Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Arrived

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
7,832
457
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
HTML:
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-arrived/"></g:plusone></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-arrived/"></a></div>
<strong>Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II


</strong>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.</p>
<p>My first impression of the lens is very positive. I love the feel, weight and size of the lens. I actually have an event this weekend that I’ll be shooting, so I can put the lens through the paces in a real world situation. I’ll have it paired with the EOS-1D X, apparently they were born to be together.</p>
<div id="attachment_11205" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1C1A1409.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-11205 " title="1C1A1409" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/1C1A1409.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="383" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Born to be together | Canon EOS-1D X & EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</p></div>
<p>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. When you see the ISO performance of the EOS-1D X, that’s another reason not to care much about IS. That’s just my opinion!</p>
<p><strong><strong>Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II at: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/843008-USA/Canon_5175B002_EF_24_70mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA2470.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0076BNK30/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0076BNK30&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
 

Shnookums

EOS 80D
Aug 11, 2011
111
0
What I'd like to know is how the extending part of the lens react when the body + lens pressure is put on the lens hood. Juste like in the picture. The full weight of the camera is resting on a moving lens part... On the old 24-70, thehood was fixed to the lens my body, not the extending part.

I worry that the extending part if the new 24-70 might loosen up and degrade the performance of the lens in a long run.
 
C

Caleb Luke

Guest
Canon Rumors said:
...When you see the ISO performance of the EOS-1D X, that’s another reason not to care much about IS. That’s just my opinion!
Exactly my thoughts when choosing the 24-70 II and Tamron 24-70 VC...Thanks for solidifying my decision to purchase! Enjoy!
 
D

DB

Guest
Jesse said:
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.
 
D

DB

Guest
DzPhotography said:
Still thinking that that hood looks stupid ;D
+1

It would appear that Canon opted for this smaller petal-shaped hood in an effort to minimize weight. I much prefer the fixed larger hood on my 24-70 mark I, it gives one a greater sense of protection too
 
C

canonian

Guest
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! ;) ;D
 

dadgummit

Canon FT-QL
Jul 18, 2012
145
0
Orange County, CA
Shnookums said:
What I'd like to know is how the extending part of the lens react when the body + lens pressure is put on the lens hood. Juste like in the picture. The full weight of the camera is resting on a moving lens part... On the old 24-70, thehood was fixed to the lens my body, not the extending part.

I worry that the extending part if the new 24-70 might loosen up and degrade the performance of the lens in a long run.
it is now just like every other extending Canon zoom. After years of use the 24-105 has been just fine as is the 70-300L and the 17-55 I had with my crop cams.
 

tomscott

Photographer & Graphic Designer
I just think IS is a value added option and is useful. Wouldn't have cost them much to incorporate it, seen as tho a lot of Canons lenses have IS. Also in 8 years when its ready to be replaced people will be desperate as every other lens will have it... so does this mean a sooner upgrade. I find it useful on my 17-55mm.

But really its not necessary I use a 70-200mm L 2.8 without IS and dont have any problems with it and it would benefit more at that range. But still for a £2200 lens bit of a skimp without it.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,633
2,139
DB said:
It would appear that Canon opted for this smaller petal-shaped hood in an effort to minimize weight. I much prefer the fixed larger hood on my 24-70 mark I, it gives one a greater sense of protection too
It's not about weight, it's about optical design trade-offs. The original 24-70 has a reverse zoom - extending as the AoV gets wider. That allows a hood to be attached to the fixed part of the lens. The 24-70 II has a typical zoom design where the focal length gets longer as the lens barrel is extended. If you used a hood like that of the original 24-70 with such a design, a wide angle shot would have the hood blocking out much of the frame. I assume Canon had valid (optical) reasons for abandoning the reverse zoom design - for example, I've often wondered if that design accounted for the original 24-70's excessive field curvature.
 
D

DB

Guest
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

EOS 1D MK II
Nov 17, 2011
5,515
6
mine is on UPS driver truck "out for delivery"...I'm taking a morning off from work and wait for UPS driver. :eek:
 

Attachments

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,633
2,139
DB said:
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

EOS 80D
Mar 29, 2012
113
0
DB said:
Jesse said:
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.