Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Arrived

[DB]

So Canon did not set out with the objective of making the mark II standard zoom lighter and smaller? They've used a similar design as the 24-105 IS, the new hood looks flimsy.

I personally prefer the reverse zoom design with the longer hood for the narrower FoV, and I have no clue whether or not there was any optical trade-off in such a design, but I know it worked well in practice for many wedding photographers over the last two decades

[Dylan777]

mine is on UPS driver truck "out for delivery"...I'm taking a morning off from work and wait for UPS driver. 

[neuroanatomist]

So Canon did not set out with the objective of making the mark II standard zoom lighter and smaller? They've used a similar design as the 24-105 IS, the new hood looks flimsy.

I'm sure they did, but since the manufacturer-specified weight does not include the lens hood, a smaller and lighter hood would not help them achieve a smaller and lighter lens, technically. 

I, too, would prefer the old design, in that the hood is effective across the whole focal range, not just at the wide end as it is for the new lens (and almost every other zoom lens out there, eleven non-extending zooms like the 70-200's).

[KitsVancouver]

Need IS for video!

Absolutely not! You need a tripod/monopod or glidecam. Some sort of rig, but definitely not handheld. Handheld video looks awful and is amateurish.

Yes, but for home video, I would have personally appreciated it.  Oftentimes, I just want to grab a video of my kids and it's not often convenient to use a tripod or monopod.  The lack of IS just means I can't keep that lens on as an all-around lens. 

I may still buy this new Mk II but only when I know I won't shoot any video.  Video with my 24-105 without support, is totally acceptable. 

[lonelywhitelights]

I don't understand why some of you even give a $4!t about what the hood "looks" like. 

It's just the hood, people! 

Not just a hood, the Mark I lens hood provided protection to the barrel when extended, from rain and dust etc

when the mark II lens is extended that barrel is exposed to the weather

[Dylan777]

mine is on UPS driver truck "out for delivery"...I'm taking a morning off from work and wait for UPS driver. 

UPDATED: The lens has arrived ...I'll take this lens with me this coming business trip to Hong Kong and China - Sep 15th to 25th.

[Razor2012]

mine is on UPS driver truck "out for delivery"...I'm taking a morning off from work and wait for UPS driver. 

UPDATED: The lens has arrived ...I'll take this lens with me this coming business trip to Hong Kong and China - Sep 15th to 25th.

Nice.  Post some pics quick. 

[Dylan777]

mine is on UPS driver truck "out for delivery"...I'm taking a morning off from work and wait for UPS driver. 

UPDATED: The lens has arrived ...I'll take this lens with me this coming business trip to Hong Kong and China - Sep 15th to 25th.

Nice.  Post some pics quick. 

@ Razor2012...here are couple JPEG shots @ f2.8. straight out from camera. ZERO PP, except resize the pics for uploading.

my 2 cents:
1. AF is SUPER FAST - faster than 70-200 f2.8 IS II
2. SHARP end to end
3. Doesn't feel like plastic

Final thought: IT'S A KEEPER....I LOVE IT...a MUST HAVE LENS for Canon shooters

[iTasneem]

Great pictures!!

[VanWeddings]

Need IS for video!

Absolutely not! You need a tripod/monopod or glidecam. Some sort of rig, but definitely not handheld. Handheld video looks awful and is amateurish.

even on a monopod IS is useful. it's not just a handheld thing.

[t.linn]

I still get a lot of people asking why the lens has no IS. I’m of the belief a medium range lens such as this doesn’t require it. This lens is going to be most used in event photography, or portrait and that kind of thing. If you’re looking for a walkaround tourist lens, then the EF 24-105 f/4L IS exists for that purpose.

I completely disagree with this sentiment.  Though not as effective, IS can be useful at any focal length and LOTS of customers have requested it.  I'd love to know why the decision to omit it was made.  Perhaps there was an optical, size, or weight trade off which made omitting it the best compromise.

[drjlo]

I guess I will have to sell one of my expensive primes if I get the 24-70 II, perhaps the TS-E 24mm II 

[michi]

I still get a lot of people asking why the lens has no IS. I’m of the belief a medium range lens such as this doesn’t require it. This lens is going to be most used in event photography, or portrait and that kind of thing. If you’re looking for a walkaround tourist lens, then the EF 24-105 f/4L IS exists for that purpose.

I completely disagree with this sentiment.  Though not as effective, IS can be useful at any focal length and LOTS of customers have requested it.  I'd love to know why the decision to omit it was made.  Perhaps there was an optical, size, or weight trade off which made omitting it the best compromise.

I also disagree.  Image Stabilization is helpful at any focal length.  Think of all the beautiful low light pictures you could take if you don't happen to have a tripod with you.  Anything helps.  And let's be realistic, of all of the new 24-70's used, only a fraction will be sold to actual working professional photographers.  So those of us who actually fund this lens (call us "tourists, I don't care), would still really appreciate IS. 

[dswatson83]

The reason for IS is mainly for video. I want 1 lens as an all around lens and if I want to use this for video, I either need a tripod or another lens. That is not cool. Plus, a big use of this lens will be event photography and anyone shooting a wedding has taken pictures of the church, flowers, scenery, and other items where the shutter could be slowed down and ISO lowered. Not to mention in a wedding, people hardly move and it would be great to get away with 1/60 or slower shutter in my nervous hands. I'm shooting at ISO 1600-3200 alot in these ceremonies and every little bit helps.

[KMRM]

"I finally got my hands on the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II. I’ll be using the lens for the weekend and then it’ll be thrown into the rental fleet."

You don't have to put it in the rental fleet when you're through with it. You can sell it to me! I'm so behind, I'm never going to catch up to the big kids! 

I get my sights set on a new camera so I can use my 60D as a 2nd body and then the rumors start about a Canon that might be released in December. What should Santa bring me? A body (which one) or this lens?