24-70mm upgrade?

[bholliman]

I've been debating adding a f/2.8 standard zoom to my kit to use for lower light and indoor family and event photography. I currently have the following lenses that I use on my Canon 6D:

24-105mm 4.0 L
35mm 1.4 L
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
135mm 2.0 L
70-200mm 2.8 II L

I normally use my 35/50/85/135 primes for low light photography and they do a great job, but I find myself often wishing I had a fast standard zoom to avoid frequent lens changes or missing shots with the kids who are moving faster than I do.

I use the 24-105 for most outdoor and landscape shots. Its a good lens, but after extensive use this winter, I'm a little disappointed with its IQ, distortion at the wide end and I don't think colors are rendered quite as well as my other L lenses. So, if I buy a 24-70, It will probably become my primary landscape/outdoor lens as well and I may sell the 24-105 at some point.

Budget isn't a major consideration. I have the money available for the Tamron lens now and can have the money for the Canon II in a month or two.

 

[Dylan777]

In the past, I owned 3 copies of 24-70 mrk 1 and 2 copies of 24-105 none of these lenses could give me the results I'm looking for :-\

I was little worry putting my money when 24-70 mrk II was avaiable for pre-order. This lens is well worth it - I paid $2300 from 1st patch.

I would sell the 24-105 and use that money toward to mrk II before rebates end.

 

[mrkahn]

I went from version I to version II. I can see and significant change. Much sharper through the range and better contrast. Other than that, you may want to keep you old lens.

 

[Drizzt321]

I've rented the Tamron 24-70 a few times now (still saving up for it) as needed, and it's quite a good lens. AF can sometimes be a touch slower to get going than most of the rest of the L lenses I have, but in general it's quite good. Heavy though, but so is the Canon 24-70 v2.

 

[rsk7]

I just got the 24-70 II a week and a half ago. I have had the 24-105 L for a couple of years. The images were nice and I but haven't been overwhelmed with it. I would use it when I needed that focal length but rarely did I get images with it that were Wow!

My concerns with the 24-70 were lack of range and IS. The 24-70 is better at everything except 70-105 and 1/30th and below shutter speeds; images are much sharper edge to edge, distortion is less, CA is much better controlled, color and contrast are crisper, images pop with little adjustment. At 70mm, it is a bit of a wash on sharpness between the two but the distortion is better on the 24-70.

Is it worth 3 times the money (3x given what my older 24-105 is now worth)? Probably not to many people but I'm willing to spend it based on what I've seen so far. I'm going on a 3 week Scandinavia trip in a couple of months and I want to get the best possible image in camera that I can. I'm going to have to pay a lot more attention to shutter speed and ISO than with the IS of the 24-105 but I'm clearly getting better images with my 24-70 than I did with the 24-105 and that is what I wanted.

 

[eml58]

24-70f/2.8 L II

I've had version 1, which was good, but Version II is stellar, I gave my 24-105f/4 to my Brother In Law, good Lens, but not in the same patch as the 24-70 II

 

[pwp]

+1 for the 24-70f/2.8 L II

It's so good you could sell every other lens you own except for the 135 f/2 and your 70-200 f/2.8isII. Plenty of others are finding primes in the 24-70 range are sitting unused after getting the new 24-70f/2.8 L II. It's an astonishingly classy, competent lens.

-PW

 

[Rienzphotoz]

+1 for the 24-70f/2.8 L II

It's so good you could sell every other lens you own except for the 135 f/2 and your 70-200 f/2.8isII. Plenty of others are finding primes in the 24-70 range are sitting unused after getting the new 24-70f/2.8 L II. It's an astonishingly classy, competent lens.

-PW

+1