Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Mentioned Again [CR2]

[ahsanford]

I do agree that the 16-35/2.8L III is much more likely to see a significant IQ boost than the 24-105/4L IS II. The latter is intended as a kit lens (albeit an excellent one), the bar for both perfromance and cost will be lower than a specialized fast UWA zoom.

My point is that I want IS in the 24-70/2.8 and will buy other lenses before I'll buy a standard zoom without IS.

Got it. Consider the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, I guess? Uncle Rog says it's no slouch from a resolution perspective:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests/

- A

 

[Ozarker]

I'm perfectly happy with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Sharp, sharp, sharp. For me, personally, I don't need IS at this focal length.

However, if I'd had the choice at the time and the cost difference was between $200-$300 I'd have gotten the IS model if IQ was rated the same.

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a wonderful lens and I'm not standing here saying, "Aw shucks! I wish I had waited." The IS version will have no pull for me.

The great thing is that Canon has been making some extremely good lenses.

 

[davidmurray]

I'm perfectly happy with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Sharp, sharp, sharp. For me, personally, I don't need IS at this focal length.

However, if I'd had the choice at the time and the cost difference was between $200-$300 I'd have gotten the IS model if IQ was rated the same.

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a wonderful lens and I'm not standing here saying, "Aw shucks! I wish I had waited." The IS version will have no pull for me.

The great thing is that Canon has been making some extremely good lenses.

Agreed that there are great lenses coming out - a great time to be establishing a good set of lenses.

How would you characterize the sharpness of the 24-70/2.8 mk2 in comparison to the sharpness of the 70-200/2.8 mk2?
Equally as sharp or one sharper than the other?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm perfectly happy with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Sharp, sharp, sharp. For me, personally, I don't need IS at this focal length.

However, if I'd had the choice at the time and the cost difference was between $200-$300 I'd have gotten the IS model if IQ was rated the same.

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a wonderful lens and I'm not standing here saying, "Aw shucks! I wish I had waited." The IS version will have no pull for me.

The great thing is that Canon has been making some extremely good lenses.

Agreed that there are great lenses coming out - a great time to be establishing a good set of lenses.

How would you characterize the sharpness of the 24-70/2.8 mk2 in comparison to the sharpness of the 70-200/2.8 mk2?
Equally as sharp or one sharper than the other?

According to Lensrentals, at 70mm the 24-70IIL is shaper. At 24mm it's sharper than the sharpest Canon 24mm prime, the TSe 24IIL. So yes...you could shay that it's sharp. It's probably the sharpest zoom ever made.

 

[ahsanford]

According to Lensrentals, at 70mm the 24-70IIL is shaper. At 24mm it's sharper than the sharpest Canon 24mm prime, the TSe 24IIL. So yes...you could shay that it's sharp. It's probably the sharpest zoom ever made.

..and dethroning the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II in the process. But in fairness, that's like saying your Bugatti is slightly quicker than your Ferrari. Both are stellar instruments.

- A

 

[davidmurray]

According to Lensrentals, at 70mm the 24-70IIL is shaper. At 24mm it's sharper than the sharpest Canon 24mm prime, the TSe 24IIL. So yes...you could shay that it's sharp. It's probably the sharpest zoom ever made.

..and dethroning the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II in the process. But in fairness, that's like saying your Bugatti is slightly quicker than your Ferrari. Both are stellar instruments.

- A

So if they can make a 70-200/2.8 IS with such good optical quality then they can make a 24-70/2.8 IS with the same or similar optical quality.

That's what I want. That's what I'm waiting for. I'm prepared to pay a premium for such a lens.

 

[Loswr]

So if they can make a 70-200/2.8 IS with such good optical quality then they can make a 24-70/2.8 IS with the same or similar optical quality.

Sure...I mean, it's not like the design parameters and constraints are any different, right?

 

[Donkey_Kong]

Pressure to release it, is surely that a lot of people that are not going to upgrade their 5d mk2/3 to 5dmk4 / 5ds mk 2 until there is an IS tele zoom that can produce enough iq to feed a 30/60 mix sensor...

Since when is a 24-70mm lens a tele zoom?!?

A telephoto is defined by the length of the lens is shorter than the focal length. So 118mm length, but only 70mm focal length...so no it's NOT a telephoto lens. An 85mm f1.2 L is 84mm in length...so that could just be called a telephoto. Interestingly, the 50mm f1.8II is therefore classed as a Telephoto, but the 50mm f1.4 USM isn't...it's 1/2 mm too long in it's length. Neither is the 50mm f1.2, that's quite a bit too long.

LOL no...a telephoto lens is simply anything further than 50mm

 

[midluk]

LOL no...a telephoto lens is simply anything further than 50mm

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/who-invented-the-telephoto-lens/

 

[Donkey_Kong]

LOL no...a telephoto lens is simply anything further than 50mm

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/who-invented-the-telephoto-lens/

lol no..
That's a croc of shit

 

[Loswr]

LOL no...a telephoto lens is simply anything further than 50mm

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/who-invented-the-telephoto-lens/

lol no..
That's a croc of S___

That's an apt description for most statements made by an internet troll, which is what you appear to be.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

One of the reasons I bought my 24-70 F2.8 Mk2 was the lack of IS. I like the idea of removing superfluous elements from the focal path and I like the fact that all my current (and previous) IS lenses have shown a marked improvement with the IS turned off. What I don't like is the fact that IS was fitted, and charged for, in the first place!

If Canon do introduce a 24-70 F2.8 L IS then I can see my non IS Mk2 staying with me for a very long time! Now when will they make an 800mm F5.6 non IS? I would trade my current 800mm IS in a heartbeat for one of those! Well so long as the cost difference wasn't too silly.

 

[Ozarker]

I'm perfectly happy with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Sharp, sharp, sharp. For me, personally, I don't need IS at this focal length.

However, if I'd had the choice at the time and the cost difference was between $200-$300 I'd have gotten the IS model if IQ was rated the same.

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a wonderful lens and I'm not standing here saying, "Aw shucks! I wish I had waited." The IS version will have no pull for me.

The great thing is that Canon has been making some extremely good lenses.

Agreed that there are great lenses coming out - a great time to be establishing a good set of lenses.

How would you characterize the sharpness of the 24-70/2.8 mk2 in comparison to the sharpness of the 70-200/2.8 mk2?
Equally as sharp or one sharper than the other?

David, I'll have to say that I have never made a direct comparison. I believe, though, that the 24-70 gets the edge. I've been laid up for quite awhile now and have not been able to get out and shoot much. That should change in a month or two.

I'm an amateur and was just really starting to learn when I got hurt.

I'm posting a photo from the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II just to illustrate the sharpness. The framing is bad, etc. But the sharpness is unbelievable. I got the 135 f/2L about the same time and was shooting portraits... didn't get around to using the 70-200 that day.

Just to illustrate the sharpness, here it is. Taken with AF:

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm perfectly happy with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Sharp, sharp, sharp. For me, personally, I don't need IS at this focal length.

However, if I'd had the choice at the time and the cost difference was between $200-$300 I'd have gotten the IS model if IQ was rated the same.

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a wonderful lens and I'm not standing here saying, "Aw shucks! I wish I had waited." The IS version will have no pull for me.

The great thing is that Canon has been making some extremely good lenses.

Agreed that there are great lenses coming out - a great time to be establishing a good set of lenses.

How would you characterize the sharpness of the 24-70/2.8 mk2 in comparison to the sharpness of the 70-200/2.8 mk2?
Equally as sharp or one sharper than the other?

David, I'll have to say that I have never made a direct comparison. I believe, though, that the 24-70 gets the edge. I've been laid up for quite awhile now and have not been able to get out and shoot much. That should change in a month or two.

I'm an amateur and was just really starting to learn when I got hurt.

I'm posting a photo from the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II just to illustrate the sharpness. The framing is bad, etc. But the sharpness is unbelievable. I got the 135 f/2L about the same time and was shooting portraits... didn't get around to using the 70-200 that day.

Just to illustrate the sharpness, here it is. Taken with AF:

I really like that shot. Did you have to pull the shadows a bit? Or did you get your exposure balance correct with the off camera lighting? It's interesting to compare your image with a recent DR "issue" DPR picture.

 

[Ozarker]

I'm perfectly happy with my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Sharp, sharp, sharp. For me, personally, I don't need IS at this focal length.

However, if I'd had the choice at the time and the cost difference was between $200-$300 I'd have gotten the IS model if IQ was rated the same.

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II is a wonderful lens and I'm not standing here saying, "Aw shucks! I wish I had waited." The IS version will have no pull for me.

The great thing is that Canon has been making some extremely good lenses.

Agreed that there are great lenses coming out - a great time to be establishing a good set of lenses.

How would you characterize the sharpness of the 24-70/2.8 mk2 in comparison to the sharpness of the 70-200/2.8 mk2?
Equally as sharp or one sharper than the other?

David, I'll have to say that I have never made a direct comparison. I believe, though, that the 24-70 gets the edge. I've been laid up for quite awhile now and have not been able to get out and shoot much. That should change in a month or two.

I'm an amateur and was just really starting to learn when I got hurt.

I'm posting a photo from the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II just to illustrate the sharpness. The framing is bad, etc. But the sharpness is unbelievable. I got the 135 f/2L about the same time and was shooting portraits... didn't get around to using the 70-200 that day.

Just to illustrate the sharpness, here it is. Taken with AF:

I really like that shot. Did you have to pull the shadows a bit? Or did you get your exposure balance correct with the off camera lighting? It's interesting to compare your image with a recent DR "issue" DPR picture.

The photo was taken at sunrise and I did use a single Flashpoint Streaklight 360ws with a 72" Westcott umbrella. The flash had the diffusion dome on it, bounced into the umbrella and back out.

I didn't have to pull shadows. I just got lucky as far as I am concerned and I think the light from the Streaklight is very good.

The photo was taken last fall and I have not taken many at all since. I'll be back out shooting soon... and learning. I need to work on being consistent and getting the framing right. My Lightroom and Photoshop skills are extremely weak too.

Thank you very much for the compliment. It means al lot to me.

Really wish I had a way to get in touch with this guy again. He made a very good subject.

 

[Jack Douglas]

"It's interesting to compare your image with a recent DR "issue" DPR picture." It is an interesting photo for comparison.

Jack