Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[iso79]

The Mark II is totally worth it. Ridiculously sharp. Sold my Mark I to help pay for it. Ended up only paying $1200 for the Mark II.

[e-d0uble]

Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality.  Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses.  Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test.  The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything.  I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.   

[Viggo]

Still these sample variations? That's useless, but not uncommon unfortunatly.

My 70-200 f2.8 mk2 has been for repair over a month now. They have changed TWO IS-units, recalibrated AF, also twice. They have ordered parts 5(!!) times. They have adjusted the glass itself and had all kinds of problems with it. It's all under warranty and the lens haven't been subjected to any impact, so it just seems like it was put together on an early monday by blind drunk no-handed lazy people...

So when THAT lens passes QC I'm not surprised to hear about "only ok" 24-70's, I mean, my lens is much worse than a 55-250 ef-s in all aspects, IQ AF, non-working IS etc...

[Chuck Alaimo]

Well, I think the 16-35 was one of the main reasons they made the 27-70 have an 82mm filter threading.  Many people buy the "trifecta" of 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200; so Canon makes some redundancy for this common combination.  And then they assume if you have all three, then you'll have 77mm as well as 82mm filters.

No way 16-35 II belongs in the same "trifecta" with 70-200 II (24-70 II remains to be seen), not even close IME.  The rumored Canon version of 14-22mm would make up that trifecta, and judging by the new 24mm samples, I have high hope Canon has finally refined their wide angle formula..

If your a working photograher, you can't have a non-existent lens in your bag though!  I get that you don't dig the 16-35, but, there is no 14-24 (and i guess now that may be a 12-24?).   If you want a zoom lens that can cover wide to go along with the other zooms, what are you gonna use? 

[EvilTed]

I sent back two copies of the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and kept the 24-70 F/2.8II because at F/2.8 it is sharper (at least my copy is) and it focusses a lot faster and more accurately.

I have to say, my 24-70 is the only lens I've had on my Canon 5D MK3 that I've liked and not sold (apart from the 70-200 F/2.8 II).

I've tried or owned a lot of L lenses (50 F/1,2, 24 F/1.4 II, 16-35 F/2.8II), Zeiss lenses and even the new Sigma's and Canon IS primes but nothing pleases me as much as the 24-70, and I'm more of a prime guy that a zoom guy.
Go figure...

ET

[Viggo]

I sent back two copies of the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and kept the 24-70 F/2.8II because at F/2.8 it is sharper (at least my copy is) and it focusses a lot faster and more accurately.

I have to say, my 24-70 is the only lens I've had on my Canon 5D MK3 that I've liked and not sold (apart from the 70-200 F/2.8 II).

I've tried or owned a lot of L lenses (50 F/1,2, 24 F/1.4 II, 16-35 F/2.8II), Zeiss lenses and even the new Sigma's and Canon IS primes but nothing pleases me as much as the 24-70, and I'm more of a prime guy that a zoom guy.
Go figure...

ET

Don't you miss that crazy 3D feeling the 24 gives @1.4? I've been going going back and forth between keeping or selling the 24 and swapping for the 24-70, but every time I try the 24 @ 2.8 to see what I would actually have with the 24-70 I don't like the look. I hardly ever use it any smaller than f2. and doesn't the 24 have much less distortion? But I guess it comes down to what you shoot..

I'm really keen on the 24-70 for shots with my Quadra light though, the difference in perspective (and smaller apertures anyway) makes it very high on my list...


btw, as I mentioned my 70-200 that was for service. They replaced two IS-units, the AF-unit, some ring internally in front, adjusted the glass, calibrated AF and two other parts. It still sucked at 200mm and not awesome for the rest, seems decentered also, so I had a guy try it and he loved it so I gave him the servicereport and a good price and bought myself a new one, will hopefully arrive tomorrow. Let's hope I just got a bad one and that the new one is as good as the very first copy I had a while back. 

[e-d0uble]

I felt that I should post somewhat of a follow-up to what I wrote regarding this lens sometime ago.  I returned the "copy" I had written about, and finally got around to shooting a bunch with its replacement this weekend (after I adjusted it slightly with reikan focal).  In short, the lens is quite good throughout the focal range wide open; and at f/4 through f/8 or so it's excellent.  The bad news is despite what many see "on paper" this lens really isn't that much better (at f/4 and beyond, obviously) than the 24-105, except in the corners where it trounces it.  That being said, the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is what I'd grab if I absolutely needed perfection at 24mm.   But I digress.  The 24-70 II definably also handles chromatic aberrations better than almost anything else I've ever used, and it focuses very very quickly.  Problem is, I feel this lens is still way overpriced (yeah, I too paid for it).. 

So, where I'm at.. I'm a sucker for both fast glass and for image stabilization, so I'm still torn as to which to lose.  Chances are I'll sell the 24-105, but I'll be pissed that I shelled out so much for the new guy.  Meanwhile, here's a snap from today... very good for wide open and brightly back-lit.. (50mm, 1/100th, ISO200).  Cheers.

[Axilrod]

Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality.  Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses.  Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test.  The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything.  I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.   

I'd try another copy, when Lensrentals did the tests there was quite a bit of variance, but even the worst Mark II was better than the best Mark 1.

[Axilrod]

Don't you miss that crazy 3D feeling the 24 gives @1.4? I've been going going back and forth between keeping or selling the 24 and swapping for the 24-70, but every time I try the 24 @ 2.8 to see what I would actually have with the 24-70 I don't like the look. I hardly ever use it any smaller than f2. and doesn't the 24 have much less distortion? But I guess it comes down to what you shoot..

I'm really keen on the 24-70 for shots with my Quadra light though, the difference in perspective (and smaller apertures anyway) makes it very high on my list...

That's a tough one, the 24L is an amazing lens and I think it really comes down to flexibility and convenience.  I compared the 24L to 24-70@24mm and the 24-70mm was definitely sharper but the 24L had much less distortion and slightly better color. 

[e-d0uble]

Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality.  Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses.  Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test.  The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything.  I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.   

I'd try another copy, when Lensrentals did the tests there was quite a bit of variance, but even the worst Mark II was better than the best Mark 1.

I did try another copy.  See above post including shot of nice looking female.