Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[liberace]

When can I hope for the next rebate program? Nothing before Xmas? right after?

At least in the European rebate programs Canon in just discounting older and standard lenses and some tele zooms - I wouldn't hope for an official discount on this one for one or even two years to come I'm afraid to say. More likely they'll do a kit with the 5d3 sooner or later, I remember it's been seen in Australia.

Kit Lens?  For which camera?  I don't think this will ever be a kit lens.

As Marsu42 posted, this is already a kit lens in some markets (Australia/NZ and maybe others).

There is no confirmed as of(Nov 8th, 2012) that 24-70 II is selling as kit lens with 5D III at discounted price.

It most certainly does exist as a kit lens in Australia - I own it. The discount is only $100 when buying together. A shot of the box is a few posts back.

[Dylan777]

When can I hope for the next rebate program? Nothing before Xmas? right after?

At least in the European rebate programs Canon in just discounting older and standard lenses and some tele zooms - I wouldn't hope for an official discount on this one for one or even two years to come I'm afraid to say. More likely they'll do a kit with the 5d3 sooner or later, I remember it's been seen in Australia.

Kit Lens?  For which camera?  I don't think this will ever be a kit lens.

As Marsu42 posted, this is already a kit lens in some markets (Australia/NZ and maybe others).

There is no confirmed as of(Nov 8th, 2012) that 24-70 II is selling as kit lens with 5D III at discounted price.

It most certainly does exist as a kit lens in Australia - I own it. The discount is only $100 when buying together. A shot of the box is a few posts back.

Thanks for confirm this. Nothing here in the US...yet

[mpetersheim]

   I've got one question unrelated to the lens, regarding the comment that, given the crop factor on a non-FF body, "the 70mm range effectively results in 112mm making it a ideal portrait lens".

  I've seen comments in this vein in many places online, and I don't understand them; how is it more of a portrait lens on a 60D than a 5D MkII? Is it just because it gives you a further working distance from your subject? Because that's the only benefit I see...

  I understand the definition of a good portrait lens to include such aspects as compression/distortion and background blur in addition to the field of view, but when using the same lens on a 60D as compared to a 5D MkII, we get:
      Compression/Distortion: this doesn't change between bodies, so it's still 70mm, not 112mm.
      Background blur: for the same composition, a 60D requires a further distance from subject, increasing DOF = decreasing background blur at the same aperture. This makes it less of a portrait lens, no?
      Field of view: for the same composition, a 60D requires a further distance from subject; in isolation (i.e. not considering effect on DOF) this may be good, as the subject is likely to be somewhat less self-conscious.

   I'm not wanting to be controversial; this is a question I've long harbored and for which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer, so confirmation or correction of my stated understanding is welcomed.   

[neuroanatomist]

      Compression/Distortion: this doesn't change between bodies, so it's still 70mm, not 112mm.

These are referring to perspective, and the only thing that determines perspective is distance to subject, i.e. focal length is irrelevant.  Since you're further from your subject for the same framing on APS-C, there will be more perspective compression, which is usually viewed as a 'good thing' for portraits.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Nice job of reviewing, Justin.  I've had five of the Mark I copies.  None really bad, but not good enough for me to keep them.
I've been watching and reading the reviews, and deliberating if f/2.8 is fast enough for my low light use.  Right now, I use fast primes, and usually find them at f/2 or faster even with extreme high ISO settings.
I did purchase a D800 with 24-70G lens, and found myself at ISO 12800 much of the time, and the D800 requires a ton of NR at 12800.  The images still look good, but I need a supercomputer to do that level of NR on a 150mb image.  I gave up pretty quickly on that idea.
 

[mpetersheim]

      Compression/Distortion: this doesn't change between bodies, so it's still 70mm, not 112mm.

These are referring to perspective, and the only thing that determines perspective is distance to subject, i.e. focal length is irrelevant.  Since you're further from your subject for the same framing on APS-C, there will be more perspective compression, which is usually viewed as a 'good thing' for portraits.

Really?!? So if I shoot a portrait on a medium format body with a 150mm lens and do another from the same distance with a 60D and 50mm lens, then crop both photos to identical framing the perspective will be exactly the same?

[ahab1372]

Really?!? So if I shoot a portrait on a medium format body with a 150mm lens and do another from the same distance with a 60D and 50mm lens, then crop both photos to identical framing the perspective will be exactly the same?

Yes exactly.
I don't have a MF camera available, but it's also fun to test with the same camera and your favorite zoom.

[mpetersheim]

Really?!? So if I shoot a portrait on a medium format body with a 150mm lens and do another from the same distance with a 60D and 50mm lens, then crop both photos to identical framing the perspective will be exactly the same?

Yes exactly.
I don't have a MF camera available, but it's also fun to test with the same camera and your favorite zoom.

Wow... apparently I don't know much about some of the more technical aspects of photography; I think I'll do just what you suggested. Thanks for confirming, and thanks to neuroanatomist for the initial correction. Now to go test for myself...

[gmrza]

It seems like a great lens, but the price just kills it for me. I still can't understand how Canon keeps coming out with new products at higher price points than ever while the world has been in a global recession and economies continue to suffer. It's very short sighted and clueless of Canon. I would buy this in a heart beat if it was $1,700.

After my 48 hour evaluation I'd buy one in a heartbeat if I could just get my hands on one. It's a two-three week wait where I live.

The price? I think I paid around $2200 when the MkI was released in November 2002. After ten years Canon would have well and truly made back their ROI on the MkI, enabling price reductions. I'd say for a new model this could be seen as a price drop when seen in its historical context. Canon has profit obligations to its shareholders. They're not a charity. Study supply & demand. Sometimes it's a valid & viable business strategy to be reassuringly expensive. It works for me.

-PW

I haven't spent nearly as much time as you with this lens, but what I have experienced so far is similar to what you describe.  So far my perception is also that the colour rendition is very good.

In my mind, the only concern so far with this lens is that there seems to be some copy variance, which may be significant. - I can't help but wonder if the guys at photozone.de got one of the "inferior" copies.

[gmrza]

When can I hope for the next rebate program? Nothing before Xmas? right after?

At least in the European rebate programs Canon in just discounting older and standard lenses and some tele zooms - I wouldn't hope for an official discount on this one for one or even two years to come I'm afraid to say. More likely they'll do a kit with the 5d3 sooner or later, I remember it's been seen in Australia.

Kit Lens?  For which camera?  I don't think this will ever be a kit lens.

As Marsu42 posted, this is already a kit lens in some markets (Australia/NZ and maybe others).

I can confirm it is available as a kit in AU.  I think the single box for the kit is taking longer to reach all dealers - we got ours as 2 separate boxes (not the one shown in the image).

You will find almost all Australian dealers are advertising this kit, which is advertised for about $6099 (including GST) but which can be had for around $5800 if you haggle a little. - That's about $5272 excl GST for those wanting to compare to American prices.

[turtle]

Calydus, they are thorough, but sadly there is sample variation. Their results certainly don't square with mine, which would suggest their copy is towards the bottom of the pile. I don't even need to run a test chart. Its blindingly obvious from the few hundred files I have shot. I thought my 70-200 F4 L was good, but this lens is a definite notch up on that and light years ahead of my Sigma 24-60 f2.8. I might test it against my 24 1.4L II, but I can already see the new zoom will match it, if it does not surpass it. Gut feeling tells me the zoom has more contrast than the prime too. 

A little internet research suggests most people are amazed by their copies, some ambivalent and think it 'very good but not astounding' with one or two people not seeing the fuss at all. There will be some calibration issues in there along with a few dog lenses. I have no reason to think mine exceptional as plenty of others seem to share my amazement at the performance.

The one thing I will agree with is that the lens gets noticeably weaker towards 70mm, but it is still very good indeed. Distortion could be better too.... but on resolution, contrast and bokeh, its an a stunning lens.

I suggest you guys read this review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff

These guys are VERY thorough with their review.
Based on this, I decided to go for the Tamron (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff) as each of the lenses has their pros and cons, but the price vs the pros of the Canon 24-70 II wasn't enough for me justifying buying this lens against the Tamron one.

It seems that a lot of people just like to have the "fame" or "high end image" that seems to come with a red ring on the Canon lenses, but they aren't necessary the best, just because it's "Canon" and the price tag is crazy high.

Don't get me wrong I love Canon lenses and all the other lenses that I got, are Canon lenses. But I had high expectations and they didn't came. Many of the reviews had high expectations too... and I find Canon failed to impress with this one, mainly because of the price tag... but still no IS, or any other thing you would expect in this price range.

[gmrza]

Calydus, they are thorough, but sadly there is sample variation. Their results certainly don't square with mine, which would suggest their copy is towards the bottom of the pile. I don't even need to run a test chart. Its blindingly obvious from the few hundred files I have shot. I thought my 70-200 F4 L was good, but this lens is a definite notch up on that and light years ahead of my Sigma 24-60 f2.8. I might test it against my 24 1.4L II, but I can already see the new zoom will match it, if it does not surpass it. Gut feeling tells me the zoom has more contrast than the prime too. 

I am now beginning to think that is probably the only place were photozone.de's process falls down.

In order to review a lens properly, you need to review a statistically relevant sample of the overall population of that lens.  That probably represents a cost which the guys at photozone could not stomach.

Ultimately, a really thorough review would also give a view of the expected sample variation in the population, as this is also an important characteristic of the quality of a lens - i.e. the lower the variance of the quality the better the manufacturing and QA process is, and the higher the likelihood that you as a purchaser will get a good copy.

Now if the guys at Photozone.de had access to the stock at Lensrentals.com..... (Unfortunately, that would require some tectonic engineering to achieve.)

[Invertalon]

I agree, Photozone definitely had an off copy of the lens. It seems there is some serious variation with many 24-70 type lenses. Must be due to the complexity of the optical design. Tends to be more than any other it seems.

I have tried (2) copies of this lens. The first was excellent all around except for the fact at 24mm the right edge of the frame was soft compared to the left, MOST of the time. It is like the focus plane was very far forward on that edge. Very strange.

I swapped it for another and no longer have that issue. Equally as sharp on both sides of the frame at 24mm... I am guessing a decentered lens element for sure. The lenses were very comparable sharpness wise on both ends wide open, though. I see no real difference besides the softness I had at 24mm on the first.

Amazing lens though... Made that range fun again simply due to the amazing IQ. I rarely ever used my 24-105 for the years I had it. Great lens, but the IQ was decent at best. The 24-70 II has become a staple in my shooting, much like the 70-200 II has. Will be in my bag for a long time, no doubt.

[JVLphoto]

Only a Canadian would post a photo of a car with its winter tires installed.  Of course, I guess, it takes a Canadian to notice something like that.

lol - well played - it was a shot of my buddy on the way back from a commercial shoot. 4 hours of driving, we just wanted to have some fun with the sky and all the equipment on-hand.

And the winter tires

[JVLphoto]

Nice job of reviewing, Justin.  I've had five of the Mark I copies.  None really bad, but not good enough for me to keep them.
I've been watching and reading the reviews, and deliberating if f/2.8 is fast enough for my low light use.  Right now, I use fast primes, and usually find them at f/2 or faster even with extreme high ISO settings.
I did purchase a D800 with 24-70G lens, and found myself at ISO 12800 much of the time, and the D800 requires a ton of NR at 12800.  The images still look good, but I need a supercomputer to do that level of NR on a 150mb image.  I gave up pretty quickly on that idea.

Thanks!  Noise all depends on what your final output is required for. I'm thankful so much of my work is for web, I neither need the MP's or to worry too much about noise as it's suppressed when downsized.