Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[alexanderferdinand]

I think I had a good v1; and now a good v2.
At 24mm at 2,8 I noticed higher sharpness, contrast.
At 70mm the new one is a bit better.
Was it worth the money?
For me at using f2,8 yes; f4 and narrower too less difference.

I liked the tulip-sized lenshood from the v1. It was very protective.

 

[drjlo]

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..

Well, I also have the Canon 24mm TS-E II, 85L II, 70-200 II, along with 35L, etc, which is why I have not and will not buy the 24-70 II. I had the Canon 28-70 as well as 24-70 MkI, and the lenses above were simply much better, and $2299 (before rebate) is simply not worth it for me for the 24-70 II.

 

[iso79]

The Mark II is totally worth it. Ridiculously sharp. Sold my Mark I to help pay for it. Ended up only paying $1200 for the Mark II.

 

[e-d0uble]

Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality. Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses. Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test. The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything. I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.

 

[Viggo]

Still these sample variations? That's useless, but not uncommon unfortunatly.

My 70-200 f2.8 mk2 has been for repair over a month now. They have changed TWO IS-units, recalibrated AF, also twice. They have ordered parts 5(!!) times. They have adjusted the glass itself and had all kinds of problems with it. It's all under warranty and the lens haven't been subjected to any impact, so it just seems like it was put together on an early monday by blind drunk no-handed lazy people...

So when THAT lens passes QC I'm not surprised to hear about "only ok" 24-70's, I mean, my lens is much worse than a 55-250 ef-s in all aspects, IQ AF, non-working IS etc...

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

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..

If your a working photograher, you can't have a non-existent lens in your bag though! I get that you don't dig the 16-35, but, there is no 14-24 (and i guess now that may be a 12-24????). If you want a zoom lens that can cover wide to go along with the other zooms, what are you gonna use?

 

[EvilTed]

I sent back two copies of the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and kept the 24-70 F/2.8II because at F/2.8 it is sharper (at least my copy is) and it focusses a lot faster and more accurately.

I have to say, my 24-70 is the only lens I've had on my Canon 5D MK3 that I've liked and not sold (apart from the 70-200 F/2.8 II).

I've tried or owned a lot of L lenses (50 F/1,2, 24 F/1.4 II, 16-35 F/2.8II), Zeiss lenses and even the new Sigma's and Canon IS primes but nothing pleases me as much as the 24-70, and I'm more of a prime guy that a zoom guy.
Go figure...

ET

 

[Viggo]

I sent back two copies of the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and kept the 24-70 F/2.8II because at F/2.8 it is sharper (at least my copy is) and it focusses a lot faster and more accurately.

I have to say, my 24-70 is the only lens I've had on my Canon 5D MK3 that I've liked and not sold (apart from the 70-200 F/2.8 II).

I've tried or owned a lot of L lenses (50 F/1,2, 24 F/1.4 II, 16-35 F/2.8II), Zeiss lenses and even the new Sigma's and Canon IS primes but nothing pleases me as much as the 24-70, and I'm more of a prime guy that a zoom guy.
Go figure...

ET

Don't you miss that crazy 3D feeling the 24 gives @1.4? I've been going going back and forth between keeping or selling the 24 and swapping for the 24-70, but every time I try the 24 @ 2.8 to see what I would actually have with the 24-70 I don't like the look. I hardly ever use it any smaller than f2. and doesn't the 24 have much less distortion? But I guess it comes down to what you shoot..

I'm really keen on the 24-70 for shots with my Quadra light though, the difference in perspective (and smaller apertures anyway) makes it very high on my list...


btw, as I mentioned my 70-200 that was for service. They replaced two IS-units, the AF-unit, some ring internally in front, adjusted the glass, calibrated AF and two other parts. It still sucked at 200mm and not awesome for the rest, seems decentered also, so I had a guy try it and he loved it so I gave him the servicereport and a good price and bought myself a new one, will hopefully arrive tomorrow. Let's hope I just got a bad one and that the new one is as good as the very first copy I had a while back. ;D

 

[e-d0uble]

I felt that I should post somewhat of a follow-up to what I wrote regarding this lens sometime ago. I returned the "copy" I had written about, and finally got around to shooting a bunch with its replacement this weekend (after I adjusted it slightly with reikan focal). In short, the lens is quite good throughout the focal range wide open; and at f/4 through f/8 or so it's excellent. The bad news is despite what many see "on paper" this lens really isn't that much better (at f/4 and beyond, obviously) than the 24-105, except in the corners where it trounces it. That being said, the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is what I'd grab if I absolutely needed perfection at 24mm. But I digress. The 24-70 II definably also handles chromatic aberrations better than almost anything else I've ever used, and it focuses very very quickly. Problem is, I feel this lens is still way overpriced (yeah, I too paid for it)..

So, where I'm at.. I'm a sucker for both fast glass and for image stabilization, so I'm still torn as to which to lose. Chances are I'll sell the 24-105, but I'll be pissed that I shelled out so much for the new guy. Meanwhile, here's a snap from today... very good for wide open and brightly back-lit.. (50mm, 1/100th, ISO200). Cheers.

 

[Axilrod]

Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality. Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses. Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test. The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything. I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.

I'd try another copy, when Lensrentals did the tests there was quite a bit of variance, but even the worst Mark II was better than the best Mark 1.

 

[Axilrod]

Don't you miss that crazy 3D feeling the 24 gives @1.4? I've been going going back and forth between keeping or selling the 24 and swapping for the 24-70, but every time I try the 24 @ 2.8 to see what I would actually have with the 24-70 I don't like the look. I hardly ever use it any smaller than f2. and doesn't the 24 have much less distortion? But I guess it comes down to what you shoot..

I'm really keen on the 24-70 for shots with my Quadra light though, the difference in perspective (and smaller apertures anyway) makes it very high on my list...

That's a tough one, the 24L is an amazing lens and I think it really comes down to flexibility and convenience. I compared the 24L to 24-70@24mm and the 24-70mm was definitely sharper but the 24L had much less distortion and slightly better color.

 

[e-d0uble]

Perhaps I just had unrealistic expectations regarding this lens (who could blame me, considering the love festival on the internet regarding it), but after another day of shooting with it, I'm not convinced of its quality. Even after running it through "FoCal" it's producing sub-par results compared to nearly all of my other lenses. Perhaps I do indeed have a "bad copy", but I tend to find that saying that is often an excuse for naivety or poor photographic skills.
I neglected to mention before that I rented this lens for a week last month, but only had time to use it at an occasion where I shot all night using a flash @f/4-f/8... hardly a good test. The images that that "copy" produced were very good.. but again.. this is an f/2.8 lens; stopping it down with a flash @1/200th is hardly proving anything. I have 20 or so more days to return it, so I'll take it out a few more times before I dump or exchange it for another.

I'd try another copy, when Lensrentals did the tests there was quite a bit of variance, but even the worst Mark II was better than the best Mark 1.

I did try another copy. See above post including shot of nice looking female. ;D

 

[mackguyver]

I haven't shot with mine enough to say how much of an improvement it is over my very good copy of the Mk I, but I LOVE the ergonomics of the new lens. I know it's not much smaller in reality, but the MUCH smaller hood and body have me in love. With the Mk I, I kind of groaned every time I would take it with me because I took up so much room in my bag and just felt ugly and awkward on my camera. It took great and profitable shots, but was just a beast. The Mk II just feels so much better.

 

[Chris Burch]

Has anyone else had an issue with the rubber grip on the zoom ring? Mine is now stretched out some how and there is a raised portion that is no longer snug against the lens.

 

[Dylan777]

Has anyone else had an issue with the rubber grip on the zoom ring? Mine is now stretched out some how and there is a raised portion that is no longer snug against the lens.

No stretchy here. It still tight and firm - just like the 1st day ;D

Got it from very 1st patch

 

[Loswr]

Has anyone else had an issue with the rubber grip on the zoom ring? Mine is now stretched out some how and there is a raised portion that is no longer snug against the lens.

No stretching on either ring for me... I'd call Canon.

 

[lastcoyote]

just thought i'd mention that i've noticed significant copy variance. i went through 4 copies due to unfortunate problems (never had issues like this with any other lens purchase). first copy i had seemed fine and sharp however after a big outdoor session with it i felt it had the dreaded decentering issue as the right edge was always rather soft. returned it and then had a strange clicky zoom ring noise issue with the replacement as mentioned on these forums. someone else has had this too. seems to be a problem with a batch of the newly made copies. shame as it was lovely and sharp. so back it went for another. the third copy was a lemon. after proper testing i found it incredibly soft wide open (compared to previous copies) and it didn't improve much stopping down. especially at the tele end. no amount of AFMA helped. it wasn't down to a focus issue. went back for a fourth copy. first shot i could tell straight off that it was an absolute beauty. sharp as a razor across the frame. even wide open. both wide and tele end. finally got a keeper. yay! ;D it was from last octobers manufacturing line (with old style lens cap). obviously i'm really pleased but the reason why I say all this is that it may explain why some are raving about the lens and other not so impressed. i believe like the mark I version there are indeed some copy to copy variances. to be fair i mostly read great things about this lens so thankfully it seems there are more great copies than poor/average copies.

 

[bobby samat]

for a long time, my two main use lenses were the 16-35L and the 70-200L.

a friend of mine got a brand new 24-70 mark 1 for a very good price when the mark 2 was announced. when he got it, i used it and got very inconsistent results. some were kind of sharp, some were a little soft. wondering what was going on with my camera, i put on the 16-35L instead and everything looked nice and sharp. put the 24-70 back on and began having issues again.

very disappointing considering i liked using a medium range zoom. it covered the ground that my 16-35 and 70-200 didn't.

once i started learning how the lens had changed with the mark 2 and that people were getting good images, i bit the bullet and got the mark 2.

holy cow 8)

ive had this lens since early november and i've noticed it rarely gets unmounted from my camera. so sharp. so easy to use.

i wish the front didn't extend when zoomed. it just creates another area for dust/moisture to gather and work its way into the lens. this being said, dirt hasn't been a problem - even in the desert.

the only time i have problems autofocusing with the lens is if it's way too dark, or I'm trying to shoot too much into the sun.

if you started using the mark 2 and are getting soft images in multiple circumstances, i would definitely send the lens in.

 

[Smurf1811]

I bought the new 24-70 two times....the first time i used it and said to myself....hell this lens is boring. So i sold it. Than i bought it a second time to give it another try. What should i say...it was still boring. I mean...this Lens is sharp like a knife...but for me it has a boring look. So i sold it again. I rarly use Zoom-lenses and the 24-70 has not enough reach...so i bought the 24-105. this Lens is also boring but has a better Zoom range.

 

[bobby samat]

what specifically did you find boring about the 24-70 2?

TS lenses aside, could you suggest an exciting dslr lens to look up?