Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Arrived

[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 ;D ;D ;D...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 ;D ;D ;D...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 ;D ;D ;D...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? :-\

 

[FunkyCamera]

Digital Rev are talking rubbish about this being a plasticy lens unlike the nice metallic original. Can someone set my mind to rest and confirm that this is made of all metal like a lens of this class should be?

 

[chabotc]

Digital Rev are talking rubbish about this being a plasticy lens unlike the nice metallic original. Can someone set my mind to rest and confirm that this is made of all metal like a lens of this class should be?

The outside barrel is made out of plastic - mind you it's industrial strength plastic so about as strong as a metal exterior would be - think EF 100mm 2.8 Macro type material

 

[chabotc]

Ok so it's only been 3 hours since my copy arrived but the initial impressions are very good:

1) Focus is out of this world fast and accurate, more so then the 70-200 II which was my previous benchmark of best focusing system

2) Sharpness is incredible - so much so that I think it'll make me watch the shutter speed and/or use tripods even more then before - it's so sharp that you'll be able to tell when you moved a tiny bit, and when it lands perfectly, well it does blow away the sharpness of my 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2 and 70-200 II by a decent margin - boy do pixels look amazing with this lens!

3) Feels great on a 1DX, balance works out great, even though it's not a super light lens its a pleasure to hold and use on that body

4) Color, saturation is damn good as well - relieved about this since sometimes sharpness / saturation are a trade-off in optical design, and this lens is nailing both of those

In short - it's looking like this will be my new most used lens!

 

[Jim K]

Still thinking that that hood looks stupid ;D

It looks alright like this, but when the lens is fully extended, that looks stupid!

I just got my 40mm/2.8 for my 5D3, that looks stupid as well: http://blog.erikhammar.se

With the 40mm it looks like you took the lens off and left the extension tube on.

 

[infared]

I want to know if you are WOW'ed by the lens. Hopin so.

 

[papa-razzi]

Digital Rev are talking rubbish about this being a plasticy lens unlike the nice metallic original. Can someone set my mind to rest and confirm that this is made of all metal like a lens of this class should be?

Roger at Lensrentals.com took this lens apart and was impressed with what he saw build-wise.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii

His summary quote "But it’s apparent to me that Canon has taken the time to design the lens well and build it sturdily. I totally agree, that for the price, it should be well designed and well built. But experience has taught me that is not always the case for a more expensive lens. I’m glad it is the case here."

 

[Act444]

About the IS thing - it "IS" really nice to have for events, though, because I like to try to use slower shutter speeds when people are posing- this lets in as much light as possible and 1) keeps ISO as low as possible or 2) keeps the backgrounds from getting too dark if I'm using flash. Of course, when people are moving about, shutter speeds need to be reasonable anyway, so IS is not so important in that regard.

The 17-55 is my perfect lens for this type of work for that reason. I just wish it were more durable/weather sealed, kinda flimsy considering its price. I would have been interested in an IS version of the 24-70...sounds like this is a good one, though.

 

[jdear]

Had my 24-70II on friday. Used it for a few shoots.
Hoping to test it against the v1 and also pit against my 24L and 85L sometime.

First impressions is its really nice. Controls flare well, and is sharp. Not quite as sharp ast my 85L (by which all my lenses are now measured) but its pretty damn good.

Attached is a 100% zoom from a quick unedited photo I took on saturday.
Settings on photo.

 

[Caleb Luke]

I took my 24-70 II along with me and my wife on our wedding anniversary this weekend. I attached a low-light handheld shot, no editing, just converted to JPEG from our trip. I enjoyed using the lens and the sharpness and contrast are great...But I must say after everything I read on the web, I was expecting a little more. It certainly isn't the lenses fault, just over-hyped myself during my research on whether to purchase or not. Do I think it was worth the price? No. But then again, I haven't owned the original version to make a fair judgement. Anyhow, it is a fantastic lens nonetheless.

 

[photogaz]

Digitalrev are really taking the michael with the 24-70 II

In GBP, it comes to £2200. That's £950 more than if I went to the US and picked one up (minus import duty)

No thanks at that price, no matter how sharp it is.