words, but he is mispronouncing a foreign cognate and as a speaker of Japanese, it irks me very much. It was just distracting if anything.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 9, 2012)

I would buy this lens to use at f/2.8. If it doesn't perform at f/2.8, my 24-105mm L will perform at f/4 or f/8. 
I've had five of the Mark 1 version of 24-70mm L's, and was a bit disappointed in all of them, so I'm pretty cautious about taking the plunge.
I'm also interested in CA's, I tried a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G with my D800, and CA's at f/2.8 were horrible.


----------



## shinjuku-thief (Sep 10, 2012)

squarebox said:


> munkiboy said:
> 
> 
> > definitely australian.
> ...



Even allowing for the fact that he has an Australian accent, he is mispronouncing the word. As an Australian and a Japanese and Chinese speaker, it didn't bother me too much, however.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 10, 2012)

Read my quick review on:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9268.0

NEW: EF 24-70 II ./. Tamron


----------



## clicstudio (Sep 10, 2012)

After seeing a few reviews, it seems the new version is better but just slightly...
I already own a 24-70 and I am really happy with it. I did see a big difference between the old 70-200 and the new 70-200 II. I hope it is The same with this one. 
Now, since I already own one and selling it would probably
Get me around $1000, I'm reconsidering keeping it and getting a second lens. At a difference of $1300 after
Selling the old one, I might keep
It and get a 70-200 II since upgrading to a 1DX from a 1D IV, the 24-70 seems too short now. 
What do u think?


----------



## JEAraman (Sep 10, 2012)

clicstudio said:


> After seeing a few reviews, it seems the new version is better but just slightly...
> I already own a 24-70 and I am really happy with it. I did see a big difference between the old 70-200 and the new 70-200 II. I hope it is The same with this one.
> Now, since I already own one and selling it would probably
> Get me around $1000, I'm reconsidering keeping it and getting a second lens. At a difference of $1300 after
> ...



Sounds like a good idea. I already have the 70-200 II and just yesterday got the 24-70 II.. If you're mostly doing studio and will use the lens closed down, you probably won't see a big difference between the mark 1 and mark 2 24-70s. 

just thinking out loud


----------



## Peter C Photography (Sep 10, 2012)

If anyone has seen other reviews of the 24-70 f/2.8L II that they've found useful, would they mind posting here please?

Thanks,
Pete


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 11, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I bet it will turn out to be way better than he implies.



yeah, it would seem so:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9314.msg167332;topicseen#new


----------



## hkfreelancephotographer (Oct 18, 2012)

I just bought a second hand 24-70 2.8 L Version 1. It would be half the price of the new verson 2. 

The only real difference that is worth the extra bucks is the 150g of weight I think.


----------

