A Brief Hands On: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[clicstudio]

Horrible hood!

That has to be the ugliest thing I've ever seen. It even looks worse than a 24-105...
One thing I love about my 24-70 is that you don't see the lens when extended.
Also that little stupid hood will leak light like crazy.

 

[gmrza]

The good news? At least we’re sure they’ve made at least one.

) ... but you're wrong: the lens' serial number is 0000000039 !

And even if the serial numbers aren't serial, Canon also has one at the Digital Show in Melbourne - apparently the only one in Australia. That means there are at least two...

 

[RichATL]

Well, even if I was in the market for new zoom,
The price is awfully high...
and... the deal breaker for me... (believe it or not) extending zoom.
That hood will be absolutely useless at 70mm... and my money says that canon will make a specific hood for it at 70mm as well.

The most brilliant design that canon EVER came up with..imo... was the hood/zoom system for the 28-70mm (and later the 24-70)

I try not to be a hater... but canon seems to be making some bonehead decisions this year.

 

[EchoLocation]

Maybe NR in camera is turned off? My look way better even at 6400+

My 7D is a damn' sight better than that 3200 ISO shot.

In-camera NR is irrelevant here - these are Lightroom conversions.

If this is the best a 3500 dollar camera can do at iso3200 then that is pretty lame. This picture is noisy as hell!
What is up with Canon 2012....
and why was the ver 1 discontinued when the new one hasn't hit the shelves yet?

 

[Marsu42]

In-camera NR is irrelevant here - these are Lightroom conversions.

You can turn off or screw up nr in Lightroom, too. To answer the noise question we'd have to have the raw file - maybe the image was underexposed in the first place.

But in any case: Looking at the real world 5d3 shots from users in the forum tells me that the 5d3 might be a little better than the 36mp d800 at higher iso, but the improvement from the 5d2 is really not so large and people are strangely shocked to find iso noise in 5d3 shots at all...

 

[cschmeer]

But in any case: Looking at the real world 5d3 shots from users in the forum tells me that the 5d3 might be a little better than the 36mp d800 at higher iso, but the improvement from the 5d2 is really not so large and people are strangely shocked to find iso noise in 5d3 shots at all...

Maybe I am wrong about this, but I went from a 5D Mark II to a 5D Mark III and I shoot mainly in low light conditions (at night): When shooting a recent project (http://www.christianschmeer.com/filter/portfolio/The-Kray-Series-2012) I found the 5D Mark III noise to be way better than the noise on the 5D Mark II. It looks much more natural and is easier to deal with in Lightroom. All images were shot between 5000 and 8000 ISO. Once Lightroom got rid of the colour noise, the remaining luminance noise looked similar (not equal to, but definitely more natural) to a nice film grain. I actually reshot one of the photos with the 5DIII that I initially shot with the 5DII. Anyway, my point is that for me personally, the 5DIII noise seems way better than the 5DII noise.

 

[photogaz]

This site apparently has samples from the new lens:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=en&page=obiettivo&t=canon_24-70_v2

 

[Gcon]

I went to the PMA exhibition in Melbourne today and got to play with the new 24-70mm f/2.8 II USM and I gotta say I was really impressed with the size, build quality and focus speed. Can't comment on IQ ans I couldn't take images away.

If you look here http://camerasize.com/compact/#312.289,312.286,ha,t they have it wrong - the mark I is about right, but the mark II - there's no way it was that big next to the mark I. I took my mark I lens in with me and held the two size by side and the mark II is substantially smaller and lighter, which put a big smile on my face, as I find the mark I just a bit too big and bloated - especially the fat lip at the end. The mark II seemed just right - like a 24-105mm - very nicely balanced on the 5D3 body (no I don't work for Canon!!)

Some other observations:

1. Hood. Damn I love the lock-in hood! I've shot weddings where my mark I hood has turned a little (mine's very loose) and I've got the black hood in the corners. The mark II hood snaps in with the same firmness as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM - inspires confidence.

I do like the smaller hood immensely. I shoot landscapes with filters a lot without hoods and find that flaring is very rarely a problem. I think with this hood - sure it won't be as deep as the mark I but in reality - I can't see that as being a problem at all.

The only time that I prefer the old hood is when it's raining - the front element has greater protection, as does the lens extension barrel.

2. Focusing. zing! super fast! Really though I don't know how much of that was the 5D3 though. I wasn't allowed to put the new lens on my 5d2.
When comparing side by side, the old lens focus has a lot greater distance from 1.5m to 3.0m to infinity. I'd roughly put it at 1.5 times the turning amount to go from 1m to infinity on the old lens. The new lens - gonna make it a bit harder for manual focusing hitting the right hyper-focal distance as the markings are so close, but the trade off is most-likely to be the faster autofocus.

3. Build quality - no complaints. The big amount of rubber is nice to handle.

4. zoom feel. The old lens feels loose-ish around 70mm and tightens around 30mm and requires a bit more force to twist it to 24mm, whereas the new lens feels more even in tension throughout the zoom range.

Not sure what else I can tell you. If it was a choice of saving size and weight with no IS, or keeping the same size and weight and adding IS, I'm glad they went with no IS and gave me the weight and bulk saving that I'm really happy with. (remember IS does nothing for a moving subject!). To keep everyone happy, they really should release an IS version of this lens though.

It'll make for a great all-rounder lens. I think it will be fine for street. Not as good as a 50mm f/1.2 or 85mm f/1.2, but a lot better than the 24-70mm mark I due to the smaller size, which makes it easier to whip out of the shoulder bag.

 

[clicstudio]

"Unfortunately, Canon was probably placed in the worst lit area on the show floor, no art or great photos could be made with the new lenses, though I tried."

Which is why the 24 - 105mm IS L will continue to be the better lens when light levels are low with sharp images being possible as low as 1/6th sec.

I've never yet heard any client say images would be better if a sharper lens than the 24 - 105mm was used, so what's the point in a lens which weighs twice as much costs three times as much and has a reduced zoom range, and can't take decent photos when the light drops away?G

Want a blurred background? Then use a prime! 2.8 is only just wide enough anyway.

I agree that The Range of The 24-105 is great but it doesn't focus. I rented one for a week and not only it
Ruined half of my photoshoot but the focused images were not sharp at all.
They should make a 24-105 F2.8L.

 

[clicstudio]

I have no doubt this lens is going to be super sharp..
However, for someone like myself who don't shoot for a living and already own a 24-105, i can't justify buying it with this pricing (although not launched, we know it's expensive)
Maybe when using the the 5Dmk2 or APS-C cameras, an F2.8 will be helpful in low light situations. In fact the i bet if you could use something like an f1.8 or lower it would be even better but this is as good as a zoom gets.

But with the 5Dmk3 (which i own), i'm finding myself not in need of such a lens. I don't find the 24-105 blur, maybe not as sharp but definately sharp enough for most shoots. And with the 5Dmk3's high ISO capabilities, there's really no need for an F2.8 UNLESS you can afford one…the IS on the 24-105 almost makes up for the 1 stop difference. I've shot at ISO12800 with the 24-105 many times with no probems and that's why i took my interest away from the 24-70mk2 simply because i think although it's good to have the f2.8, i don't really need it and won't sacrifice the 105mm just because of it and well, more importantly, the price.

Wait until the new one comes out and get a used 24-70 2.8L. U will be amazed.

 

[clicstudio]

Well, even if I was in the market for new zoom,
The price is awfully high...
and... the deal breaker for me... (believe it or not) extending zoom.
That hood will be absolutely useless at 70mm... and my money says that canon will make a specific hood for it at 70mm as well.

The most brilliant design that canon EVER came up with..imo... was the hood/zoom system for the 28-70mm (and later the 24-70)

I try not to be a hater... but canon seems to be making some bonehead decisions this year.

I totally agree!

 

[drjlo]

I try not to be a hater... but canon seems to be making some bonehead decisions this year.

I totally agree!

Can't argue with that unfortunately.
Pick up the 24-70 II and the new 24 f/2.8 IS, you are ALREADY at $3100 :-[

 

[JoeDavid]

After cleaning up the 24mm shot a little, the image is not that impressive. The center is sharp enough but it looks to me like curvature of field is nailing it on both sides of the image. It's impossible to compare it to the 24-105L since the max f4 aperture DOF would hide some of this. Maybe he'll buy some of the Tamron 24-70mm VC lenses for the lens rental business and can do an A/B comparison for us. I'd give up a little center sharpness for better sides/corner performance at the wider apertures plus the VC would be a nice addition (and then there's the price...).

As for the noise, the OP needs to comment on that one. The noise levels out of my 5DM3 bodies isn't nearly that bad unless underexposed and then corrected...

 

[1982chris911]

Well seeing those two pics I am just not impressed by the sharpness in the far out corners. That is in no way as good a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II and the hood design of the new lens is also not that great if you think about great protection from raindrops the old design offers. Guess my 24-70 MKI will stay with me for much longer ( I am probably one of the happy few who really got a great quality copy, as I did never experience any problems with it)... It also works very well on the 5D MKIII so no need to update ...

Seeing this mini review it looks like my money will go into a 17mm TSE instead of this one as I really don't see a point in getting it if the corner sharpness is not completely stellar compared to the older MKI design...

 

[canonian]

Not impressed by these sample images. Feeling like they're just snapshots without any aim for really testing the lens. Also, it's probably still a prototype version. My version 1 of the 24-70 was great when I first bought it, but after a few years of heavy use it really started becoming unreliable and more than half the images shot with it were soft. Sent it in 3 times to get re-calibrated but it continued to just s_ck

I have the version II on pre-order and wish Canon would get to shipping them. When announced, it was supposed to start shipping in April, for cryin' out loud!

 

[pwp]

That certainly isn't the prettiest hood on the block but who cares? Will your clients even notice? If the IQ is there as expected, I might finally get a 24-70 that is worth keeping. I've been Mr Unlucky with the 24-70 f/2.8 classic, three copies and all huge disappointments. Right now I use an unexpectedly good 24-105 f/4is as a stop-gap until the 24-70II ships. And I'll be keeping the 24-105 when I get the 24-70II, for some jobs I value it's reach and of course the IS.

PW

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

All images were straight conversions without adjustment from a default LR4 setup. I had NR turned off in the camera.

It was a horrible environment to make a photo, and in no way did I intend this to be a true test of the performance of the lens.

 

[Daniel Flather]

...no way did I intend this to be a true test of the performance of the lens.

This is the Internet, and everything you read and see is true; your snapshots will be taken as scientific evidence.

 

[birtembuk]

Cant' wait to get one. Even if this means I have to buy a 5d3 together with it ... ;D

 

[FunPhotons]

I used to have the 20-70 I until I sold it. Nice lens, heavy though and the new one is spendy. I now have the 24-105 that I got with my 5DMKII. I didn't think much of it (gah, must be mediocre since its a kit lens) until I realized that my best shots were coming with that lens. Now it's the one most often on my camera (next to the 16-35 II when I'm doing landscapes)

No interest in an updated 24-70, more expensive, heavier, limited focal range, no IS, but it's 2.8 (no biggie) ...