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

[Canon Rumors]

Tweet

From DPReview
The folks at DPReview have completed their extensive review of the pretty great Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. Did they like it? It seems so, although the usual price complaint comes up again.

Says DPR.. “The answer, as usual, isn’t necessarily clear-cut, and depends on each individual photographers’ needs and preferences. Compared to the previous version, it offers weathersealing and a welcome reduction in weight. The Sigma can’t match it optically, especially on full frame, but is so much cheaper that many users may well be willing to overlook this, particularly if they use APS-C cameras. The Tamron looks like a very worthy competitor, offering impressive image quality, image stabilisation and weathersealing all in one package, and we aim to assess it fully in the near future. But quite simply the Canon offers such exceptionally good optics that, if you’re after the very best, there’s simply no other choice.”

Read the full review | Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II $2049 (add to cart)

cr

[neuroanatomist]

More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.

Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'.  Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?

[miejoe]

Did Canon really manage a 1/2-stop transmission improvement over version I?

DPreview didn't mention it at all in their review but it shows in the lens widget when you compare the two lenses.

[J.R.]

More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.

Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'.  Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?

A few pros I know have retained both. I had put the same question to them and the reason they cite is that for long shoots and weddings, IS is extremely important to them once tiredness sets.

Personally, I'm not too sure of what I would do ... After reading such reviews of the 24-70 II, it feels like its time to try it out.

[neuroanatomist]

Personally, I'm not too sure of what I would do ... After reading such reviews of the 24-70 II, it feels like its time to try it out.

Yeah, I've decided that I'm getting the 24-70 II.  Just trying to decide if I should accelerate that purchase by selling the 24-105L to offset the cost. 

For normal use (shooting people), I'm not too fussed about giving up IS.  Looking at my stats for the 24-105L on the 1D X, less than 4% of my shots are at slower than 1/125 s (I set a 1/125 s minimum shutter speed) - and the ones that are slower are mostly 1/60 s (likely flash shots).  Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm, but I suspect the better IQ will make that a worthwhile trade.  Also, the improved AF accuracy with the combination of the newer bodies and 2012- lenses is a big factor.

I just have this feeling that after getting the 24-70 II, I really won't use the 24-105L at all...and if that's going to be the case, why not get the new zoom that much sooner?

[miejoe]

Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm

I would think that the higher sharpness at 70mm, especially stopped down to f/4, would give you the latitude to crop your photos to at least 85 or 90mm and still match the sharpness of the 24-105. This starts getting pretty close to matching the 24-105's usefulness as a walkaround lens, especially if you're not worried about shutter speed.

[docsmith]

Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm

I would think that the higher sharpness at 70mm, especially stopped down to f/4, would give you the latitude to crop your photos to at least 85 or 90mm and still match the sharpness of the 24-105. This starts getting pretty close to matching the 24-105's usefulness as a walkaround lens, especially if you're not worried about shutter speed.

....all true...and then there is that 70-200 f/2.8 II if you really need 70-105 mm range. 

I have been having similar thoughts and a potential plan for myself is to up grade to the 24-70 f/2.8 II in about a year and sell the 24-105.  My concern is at the other end, I like to use IS and the equivalent (just moved to FF from crop) of 24 mm to hand hold waterfall shots.  Of course, my other thought is to keep the 24-105 as a general purpose/travel lens and buy primes.

[iowapipe]

about pricing - one thing I read a while back;  when the previous version was released, it was very close in price to the new version.    So when people quibble about this new version being so much more expensive... it just isn't the case.   And I believe that in the posting I read, when the $ were adjusted for inflation, the old version (when first released) may be been slightly more expensive in adjusted dollars.

I have rented the 24-70 ii lens for an event coming up at the end of the month and I will be eager to compare it to the 24-105.  At work I do a lot of shooting in low light situations, so the f2.8 may sway me to budget for it in 6 months or so.

I know when I let friends borrow my camera they really enjoy the extra reach of the 105... and I find about 20% of my shots are in the 75-90 range.   It is nice at outdoor events to have the slight extra reach without having to pack my 70-200 f4.  About 60% of my photos are between 30 and 45mm.  If I were brave enough to drop the flexibility of the zoom, a 35mm prime would make me fairly happy.    It would be silly to retain both the 24-70 and 24-105 for me.  I don't want to have a collection of lenses in 10 years time, I would rather 'try' to keep to the minimum.

[Random Orbits]

Yeah, I've decided that I'm getting the 24-70 II.  Just trying to decide if I should accelerate that purchase by selling the 24-105L to offset the cost. 

For normal use (shooting people), I'm not too fussed about giving up IS.  Looking at my stats for the 24-105L on the 1D X, less than 4% of my shots are at slower than 1/125 s (I set a 1/125 s minimum shutter speed) - and the ones that are slower are mostly 1/60 s (likely flash shots).  Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm, but I suspect the better IQ will make that a worthwhile trade.  Also, the improved AF accuracy with the combination of the newer bodies and 2012- lenses is a big factor.

I just have this feeling that after getting the 24-70 II, I really won't use the 24-105L at all...and if that's going to be the case, why not get the new zoom that much sooner?

Probably true.  Never had the 24-105 and used primes instead after getting rid of the crop camera and the 17-55 f/2.8, so I'm used to not having IS at these FLs anymore.  I'll still opt for the primes for shallow DOF and for inside use (with and without flash) because of the lighting flexibility they give, but I'll probably use the 24-70 for most outdoor applications.

You might want to check how much of that 30% that is used at 105mm.  I often find large spikes in the usage spectrum at the focal length limits, which often tells me that I should have brought one additional lens.   

[klickflip]

... and I find about 20% of my shots are in the 75-90 range.   It is nice at outdoor events to have the slight extra reach without having to pack my 70-200 f4.  About 60% of my photos are between 30 and 45mm.  If I were brave enough to drop the flexibility of the zoom, a 35mm prime would make me fairly happy.    It would be silly to retain both the 24-70 and 24-105 for me.  I don't want to have a collection of lenses in 10 years time, I would rather 'try' to keep to the minimum.

I am in exactly the same boat here, using my 24-105 75% of the time.. infact its my second one and whats annoying me is it doesnt seem quite as sharp especially at the corners as my previous one, but that had gone way out on AF and was beyond recalibration.
75% of my shots on this lens are at 24-50mm, other 25% are at 75-100mm and i use my 50mm 1.4 when I can (but its focussing and build is awful but is sharp ) plus  the lovely 135L for longer shots or needing more compression but I dont use this focal length that much and dont ever need any longer (so the 70-210 would be wasted)

So should I get the 24-70L II or go for primes  24 or 35L, plus 50L and 85L - Will the 24-70 be a noticeable difference compared to the 24-105 at 24-50 range. Some reviews have said the 24-70L II is sharper at 24mm than the 24L prime, can anyone comments?

OR get the 24-70L II , sell the 24-105 and get 50mm L + 85mm 1.8 or sigma 85, plus sigma 35mm 1.4 ?

Or look at getting the 16-35L for my wide shots - how sharp is this lens ? Plus primes?

Although check out the compare lens charts / data on DPRreview and if you do 24-70L II vs 24-105L then it actually makes the 24-105 look pretty good, which has thrown me a bit I thought that this new lens was a lot sharper...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-widget-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=canon_24-70_2p8_ii&cameraId=canon_eos5dmkii&fl=35&av=5.6&view=mtf-ca&lensId2=canon_24-105_4&cameraId2=canon_eos5dmkii&fl2=35&av2=5.6

Love to hear form others in this dilemma.  As the 24-105 is such a nice range and decent quality for the cost... but is the 24-70 L II worth it?

[SteenerMe]

Yes the new 24-70 is worth it. And No you will not need or use the 24-105. I sold minewithin days of receiving the new lens....and I loved the 24-105.  It is simply just awesome!

[candyman]

More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.

Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'.  Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?

I am in the same phase as you are - only 24-70 tamron


I tell you that I have decided to keep my 24-105.
I will continue to use it as walkaround in my setup for landscape/average to good weather:


5DMKIII with 24-105 (and switching to 16-35 if needed)
7D and 70-300L


The 24-70 on the 5D MKIII mostly for indoors with the versality of zoom (and switching to 135L if needed)

[ahab1372]

[...]
Of slightly more concern are the ~30% of shots taken between 70-105mm, but I suspect the better IQ will make that a worthwhile trade.
[...]

What is the percentage for the range of, let's say 80-105? I doubt you will 10mm much at that focal length, assuming that cropping from a 70mm FOV to 80mm FOV will not degrade IQ much

[wayno]

Neuro - the 24-70 ii is in another optical league. The 24-105 is stale in comparison, IQ-wise. For that reason alone I feel you won't think too much about the 24-105.

[raptor3x]

More high praise for the 24-70 II, with the usual caveat of price.

Question for people who've bought the 24-70 II and had/have the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens'.  Did you keep the 24-105L, and if so, now that you have the 24-70/2.8 II, do you use the 24-105L any more?

At the moment I've kept both the 24-70 ii and the 24-105 thinking that there were situations where the IS would be way more useful than the extra stop from f/2.8.  What I've found though is that if f/2.8 is not enough, then I'm either shooting something where I'm using a tripod or using the IS of the 24-105 just leads to subject motion, so the 24-105 hasn't seen much use at all.  At the moment I think I'm going to get rid of the 24-105 and replace it with a 35 1.4 instead.