Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Has Made its Way To Retailers
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
T
tx8koibito
Guest
Ok after handling this lens for the last fews day I decided to give everyone a quick review from my experience.
The box came with no cd just an instruction booklet and the pouch + hood. Lens are wrap in the same way all other l lens are being wrap.
Upon holding the lens next to the 24-105 you immediately felt the different in quality, the new lens felt much more plasticky compare to the 24-105 the same feeling you get from the 100 macro in which I think it is a draw back. Weight wise they are very identical only a tab heavier with the new lens due to its front element.
The Zooming felt much tighter than the 24-105 but are smooth no complaint there
However the locking switch make a loud click noise one switched.
Hood are exactly the same feel with the 70-200ii which resist well to small scratches same size as the 24-105 but are more stiffer
Mounting the lens onto the body is quite stable as there is no play between the two which is better than the 85 1.2
In term of image quality I have only taken low light image (as posted) contrast is superb and focus are sharp and accurate felt it is faster than the 70-200ii Even with cir pola filters
Image quality is as expected for that price a sharp and well contrast image straigh off camera
Mounted on the 1dx it is a beast of a combo as it's release the full potential of auto focus very well predicted focus and are extremely accurate. Had no trouble focusing in low light with moving object
Overall so far without a flash photshoot I am extremely happy with the new lens however is it worth the upgrade Yes if you are using higher end cameras to take advantage of focus speed and noise definitely if you just wanting a walk around lens the 24-105 definitely out perform in term of usabilty due to it's focal and built quality, I was about to sell my 24-105 but now i decided to Hang on to it...
More better review once I set out on my first photoshoot with flash
Thank you
The box came with no cd just an instruction booklet and the pouch + hood. Lens are wrap in the same way all other l lens are being wrap.
Upon holding the lens next to the 24-105 you immediately felt the different in quality, the new lens felt much more plasticky compare to the 24-105 the same feeling you get from the 100 macro in which I think it is a draw back. Weight wise they are very identical only a tab heavier with the new lens due to its front element.
The Zooming felt much tighter than the 24-105 but are smooth no complaint there
However the locking switch make a loud click noise one switched.
Hood are exactly the same feel with the 70-200ii which resist well to small scratches same size as the 24-105 but are more stiffer
Mounting the lens onto the body is quite stable as there is no play between the two which is better than the 85 1.2
In term of image quality I have only taken low light image (as posted) contrast is superb and focus are sharp and accurate felt it is faster than the 70-200ii Even with cir pola filters
Image quality is as expected for that price a sharp and well contrast image straigh off camera
Mounted on the 1dx it is a beast of a combo as it's release the full potential of auto focus very well predicted focus and are extremely accurate. Had no trouble focusing in low light with moving object
Overall so far without a flash photshoot I am extremely happy with the new lens however is it worth the upgrade Yes if you are using higher end cameras to take advantage of focus speed and noise definitely if you just wanting a walk around lens the 24-105 definitely out perform in term of usabilty due to it's focal and built quality, I was about to sell my 24-105 but now i decided to Hang on to it...
More better review once I set out on my first photoshoot with flash
Thank you
Upvote
0
tx8koibito said:
So for a $2000+ standard zoom it isn't "the" lens after all - I know the "plastic" feeling from my 100L lens, and the fact that the 24-105L *with* IS feels more sturdy isn't that impressive for the new lens. But it really doesn't matter, for people needing/wanting f2.8 and a fast af (i.e. not Tamron) will buy it anyway no matter what.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
I agree. If this is to be considered as a tool allowing make more money - it will be selling like hell.
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
I like the feel (and sharpness, color, AF and IS) of my 100 L. I hope the new 24-70 II is like it in these ways (even without the IS). My 24-105 was nice but I think the 24-70 will be better (and it should be) - I will make up the difference in price shortly by being able to use it in more situations than the 24-105 (I shoot a lot of sports). I placed my order with B&H on 2/12 this year - hopefully I am near the front of the pre-order list and will get mine soon.
Upvote
0
M
M.ST
Guest
Some more infos about the feeling.
Canon reduces the weight of the lens because they got al lot of mail from pros that demand a lens with lower weight. If you work over 8 hours with the EF 70-200 2.8 II IS you know the pain in you arm for the first weeks working with it.
But the medal has two sides, lower weight always means that you have to make compromises in durability and product quality.
I report a lot of wishes to Canon for this lens. But they ignore a lot of them.
If you have this lens try out aperture stars in a low light situation with f16 or f22 and you see what I mean.
Compared to the prototype I am a little bit disappointed by the product quality (I don´t mean the AF and the optical quality). But I learn in the last years, that cameras and lenses you use professional only have a limited lifetime even by the best care.
If you want have a 2.8 zoom in this focal range from Canon get it.
I buy the 24-105 IS a few years ago and sell it after three days use. Never seen such a optical quality in any other lens before. It´s absolutely a shame that Canon put the old 24-105 IS in a kit with the new 5D Mark III.
Canon reduces the weight of the lens because they got al lot of mail from pros that demand a lens with lower weight. If you work over 8 hours with the EF 70-200 2.8 II IS you know the pain in you arm for the first weeks working with it.
But the medal has two sides, lower weight always means that you have to make compromises in durability and product quality.
I report a lot of wishes to Canon for this lens. But they ignore a lot of them.
If you have this lens try out aperture stars in a low light situation with f16 or f22 and you see what I mean.
Compared to the prototype I am a little bit disappointed by the product quality (I don´t mean the AF and the optical quality). But I learn in the last years, that cameras and lenses you use professional only have a limited lifetime even by the best care.
If you want have a 2.8 zoom in this focal range from Canon get it.
I buy the 24-105 IS a few years ago and sell it after three days use. Never seen such a optical quality in any other lens before. It´s absolutely a shame that Canon put the old 24-105 IS in a kit with the new 5D Mark III.
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
Strangely, I feel more confident than when I bought it, because from experience I now know that if anything breaks it's the lens first, then the rear or top lcd. But more sturdy is certainly better, that's why I am quite critical towards my 100L "plastic" lens.
For my 2cents, I'd rather carry 100g more with the 24-70 and a sturdier body because 800g or 900g doesn't make that much of a difference, it's nowhere near my 70-300L or even the 70-200L
Dylan777 said:
Excuse me, but that's bs - or are you implying that a lens can be either heavy/sturdy *or* have a fast af and good sharpness? No, it's quite alright for me to be critical towards the Canon trend to plastic quality (60d, 100L, 24-70ii) even if I own two of the said items.
Upvote
0
M.ST said:
So you are allowed to talk about the prototypes now?
M.ST said:
Well, since few people have the lens - what do yo mean
?M.ST said:
So the prototype you used was heavier and sturdier? Do you see any benefits by what Canon changed?
Upvote
0
Marsu42 said:
Who cares about the so-called plastic feel of the 100L if it performs well and that makes it lighter. For all you know it might hold up to impacts better or be less expensive to repair from a drop (plastic tamron got dropped, front bit cracked, bought new front plastic for $5, snapped it on, all good, if the 17-40L had had the same fall the 'sturdy' front metal would have bent and the whole thing would've been at least $200 from Canon to fix, I'm sure).
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Well, I care
and btw I'd really like to know if my 100L really is more plastic or if it's just my impression. Sadly, sharpness gets tested no ends in reviews, but about lens build quality it's mostly just subjective opinions or fun videos on youtube with people setting lenses on fire.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
