Canon 24-70 ii - another superlative

[wayno]

Yet another ringing endorsement on the new Canon zoom. I upgraded with a touch of uncertainty after selling off my old version simply on account of not using it much - but since that time, I was finding myself increasingly zooming to 40 whilst using my 17-40 as a street walk-around/night lens and so the new 24-70 seemed a good fit.

After a night of shooting tonight in the city, I am astounded at the sharpness, clarity and sense of dimensionality inherent in the images. The starbursts are so punchy and spikey - they resemble F11 or higher (I shoot usually at F8) and are clean and virtually flare free.

People may complain about the price but I tend to see why now - with a slightly heavy heart I agree this lens is worth every $$ - and as a tripod or day walkaround architectural lens, it's superb. I'm still not convinced about it as a people/portrait lens - for that I prefer the primes - but for everything else, it's fantastic.

 

[EvilTed]

Agreed.
The 24-70 F/2.8 II and the 70-200 F/2.8 II are the only L glass I use on my 5D MK3 now.
I sold all my primes when I got the 24-70, it's that good

ET

 

[iso79]

I did the same thing and sold my Mark I. So I only had to pay $1200 for it 8) I'm loving the prime quality sharpness. It was totally worth the money. I don't care if it doesn't have IS. To this day I never had a use for it.

 

[spinworkxroy]

The 24-70 ii is indeed an incredible lens. I simply love it for almost anything. I bought it mainly for portraiture actually. It is the perfect pair to my 85 F1.4.
I shoot 90% portraits and i use the 85mm 80% of the time.
Before i bought the 24-70, i've always had situations where the 85 was just too close up and was impossible to use for full body shots indoors or tight spaces and the 50 F1.4 was just not up to par and I can't afford the 50L.
I wanted a lens that was sharp at the 35 and 50 range without having to spend so much for a 35L and 50L and keep changing lenses all the time.

I bought the 24-70 because reviews said it was dead sharp and when shooting at 35 or 50, f2.8 is more than enough for me…if i needed more DOF and bokeh, I'll use the 85 instead.

And true enough, the reviews weren't wrong..this lens is as sharp as the 85 prime at all focal ranges at f2.8…yes there's some distortion but it's hardly noticeable for full body shot (for close up i always use the 85) and you can always fix it in PP anyways...

 

[GoodVendettaPhotography]

The price is extreme, regardless of the results. I am wanting the 70-200 2.8 mk ii or I could sell my 24-70 mk i and put that money towards the mk ii version...but why? I have loved my 1st version since the day I bought it! On the 5D mark iii, is the first version of the 24-70 not enough? Yes, the new version is sharper and all around the better lens, but again, is version one simply being wrote off? I believe it delivers. I think I will wait for a price drop before upgrading. Here is a 24-70mm 2.8 mk i example using a polarizer filter and HDR mode on the 5D mark iii. Please note, I am posting this from a snapshot of the original using my cellphone.

 

[Zlatko]

Agreed.
The 24-70 F/2.8 II and the 70-200 F/2.8 II are the only L glass I use on my 5D MK3 now.
I sold all my primes when I got the 24-70, it's that good

ET

-1000... I own both II versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200. Great lenses but could never replace the primes, that's just a bad move selling them off 200 f/2 blows the doors off the 70-200, then there is the 85L, 50L, 35L, 24L, 135L... the list goes on and on... all of which offer something that zooms don't.

They are tools... zooms are great for general stuff but primes take over where zooms leave you... if you don't have them available another pro will take your buisness.

"bad move"
"another pro will take your business"

Those statements are way too broad, in my opinion. It all depends. Depends on the style, subject matter and business. What may be true for one photographer may be irrelevant for another. We don't all need the same gear. He is stating his view, which may be completely correct for his style and subject matter, etc.

 

[surfer57]

My 24-70 II is on its way right now. Can't wait to put it on the 1DX and shoot around.

 

[bdunbar79]

Agreed.
The 24-70 F/2.8 II and the 70-200 F/2.8 II are the only L glass I use on my 5D MK3 now.
I sold all my primes when I got the 24-70, it's that good

ET

-1000... I own both II versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200. Great lenses but could never replace the primes, that's just a bad move selling them off 200 f/2 blows the doors off the 70-200, then there is the 85L, 50L, 35L, 24L, 135L... the list goes on and on... all of which offer something that zooms don't.

They are tools... zooms are great for general stuff but primes take over where zooms leave you... if you don't have them available another pro will take your buisness.

Not really. At f/2.8, the 24-70 II beats the 24L, 35L, and 50L. In fact, the 24-70 II is significantly sharper if you are pixel peeping. I owned those 3 primes and have since sold them since buying the zoom lens. Why can't people shake the misconception that no matter what, the prime HAS to be better? In this case, it's certainly not true and I'm not the only one who has noticed this. Just go to Bryan Carnathan's website. Of course, if you need to shoot wider than f/2.8, you have no choice but to buy the prime.

 

[kennykodak]

Agreed.
The 24-70 F/2.8 II and the 70-200 F/2.8 II are the only L glass I use on my 5D MK3 now.
I sold all my primes when I got the 24-70, it's that good

ET

+1

 

[Axilrod]

They are tools... zooms are great for general stuff but primes take over where zooms leave you... if you don't have them available another pro will take your buisness.

chill kid.

the usual client cares a sh*t if something was taken with a zoom or a prime.
they are not pixelpeer like most here on this forum.

and not all pros shoot at f1.4-f1.8 all the time.

It's not all about sharpness, in my experience my images from primes just seem to have more character than the ones from zooms. Zooms are all about convenience and are great for plenty of situations, but sometimes the images don't stand out as much as similar images taken with primes.

 

[wayno]

As I said earlier too, I prefer the primes for other stuff - the DOF and better shutter speeds make a difference to me. As much as the new zoom is wild, nothing matches the 24L for crazy amazing portraits or the lush bokeh of the 50s. But that's me, YMMV.

The new zoom has more going for it than sharpness though - it has a sense of dimensionality and depth that I'm not seeing in the older model. When Zeiss owners wax lyrical about the 21 ZE I often roll my eyes but I'm now thinking perhaps there's something to it.....

And the starbursts out of this lens are out of this world!

 

[Random Orbits]

-1000... I own both II versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200. Great lenses but could never replace the primes, that's just a bad move selling them off 200 f/2 blows the doors off the 70-200, then there is the 85L, 50L, 35L, 24L, 135L... the list goes on and on... all of which offer something that zooms don't.

They are tools... zooms are great for general stuff but primes take over where zooms leave you... if you don't have them available another pro will take your buisness.

If I had the money to go 200 f/2, 85L, 50L, 35L and 24L and 135L, then I would... But all those primes in total cost a lot more than the two zooms in question.

 

[RLPhoto]

Agreed.
The 24-70 F/2.8 II and the 70-200 F/2.8 II are the only L glass I use on my 5D MK3 now.
I sold all my primes when I got the 24-70, it's that good

ET

-1000... I own both II versions of the 24-70 and the 70-200. Great lenses but could never replace the primes, that's just a bad move selling them off 200 f/2 blows the doors off the 70-200, then there is the 85L, 50L, 35L, 24L, 135L... the list goes on and on... all of which offer something that zooms don't.

They are tools... zooms are great for general stuff but primes take over where zooms leave you... if you don't have them available another pro will take your buisness.

Well, I wouldn't know anything about a pro stealing business.

But I will always sacrifice some versatility for speed, and primes do that quite nicely.

 

[wayno]

The other great thing about the 24-70ii is its weight. Heavier than my heaviest prime but not by much. It certainly narrows several gaps between zooms and primes.

 

[iso79]

I love primes as the next person but having to change them all the time is annoying. Sometimes causing you to miss shots and interrupt the flow of your shoot.

 

[BrandonKing96]

It's definitely worth ever cent I paid for it!

 

[thepancakeman]

But I will always sacrifice some versatility for speed, and primes do that quite nicely.

HAHA! I had to read that 3 times to understand what you meant. "Speed" for me means rapidly getting shots at all kinds of different focal lengths (action sports)--I can't do that very fast with a prime. ;-)

 

[Dylan777]

Agreed.
The 24-70 F/2.8 II and the 70-200 F/2.8 II are the only L glass I use on my 5D MK3 now.
I sold all my primes when I got the 24-70, it's that good

ET

+1....I'm thinking about 2nd 5D III or 6D. I'm not a big fan of swapping lenses.

 

[Pixel]

I love the two new zooms as I have them both too but they're no match for the fast aperture L primes when it comes to stunning bokeh not to mention the extra aperture stops.
So it mostly depends on what you're wanting to shoot.