Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[sheedoe]

^ I don't know where amazon gets their "list price" from, but I'm guessing its not from this planet. I would not make any predictions on prices based on amazon's list price.

It comes from canon. Thats the actual price set by canon for it's MSRP. Just like the 24-70 posted above. The MSRP for both 24-70s are within $100 of each other. The 24-70 is very old ad that's why the prices are down so low. The same thing with the 70-200 mk ii. That's what canon gives as the MSRP.

Where are you getting this information from? You can check Canon's website for their MSRP. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

 

[mackguyver]

According to dpreview.com's press release from September 24, 2002, the original 24-70 was $2100 at launch:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2002/9/29/canonef2470l

Taking inflation and currency valuations into account, that's not so bad. Unfortunately early adopters take a bath for MSRP - just ask any 70-200 2.8 IS II or 24mm 1.4 II buyers out there...

 

[sheedoe]

So how many of you paid $4000 (amazon's list price) for the 70-200mm II?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Suddenly I'm not too worried about their announced price for the II. How long before we start seeing prices drop on the lens after it's released?

My guess would be we'll see various incentives throughout the year. $50 rebate here, $100 rebate there, buy it with ______ and get both for XX% off. I'm betting there's several benchmarks for sales, once they start hitting those marks, that means they've paid off the R&D and new item production costs, and they won't need as much profit per individual sale.

http://chuckalaimo.com/

 

[scottsdaleriots]

So how many of you paid $4000 (amazon's list price) for the 70-200mm II?

I paid $3000 for mine (which i sorta had to haggle for since the store i bought it from were selling it for like $3200 pr something, too long ago i cant remember) pretty much right at the end of 2010, but then again I didn't buy it from amazon nor do I live in the US. That's why I hate the retail price, in like 12 months it'll be a couple of hundred dollars cheaper, it's not fair!

 

[wickidwombat]

So how many of you paid $4000 (amazon's list price) for the 70-200mm II?

I paid $3000 for mine (which i sorta had to haggle for since the store i bought it from were selling it for like $3200 pr something, too long ago i cant remember) pretty much right at the end of 2010, but then again I didn't buy it from amazon nor do I live in the US. That's why I hate the retail price, in like 12 months it'll be a couple of hundred dollars cheaper, it's not fair!

yeah mate we take it in the butt from canon here in oz

 

[birdman]

Have you guys seen the MTF charts on this baby? Jeez....it looks incredible.

I actually think that R & D considered IS for this lens, but decided it would degrade IQ just a smidgeon.

And let's face it: this thing will be on a tripod for many pros anyway. If i actually needed that FL it would be on my short list. I would probably even part with my 35L to get it....if I needed the 24-70. It looks to be THAT GOOD!!

 

[MikeHunt]

So how many of you paid $4000 (amazon's list price) for the 70-200mm II?

I paid $3000 for mine (which i sorta had to haggle for since the store i bought it from were selling it for like $3200 pr something, too long ago i cant remember) pretty much right at the end of 2010, but then again I didn't buy it from amazon nor do I live in the US. That's why I hate the retail price, in like 12 months it'll be a couple of hundred dollars cheaper, it's not fair!

yeah mate we take it in the butt from canon here in oz

What about the incredibly strong Aussie Dollar right now, especially at a new high vis-a-vis the Yen??

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-02/aussie-touches-nine-month-high-versus-yen-as-rba-seen-to-hold-rates-steady.html

Have you guys seen the MTF charts on this baby? Jeez....it looks incredible.

Perhaps its the best L lens yet produced, but the price is £2,299 (US$3,600), that's even more incredible

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-24-70mm-f2-8l-ii-usm-lens/p1529492?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=canon%20EF%2024-70mm%20f/2.8%20l%20II&utm_campaign=Lenses%20/%20Canon&cm_mmc=google%20Warehouse%20Cameras%20And%20Lenses-_-Lenses%20/%20Canon-_-Lenses%20/%20Canon%20EF%2024-70mm%20f2.8%20L%20II%20USM%20Lens%20-%20Phrase-_-canon%20EF%2024-70mm%20f/2.8%20l%20II

This new lens in Europe costs more than the new 5D Mark III in America ???

 

[briansquibb]

Perhaps its the best L lens yet produced, but the price is £2,299 (US$3,600), that's even more incredible

I suspect the 200 f/2 will keep its best L lens for a little while yet

The 24-70II is new to market - so the prices will be at msrp for a couple of months before it drops to the the same as the 70-200 f/2.8 II - about £1800

 

[rwmson]

I am severly considering this lens to go along with the 5d3 I pre-ordered. I'm a little annoyed that it will require purchasing another set of filters to fit the 82mm threads.

 

[drjlo]

Well, I think the 16-35 was one of the main reasons they made the 27-70 have an 82mm filter threading. Many people buy the "trifecta" of 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200; so Canon makes some redundancy for this common combination. And then they assume if you have all three, then you'll have 77mm as well as 82mm filters.

No way 16-35 II belongs in the same "trifecta" with 70-200 II (24-70 II remains to be seen), not even close IME. The rumored Canon version of 14-22mm would make up that trifecta, and judging by the new 24mm samples, I have high hope Canon has finally refined their wide angle formula..

 

[Viggo]

Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?

 

[Dylan777]

Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?

I tried two copies from Crutchfield, Reikan FoCal showed 990ish in sharpness @ f2.8. Both copies were from 1st patch.

 

[Viggo]

Anyone still experience large sample-variation with the 24-70 mk2? I'll be getting one very soon, and wonder if it's still a need to buy three and keep the sharpest, or if if the differences are neglible?

I tried two copies from Crutchfield, Reikan FoCal showed 990ish in sharpness @ f2.8. Both copies were from 1st patch.

Nice, thanks for the input, then I know what numbers to look for also.

 

[spinworkxroy]

Anyone knows where i can download a lens correction profile for Adobe Camera Raw for this lens?
I've been searching but the only only one i found from Adobe's database doesn't work...
Doesn't anyone do correction for this lens?

 

[yablonsky]

The recent update Adobe Camera Raw 7.3 has the correction profile for this lens. Works fine.

 

[EvilTed]

The 24-70 II and 70-200 II are the only lenses I currently own in Canon L with my 5D MK3.
I sold my 16-35 F/2.8 II, 50 F/1.2 because they are soft and not what I expect from a modern Canon lens (and the AF is sup-par compared with the newer designs) and the 24 F/1.4L II because it is soft a sh@t in the corners @ F/1.4 and only sharpens up by F/2.8, where as the 24-70 II is better at F/2.8.

The 24-70 II is the lens that changed my mind from selling all my Canon gear and moving back to Nikon (D800E) - it is that good!

ET

 

[Chris Burch]

Occassionally while processing my photos I'll get all gitty about when I come across an exceptionally sharp and crisp image. That only used to happen with my 70-200 f/2.8 and of course the 85 f/1.2, but that's to be expected. Now that I have the v2 of the 70-200, it happens even more. I've never once had that feeling with my most used lens, the 24-70 f/2.8 until I invested in the new version. As far as I'm concerned...worth every damn cent. Here's a shot from an inaugural ball of the incomparable Audra McDonald. Shot at 1/125 f5.6 ISO2500 with a tiny bit of sharpening in LR. I included a 100% crop of the face. The best part is that I have about 300 shots of performances that night, all of which were this sharp.

 

[kubelik]

man, I remember seeing Audra McDonald in the original run of Ragtime. mind-blowing. Brian Stokes Mitchell also has the perfect voice to compliment hers. the recorded version is also excellent and very much worth getting.

wonderful shot, Chris!

 

[e-d0uble]

I'll quickly chime in here regarding this lens. I've had it for two days, and I'm not terribly impressed so far. I was excited to get this sucker, as I'm looking to consolidate my collection of glass and this lens could replace several other lenses if it were good enough.

This is certainly a good modern lens: all the positive reviews can't be wrong or outright lies, can they?.. The samples I've seen posted all over the place look mostly good.. However, for $2049 and after reading all the over-the-top reviews I was expecting a bit more. That being said, I have in the past disliked certain lenses at first, only to learn their quirks and produce acceptable results after time.

I did not own the mark I version of this lens, but I have lots of others (albeit primes, different zoom ranges, IS included, larger apertures, tilt-shifts, etc.) to compare it to. Now, I'm not using Imatest like the lensrental.com guys, but my eyesight is quite good and I know how to use my 5dMkII and MkIII just fine I'm fully aware that I'm not performing scientific tests here, and that the comparisons are in many cases completely unfair. Hopefully, I'm not flamed to Hell for this.

First off: aside from corner performance (where the 24-70 is quite good), the 24-105 f/4 IS seems nearly as good @f/4 all the way from 24-70. That in itself is bad news for such a new and pricey lens, and I was completely shocked. I tried hand held with IS on, and tripod mounted (IS off) shots and the results were fairly similar. The 24-70 did have better contrast than the 24-105. Perhaps my 24-105 is a real gem but something tells me it's as average as everyone else's. Next up, I compared a few quick landscape shots taken with it (at 24mm f/3.5) to the 24mm f/3.5 TS-E II. I felt the TS-E was clearly better. Again I was shocked, as the lensrentals.com guys said this lens bested the TS-E... perhaps only on paper. The next comparison wasn't exactly fair or balanced (lol) but I did it anyway.. I took a few quick shots of my wife (head and shoulders) with the 85mm f/1.2 II (@f/1.2) and compared to similar (yeah, I know.. it's pineapples vs. peaches) shots @70mm f/2.8 with the zoom. The in-focus areas produced by the 85 seemed sharper to me. Yes, it's a prime vs a zoom, yes it's 85mm.. yes it's f/1.2 vs f/2.8, but I was still expecting better from this new pricey beast. Lastly, I snapped on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which I consider to be the best zoom lens I've ever owned. @70mm, f/2.8 (IS on or off) the 70-200 is again better than the 24-70II (@70mm f/2.8 ). I'm going to shoot with this sucker for a few days straight to see if I can get better results, but so far I consider this lens somewhat of a letdown.
In closing: I believe that most of the "bad copy" scuttlebutt I hear about certain lenses is nonsense (or at least the differences in resolution copy-to-copy are next to undetectable by the human eye), so if I find this lens to be a dud I'm not sure I'd exchange it for another... We'll see..