24-70L II is fantastic

[VelocideX]

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]

Photos?

[TM]

Agree! It's my second favorite zoom lens!

[bholliman]

Agree! It's my second favorite zoom lens!

What is your favorite?   

[RGF]

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]

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]

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

[VelocideX]

Another at f/2.8

[VelocideX]

And one more at f/3.2

[AudioGlenn]

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]

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]

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]

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

+1

[Akhiel]

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.

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]

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.

Dear Rienzphotoz,
What makes you miss the Canon Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II soo...  much over the Tamron.

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)

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.

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

For me I would say yes.

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