Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[mememe]

I will never buy this... its really poor how the sunshade is implemented...

The old one is also sharp at any focal length... Field curvature was the only "problem" (not really as bad as with other lenses)

[CrimsonBlue]

I will never buy this... its really poor how the sunshade is implemented...

The old one is also sharp at any focal length... Field curvature was the only "problem" (not really as bad as with other lenses)

Not sure if that's the best way to decide on buying a lens.  I'm crazy, but I usually look at image quality.  And, the Mark I was NOT sharp at any focal length for the vast majority of lens copies.  Maybe you had a good one, but it wasn't the case for most other users. 

Bottom line, this is a very significant improvement, given the charts and the user's first impression here.  Canon is going to make you pay for that improvement. 

Not liking the price doesn't mean that we have to not like the lens, especially because "it doesn't have IS".  The IQ and focus speed appear to be leaps and bounds better. Just wait a few months for the retail price to come down or for used copies to hit eBay.     

[waving_odd]

I am curious as what it looks like extended. I hate the new hood, looks like the 24-105 and it leaks light like crazy.
Also the current hood doesn't let you see the extended lens, which looks horrible...

Already preordered mine from adorama!
 Cheers
Patrick

Here's the photo

Damn that looks like a much more reasonable size than the Mk1, could be the fact that the lens hood isn't on it though.  Thanks for sharing the pics and thoughts!

More pics here.

[kapanak]

Sorry folks. Not allowed to post full size samples.

All I can tell you is that a quite a few of these are out there for "extended trials" testing.

The lens was final back in autumn. So none of the ones out there are 'prototypes' per say.

[photogaz]

Sorry folks. Not allowed to post full size samples.
All I can tell you is that a few hundreds of these are out there for "extended trials" testing.

Can you answer questions though?

I'd love to know just how sharp it is? Would you say at f2.8 it's as sharp as the 70-200 f2.8 II?

[friedmud]

It really reminds me a lot of my 17-55 f/2.8.  Seems about the same size (obviously a bit thicker) and seems like the same zoom mechanism and even the elements look really similar when looking in the front.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It really reminds me a lot of my 17-55 f/2.8.  Seems about the same size (obviously a bit thicker) and seems like the same zoom mechanism and even the elements look really similar when looking in the front.

It really reminds me a lot of my 17-55 f/2.8.  Seems about the same size (obviously a bit thicker) and seems like the same zoom mechanism and even the elements look really similar when looking in the front.

The design is still a good deal different than that of the 17-55, that said it is a much, MUCH closer design to that of the 17-55 than to the old 24-70 (I suppose it had to be just for the fact that it extends when going to longer focal lengths like the 17-55 and unlike the 24-70, although even taking that into account it still seems a touch closer.) and it does more similar on the outside too.

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l-ii/spec.html
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/ef-s/ef-s17-55-f28/spec.html
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l/spec.html

[adamfilip]

Price-wise, does it make sense? I just got a 5D Mark II in January, and it's the first time I've went full frame, my dad gave me his 40D to use for the last year or so. Other than a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.8, I want a lens that I can walk around with and not have to back up for group pictures, so I'm considering this one or 70-200 II.

I really didn't expect this to cost $2300 though when rumors started about it x-x

Any advice?

advice?  Save your pennies and get one.

[kapanak]

Sorry folks. Not allowed to post full size samples.
All I can tell you is that a few hundreds of these are out there for "extended trials" testing.

Can you answer questions though?

I'd love to know just how sharp it is? Would you say at f2.8 it's as sharp as the 70-200 f2.8 II?

At 70mm f2.8, the 70-200 II is comparable to this. I'd say the 70-200 is sharper.
However, at all other stops, the 24-70 appears sharper.
The 24-70 focuses faster. Not by much, but the difference is noticeable.
My usage is limited to when the actual "tester" is present and available.
Tried and shot with on the 1D IV and 5D II.
I am willing to answer questions. No samples allowed yet, however.

[photogaz]

Sorry folks. Not allowed to post full size samples.
All I can tell you is that a few hundreds of these are out there for "extended trials" testing.

Can you answer questions though?

I'd love to know just how sharp it is? Would you say at f2.8 it's as sharp as the 70-200 f2.8 II?

At 70mm f2.8, the 70-200 II is comparable to this. I'd say the 70-200 is sharper.
However, at all other stops, the 24-70 appears sharper.
The 24-70 focuses faster. Not by much, but the difference is noticeable.
My usage is limited to when the actual "tester" is present and available.
Tried and shot with on the 1D IV and 5D II.
I am willing to answer questions. No samples allowed yet, however.

Thank you How does the flare hold up?

[Fandongo]

i miss the large hood of the mark i..

Haha yeah, petal hoods are the stupidest thing in the world.

Here, let me set this lens down while I swa...woops it's broken.

[JakiChan]

It does sound nice...I just dunno if I can justify the upgrade price.  I think if you take the time to get the lens dialed in the Mk. I is pretty sharp. 

And I wonder - once we've got a few thousand copies out there I bet we'll still have folks saying "it's not sharp".  Also, no sharing filters with my other glass is a bummer, unless I get that 16-35...

[coltsfreak18]

It does sound nice...I just dunno if I can justify the upgrade price.  I think if you take the time to get the lens dialed in the Mk. I is pretty sharp. 

And I wonder - once we've got a few thousand copies out there I bet we'll still have folks saying "it's not sharp".  Also, no sharing filters with my other glass is a bummer, unless I get that 16-35...

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.

[Gcon]

The design is still a good deal different than that of the 17-55, that said it is a much, MUCH closer design to that of the 17-55 than to the old 24-70 (I suppose it had to be just for the fact that it extends when going to longer focal lengths like the 17-55 and unlike the 24-70, although even taking that into account it still seems a touch closer.) and it does more similar on the outside too.

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l-ii/spec.html
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/ef-s/ef-s17-55-f28/spec.html
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/standard-zoom/ef24-70-f28l/spec.html

To me this lens looks like the love child of the 24-105 and 17-55. Both of those have IS! To me this is a very smart move by Canon. They will sell hundreds of thousands of these lenses worldwide. Then if and when Nikon bring out their 24-70 VR version, Canon will release an IS version of this lens, and sell lots more lenses! This lens, and a future IS version, are going to be major cash cows for Canon.

[DzPhotography]

It really reminds me a lot of my 17-55 f/2.8.  Seems about the same size (obviously a bit thicker) and seems like the same zoom mechanism and even the elements look really similar when looking in the front.

Is the 17-55 f/2.8 as good as I heard it to be?