# 24-70L II is fantastic



## VelocideX (Apr 26, 2013)

I own a wide variety of lenses, including the 24L II, 35L and the 24-105L. The 24-105L is a very solid lens, and I get great results from it in bright light,and particularly at f/5.6 or better.

However I have not been fully happy with the performance of the 24-105L at f/4.0. The image is not as sharp as I'd like. Also, the extra creative possibilities of f/2.8 on the 24-70 II were pretty appealing.

I went ahead and made the decision, and after two days out shooting with it have no regrets. The 24-70 II feels sharper at f/2.8 than the 24-105L does at f/4. 

But what I'm most impressed about is the rendering, particularly for the OOF areas. The bokeh is loads better.... the 24-105L has quite ring-like bokeh, whereas the 24-70 II bokeh is fairly smooth across the blur disk (there is a small amount of onion-like structure if the blur area is under-exposed but not very noticeable). I now see why people compare the lens to the 24L II - the colours and rendering are fantastic.

What a great lens!


----------



## Pi (Apr 26, 2013)

Photos?


----------



## TM (Apr 26, 2013)

Agree! It's my second favorite zoom lens!


----------



## bholliman (Apr 26, 2013)

TM said:


> Agree! It's my second favorite zoom lens!



What is your favorite? ???


----------



## RGF (Apr 26, 2013)

One of my top 4 zoom lens - each for unique capability

70-200 F2.8 II - sharp
24-70 II sharp

24-105 and 70-300L - both great walk around lenses and light

If I work from a tripod I pick the 1st two, other wise the 2nd set


----------



## wayno (Apr 26, 2013)

Agreed. It's very good. Whilst they can't really be compared, I prefer the IQ of the 24-70ii to my 70-200ii 2.8 - and that is a great lens too.


----------



## VelocideX (Apr 26, 2013)

Unsure how to do inline images with attachments so here's one at f/3.2


----------



## VelocideX (Apr 26, 2013)

Another at f/2.8


----------



## VelocideX (Apr 26, 2013)

And one more at f/3.2


----------



## AudioGlenn (Apr 26, 2013)

TM said:


> Agree! It's my second favorite zoom lens!



Same here. I still like the results I get from the 70-200 2.8 IS II more.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 26, 2013)

VelocideX said:


> I went ahead and made the decision, and after two days out shooting with it have no regrets. The 24-70 II feels sharper at f/2.8 than the 24-105L does at f/4.
> What a great lens!


Congratulations! It is a great lens indeed. But every time I hear of someone getting their new 24-70 L II, I feel very jealous coz mine was stolen a few months ago ... now I make do with a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC :'( ... miss the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II very much.


----------



## Robboesan (Apr 26, 2013)

rodansagay said:


> the dynamic range is also excellent..this straight right out from the camera...great for anything up to landscapes...loving it


The Lens has nothing to do with dynamic range. Its a sensor thing


----------



## infared (Apr 26, 2013)

Robboesan said:


> rodansagay said:
> 
> 
> > the dynamic range is also excellent..this straight right out from the camera...great for anything up to landscapes...loving it
> ...



+1


----------



## Akhiel (Apr 26, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> VelocideX said:
> 
> 
> > I went ahead and made the decision, and after two days out shooting with it have no regrets. The 24-70 II feels sharper at f/2.8 than the 24-105L does at f/4.
> ...



Dear Rienzphotoz,
What makes you miss the Canon Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II soo... much over the Tamron. 
I have recently done a wedding with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L (no II yet), it did a great job in standard situations, so the Tamron would have done it too - but at some photos I stood still and was thinking that the Tamron would have done a better job - only because of the VC., what (IS) the Canon 24-70mm is still missing.
I am sure that either lens would make in critical situations the difference. I still have to work a lot more with the both lenses to make a fair judgement which one fits the best in my style of photography.
I my situation the ultimate playground is the best of both: natural light situation - also in low light cases and the second one is the speed of auto focussing between close-up and distance - simply I always hunting for the right moments e.g. in busy situations with a lot of movements.
Currently most of the time I am renting the lenses, but I know - soon of later I will purchase one of them. For now it's headache for what to go for. It's the Canon really that much more dollars worth? Or would it be a wiser decision to go for the Tamron and e.g. to spend the saved dollar for a good Macro lens like the Canon L 100mm Macro L IS.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 26, 2013)

Akhiel said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > VelocideX said:
> ...


IMHO, the following is the difference:
1. Sharpness at f/2.8
2. Less vignetting
3. Less distortion
4. Built quality (including the black color of the lenses)


Akhiel said:


> For now it's headache for what to go for.


  ... Tell me about it ... I think a lot of people are confused about which one of those lenses to buy.


Akhiel said:


> It's the Canon really that much more dollars worth?


For me I would say yes.


Akhiel said:


> Or would it be a wiser decision to go for the Tamron and e.g. to spend the saved dollar for a good Macro lens like the Canon L 100mm Macro L IS.


If you don't have the 100L Macro L IS and are constrained by your budget, I'd say go with the Tamron 24-70 VC and use the saved up money to get the 100 L Macro ... btw, if you want to save $200+ on Tamron VC, buy it from Amazon.co.jp ... I bought it for $1048


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 26, 2013)

Congratulation VelocideX on your new toy ;D

Awesome pics........I like to shoot @ 2.8 with this lens, even day time.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Apr 26, 2013)

Eyes of the girl on the left on the second picture look really strange  everybody seems to love a new 24-70 ii. Congratulations to you, and to Canon too on making such a great lens!


----------



## PilotJoe (Apr 26, 2013)

I agree that the OOF area just looks amazing. This was shot at 2.8 of course.


----------



## Click (Apr 26, 2013)

Congratulations on your new acquisition. The 24-70 f2.8 II is a great lens.


----------



## Jesse (Apr 26, 2013)

Scanning the City by Jesse Herzog, on Flickr




Kensington by Jesse Herzog, on Flickr


----------



## shutterwideshut (Apr 26, 2013)

It is indeed a lens worth the investment! 

*Sundown at Lingayen Gulf*
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM ı Singh Ray 0.9 Reverse ND Grad Filter ı Singh Ray LB Warming Polarizer ı 24mm ı 13s ı f/16 ı ISO 100



Sundown at Lingayen Gulf by shutterwideshut on Flickr


*Reach for the sun*
Canon EOS 5D Mark III ı Canon EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM ı 65mm ı 1/4000s ı f/2.8 ı ISO 100



Reach for the sun by shutterwideshut on Flickr


----------



## rsk7 (Apr 26, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> Eyes of the girl on the left on the second picture look really strange  everybody seems to love a new 24-70 ii. Congratulations to you, and to Canon too on making such a great lens!



I wonder if she is wearing glasses and the lenses are causing the effect?


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 26, 2013)

rsk7 said:


> ksagomonyants said:
> 
> 
> > Eyes of the girl on the left on the second picture look really strange  everybody seems to love a new 24-70 ii. Congratulations to you, and to Canon too on making such a great lens!
> ...




I don't think that's a girl- it looks like C-3PO's mate from Star Wars 8)


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 26, 2013)

Jesse said:


> Scanning the City by Jesse Herzog, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cool and creative first shot, but the shaddow of the person seems amiss. Is it pp later on?


----------



## bvukich (Apr 26, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> Jesse said:
> 
> 
> > Scanning the City by Jesse Herzog, on Flickr
> ...



I was going to ask the same thing, the shadow is upside down.


----------



## Jesse (Apr 26, 2013)

Yeah I have another version where I have the shadow going the right way. http://500px.com/photo/32143749


----------

