Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[cps_user]

guess you can use it for both? You should be able, for 2300 big ones

 

[candyman]

I looks that the II vers. is much sharper in the corners as the I vers.
I will be interesting how the new Tamron will perform. Is there a MTF Chart from the new Tamron around?

Canon 24-70 II on the left - Canon 24-70 I on the right:

Yes the performance appears as if it may be truly stunning. For an even bigger shock compare it to lenses such as the 24 2.8 IS, 24 1.4L II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 70-300L IS and yikes but it pretty much appears to match or beat them all! Crazy.

Exactly! At corner when wide open and at 70mm end, this 24-70 II seems to have both better contrast and resolving power than that of 70-200 f/2.8 IS II which is arguably the best Canon zoom lens ever made.

http://usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/Lenses_2010/EF70-200mm/profile/ef70-200lisiiu_wide_mtf.gif:

If Canon is able to create a lens that performs so well, who knows we may see updates of other lenses soon?
Still, I love to see reviews and sample images based on real use of this lens.

 

[DarkKnightNine]

$2300 and no IS...interesting.

Yeah, it looks like someone at Canon has a sense of humor or are just out of touch with the economic times. Nowadays customers expect more for less, not less for more.

 

[noodles]

I am sure prices will drop
The current 24-70 started with a price in Europe around 1400 euro. Later prices went down to around 1000 / 1100 euro

 

[Musicjohn]

In my opinion, regardless of image quality, this is the biggest mistake in the entire history of Canon. Yes, we make a 24mm WITH I.S. and we make a 28mm WITH I.S. but NO !!! We don't listen to the wishes of professional Canon shooters and we make a 24-70mm WITHOUT I.S.

Canon, who's stupid idea was this?

I will be waiting for the first lab tests of the annouced Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 WITH I.S. and probably run to the first dealer that shocks this lens. Anything will be better than my curent Canon 24-70mm f/2.8

 

[japhoto]

I'm really happy that the long wait is over and the damn lens is finally out!

The thing I'm happy about is that Canon is moving along and getting something done. This makes me feel better about my investment in the system itself.

Sadly the lack of IS is the thing I'm not happy about. I simply can't put this much money into a lens which is only usable (for me that is) on a tripod.

Hopefully they'll upgrade the 24-105 soon so that I can get rid of the 24-70 I have now. Don't know if it's my lack of skills, the unforgiving nature of the 7Ds sensor or that the lens has issues, but my keeper rate with the MkI hand-held is nowhere near what its supposed to be.

 

[00Q]

I will probably get this lens some years later. Im sure the images are much sharper, and I like the build quality of the L lens. Sadly, without the IS, canon isn't getting me to part with my cash to buy a new one. I'll wait for a used on on ebay in a year's time. SHAME ON YOU CANON!

 

[well_dunno]

With No IS and the price tag on this lens, I am going to give a serious consideration to Tamron 24-70. Hope there will be some test results out soon...

 

[moreorless]

I wouldnt get your hopes up for the Tamron given the negative effect IS had on the 17-50's image quality.

Personally I'd definately give up IS for IQ and size with a lens like this.

 

[Aaron78]

C'mon, stay positive. Maybe IS and internal focusing will be offered as a firmware update.....

P.S.

 

[papa-razzi]

So, why no IS?
- If you are interested in a fast lens - f/2.8, than you are most likely shooting in low light. Otherwise, you would purchase the 24-105 f/4 IS.
- If you hand-hold, then you need to bump up the shutter speed to compensate, and thereby negate some of the "low light" advantage of the fast aperture.
- This is not a sports lens due to the focal length, (for the most par) - where IS isn't really needed.
- The focal range is in the general purpose/walk-around range.

So, a general purpose, low light lens, not for sports, and used with a tripod?

Without IS, this becomes a very expensive, really sharp, general purpose lens - but not a low-light lens.

Am I missing something?

 

[darklord]

Without IS, this becomes a very expensive, really sharp, general purpose lens - but not a low-light lens.

Am I missing something?

The V2 has "Inner-focusing with USM" similar to the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I guess that's what makes it more expensive.

 

[moreorless]

So, why no IS?
- If you are interested in a fast lens - f/2.8, than you are most likely shooting in low light. Otherwise, you would purchase the 24-105 f/4 IS.
- If you hand-hold, then you need to bump up the shutter speed to compensate, and thereby negate some of the "low light" advantage of the fast aperture.
- This is not a sports lens due to the focal length, (for the most par) - where IS isn't really needed.
- The focal range is in the general purpose/walk-around range.

So, a general purpose, low light lens, not for sports, and used with a tripod?

Without IS, this becomes a very expensive, really sharp, general purpose lens - but not a low-light lens.

Am I missing something?

It depends what your taking pics of I spose, the shutter speed to stop most movement will generally be faster than the shutter speed to prevent camera shake so IS wouldnt improve its low light ability for such subjects.

For landscapes I'd guess Canon's feeling is that less serious users will probabley go with the 24-105 IS while more serious ones will be happy to use a tripod when needed to really exploit the sharpness to the full.

Compaired to the 17-55 the 24-70 isnt as long when you take the crop into account which cuts down the need for IS a bit and its also a good deal heavier/longer. Maybe not so much of a problem on a 1D but this new version looks like it will balance much better on a 5D to me with both being around the same weight.

 

[TOshooter]

Is Canon on cheap drugs??? No IS and a ridiculous price increase? I damaged my current 24-70 and was holding out to get this but now I am looking at the Tamron.

 

[steven63]

$2300.00. Plus tax and shipping. HA! I know the U.S. $ is inflating itself to oblivion but NO WAY I'm plunking down that kinda cash for this lense. NO WAY.

 

[D_Rochat]

Is Canon on cheap drugs??? No IS and a ridiculous price increase? I damaged my current 24-70 and was holding out to get this but now I am looking at the Tamron.

The only reasonable explanation for that crazy price tag is it must see through time. Way to raise the bar Canon!

 

[well_dunno]

I am not in line to get this lens as I said before and will be looking at how Tamron is. Correct that their 17-55 VC is not as sharp as the non VC version but one can only hope that they have seen the issue...

Just another consideration; not that it justifies the price but anyway, I recall reading in several reviews that 7D was outresolving many lenses. Can this be a lens meant for a high mp camera to appear later this year? If 7d is already outresolving lenses, then what would be the point of a equally or more pixel dense sensor?..

 

[skitron]

$2300???

LOL, so which body does it come with for this price???

 

[Canon-F1]

If 7d is already outresolving lenses, then what would be the point of a equally or more pixel dense sensor?..

that there are enough noobs out there with more money then brain?

 

[00Q]

$2300???

LOL, so which body does it come with for this price???

This is incredibly disappointing. I have been waiting for a few months for this lens, and this is what canon came up with. Not only without IS but at this price, I might as well buy a second hand 5D MKII and keep my current MKI. SHAME ON YOU CANON. I love it how tamron jizzed all over canon with the announcement of their own 24-70mm with IS.