Canon EF 24-70 2.8 L II used for $1060.00?

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
140
7
I have the opportunity to buy the Canon EF 24-70 2.8 L II used for $1060.00 at my local camera store. I have about $800.00 in gift cards so I'll be paying less than $300.00 in real money. I've looked it over and it looks practically brand new. I did rent another copy today through Borrowlenses.com and I'm not sure if I received a bad rental copy. I shot all these at f/5.6. They just don't look as sharp as I was expecting from this holy Canon lens. The vertical images was shot last 38mm and the second image was shot at 70mm. I currently have the EF 24-105 f/4 L IS and a Canon 6D. How do these images look? Anyone else get the 24-70 2.8 L II after owning the first gen 24-105 L IS? Thank you.
2470_3.jpg
2470_1.jpg
 

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,088
541
It is awfully difficult to tell much by a couple of images that are not specifically designed to test something.

What I will say is that my EF 24-70 II is exceptional. I did own the EF 24-105 F/4 IS Mk 1 before the EF 24-70 II and I consider the EF 24-70 II to be a step up. In addition to a slight resolution bump, I preferred the contrast and overall rendering of the 24-70 II. Plus, f/2.8, which I use a significant portion of the time.

Regarding your images, all I can say is in the first image, the background is busier than I would have expected. The bokeh of the 24-70II isn't perfect, but it is better than that. It almost looks like the image was shot stopped down or something else is off.
 

YuengLinger

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,581
2,046
USA
Really hard to know if you will be impressed by the 24-70mm compared to your 24-105mm. In my opinion, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II was one of the best lenses I've ever owned, much sharper than version one. But I bought it brand new from an authorized dealer. Used lenses can bring a lot of variables to the equation!

As docsmith suggests, the images you've provided might show you something about the lens you (and possibly dozens of others) rented, but without helping us form an opinion.

It's very important to take standardized test-shots with any lens you purchase--before your return window expires. Only you can decide whether the sharpness and other image-quality aspects are satisfying enough to declare the lens a "keeper." Sure, we can get a general idea from looking at posted samples, especially comparing one lens to another, but you can see the originals straight-out-of-camera. This doesn't apply only to forum members' posted images, but even to the best online reviewers. Unless we download sample RAW images, a posted jpg has too many issues with compression, processing, and technique to help make informed judgments.

For example, one of my favorite review sites is the-Digital-Picture.com I like what Bryan writes, but I've never found any of his "real world" sample images help me learn much about a lens. However, his comparison shots of test-charts do help give an idea of how sharp one lens is compared to others, and how sharp the center quality is relative to the corners. (And even then, we are seeing comparisons of his copy of a lens compared to his copies of other lenses.)

Not trying to brush you off or just say, "You are on your own," but until you have the lens in hand and you have tested it, the best I can say is "Good luck!"
 

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
140
7
Really hard to know if you will be impressed by the 24-70mm compared to your 24-105mm. In my opinion, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II was one of the best lenses I've ever owned, much sharper than version one. But I bought it brand new from an authorized dealer. Used lenses can bring a lot of variables to the equation!

As docsmith suggests, the images you've provided might show you something about the lens you (and possibly dozens of others) rented, but without helping us form an opinion.

It's very important to take standardized test-shots with any lens you purchase--before your return window expires. Only you can decide whether the sharpness and other image-quality aspects are satisfying enough to declare the lens a "keeper." Sure, we can get a general idea from looking at posted samples, especially comparing one lens to another, but you can see the originals straight-out-of-camera. This doesn't apply only to forum members' posted images, but even to the best online reviewers. Unless we download sample RAW images, a posted jpg has too many issues with compression, processing, and technique to help make informed judgments.

For example, one of my favorite review sites is the-Digital-Picture.com I like what Bryan writes, but I've never found any of his "real world" sample images help me learn much about a lens. However, his comparison shots of test-charts do help give an idea of how sharp one lens is compared to others, and how sharp the center quality is relative to the corners. (And even then, we are seeing comparisons of his copy of a lens compared to his copies of other lenses.)

Not trying to brush you off or just say, "You are on your own," but until you have the lens in hand and you have tested it, the best I can say is "Good luck!"
I took some more images today with the 24-70 and my 24-105 in the city of Boston. The 24-70 is sharper especially at f/4-8 but it’s not a huge difference and I have to blow the image up to 200% to see the difference by f/10-up they’re both similar.

The guy that traded in his 24-70 shoots with a Sony A1 now. He also brought the 16-35 f/4 L IS but wanted to hold on to it. I know you can adapt Canon glass to a Sony body. I wonder why he kept the 16-35 and not the 24-70?

A couple of things I don’t like about the 24-70 is the weight and the lack of IS. After only a few hours shooting in the city my neck was killing me.

I have the 17-40 L, would it better to replace it with the 16-35 L IS or replace my non-IS 100mm Macro with the L IS version?
 

YuengLinger

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,581
2,046
USA
I took some more images today with the 24-70 and my 24-105 in the city of Boston. The 24-70 is sharper especially at f/4-8 but it’s not a huge difference and I have to blow the image up to 200% to see the difference by f/10-up they’re both similar.

The guy that traded in his 24-70 shoots with a Sony A1 now. He also brought the 16-35 f/4 L IS but wanted to hold on to it. I know you can adapt Canon glass to a Sony body. I wonder why he kept the 16-35 and not the 24-70?

A couple of things I don’t like about the 24-70 is the weight and the lack of IS. After only a few hours shooting in the city my neck was killing me.

I have the 17-40 L, would it better to replace it with the 16-35 L IS or replace my non-IS 100mm Macro with the L IS version?
What are your three favorite subjects? Or, put another way, what three types of photography do you enjoy most?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,392
5,137
I had two copies of the EF 24-105/4L IS (original, the first bought used then sold when I bought a new one with a 5DII kit). I later switched to the 24-70/2.8L II. IQ of the f/2.8 is better, certainly but the 24-105 is a good lens.

One difference is that on many cameras, an f/2.8 (or faster) lens delivers better AF performance than an f/4 (or slower) lens. On your 6D, an f/2.8 lens enables the high-precision horizontal line component of the center AF point (on my 1D X, the difference is greater as f/2.8 enables a row of five high-precision cross-type points).
 

pulseimages

EOS 90D
Jun 14, 2013
140
7
I ended up passing on the 24-70. 1) The weight of the lens is not great without IS. I tested it over 3 days and 70mm is just too short for my needs. I used to own the 28-80 2.8-4 L USM and that was heavy too but I produced a lot of great work with it on a 40D. I’ll look into replacing my 70-200 2.8 L non-IS.