Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS Still in Testing [CR2]

[JonAustin]

I don't own a 24-70/2.8 II, but by all accounts, the IQ is outstanding ... so pretty ambitious of Canon to aim for improvements. I hope they succeed better than they did with the 24-105/4L II!

Nevertheless, I'd be satisfied with a 24-70/2.8L IS that just matches the 2.8 II's IQ. However it performs, I expect a launch price of US $2,400-$2,500. I would wait until the price drops to $2,000.

But give me a 24-70/2.8L IS and an AHSanford 50mm Special, and I'd be done.

 

[Mancubus]

Canon is surely taking its time on this lens, they better do something really good and not screw up like Nikon did (the VR version has less image quality than the non-VR).

I'm also surprised to see people praising the 24-70 F/4. I had that lens and it was definitely the worst lens I've ever owned (relative to the price):
- mediocre image quality
- very strong focus shift
- rubber focus ring started to come off despite the lens being quite new and well cared
- totally unworthy of the red ring (the 24-105 is way better value)

Hoping for a GOOD 24-70 2.8 IS!!

 

[ahsanford]

But give me a 24-70/2.8L IS and an AHSanford 50mm Special, and I'd be done.

 

[Lee Jay]

Canon's failure to produce the last 24-70/2.8 with IS ultimately, through a long and winding road, led me to abandon the full frame system. This saved me thousands of dollars and led me to a system that really works well for me.

5D + 24-105/4L IS became 7DII + 18-135 USM, with twice the range and three times the frame rate. I traded the 35/1.4L for the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Nice to have at least a little zoom range. The 85/1.8 was traded for the 50/1.8 STM. The Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye became the Canon 8-15/4L fisheye. I kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II which I mostly used on crop anyway. For almost nothing, I also added the 10-18STM and 55-250STM.

Had the 24-70/2.8 been an IS, I would have probably bought the 5D III or IV to replace my 5D and the 24-70/2.8 IS would have replaced the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 and 24-105.

 

[Patak]

My 24-70 2.8 MkII was the most used lens for the 3 years I owned it (fell into the ocean and not usable anymore).

Ever since, I have been watching the price and it goes up and down but will replace it. Do not miss IS one bit. Image is sharp, colorful and crisp. Not sure if it could get too much better. I will not be waiting for the new version.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon's failure to produce the last 24-70/2.8 with IS ultimately, through a long and winding road, led me to abandon the full frame system. This saved me thousands of dollars and led me to a system that really works well for me.

5D + 24-105/4L IS became 7DII + 18-135 USM, with twice the range and three times the frame rate. I traded the 35/1.4L for the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Nice to have at least a little zoom range. The 85/1.8 was traded for the 50/1.8 STM. The Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye became the Canon 8-15/4L fisheye. I kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II which I mostly used on crop anyway. For almost nothing, I also added the 10-18STM and 55-250STM.

Had the 24-70/2.8 been an IS, I would have probably bought the 5D III or IV to replace my 5D and the 24-70/2.8 IS would have replaced the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 and 24-105.

Glad you've found what you were looking for, but it seems a very odd flowchart governed your decision making. If you moved from FF to crop over a 24-70 f/2.8 IS not being offered, I get it... if what you moved to offered that specific functionality.

Your response to not getting an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS was to get an 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 on crop... it would appear that f/2.8 and IS coexisting in a standard zoom had nothing to do with your decision. (Also, an EF 24-70 f/4L IS seems to have been overlooked in all this -- would have kept you in FF, given you IS, and still would have better subject isolation than that 18-135 -- but I digress.)

Again, I'm happy for you that you have what you need, but the notion that Canon failing to give you a Ferrari led you to happily buy 3-4 Fords implies you probably didn't want a Ferrari in the first place.

- A

 

[JonAustin]

Canon's failure to produce the last 24-70/2.8 with IS ultimately, through a long and winding road, led me to abandon the full frame system. This saved me thousands of dollars and led me to a system that really works well for me.

5D + 24-105/4L IS became 7DII + 18-135 USM, with twice the range and three times the frame rate. I traded the 35/1.4L for the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Nice to have at least a little zoom range. The 85/1.8 was traded for the 50/1.8 STM. The Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye became the Canon 8-15/4L fisheye. I kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II which I mostly used on crop anyway. For almost nothing, I also added the 10-18STM and 55-250STM.

Had the 24-70/2.8 been an IS, I would have probably bought the 5D III or IV to replace my 5D and the 24-70/2.8 IS would have replaced the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 and 24-105.

Glad you've found what you were looking for, but it seems a very odd flowchart governed your decision making. If you moved from FF to crop over a 24-70 f/2.8 IS not being offered, I get it... if what you moved to offered that specific functionality.

Your response to not getting an EF 24-70 f/2.8 IS was to get an 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 on crop... it would appear that f/2.8 and IS coexisting in a standard zoom had nothing to do with your decision. (Also, an EF 24-70 f/4L IS seems to have been overlooked in all this -- would have kept you in FF, given you IS, and still would have better subject isolation than that 18-135 -- but I digress.)

Again, I'm happy for you that you have what you need, but the notion that Canon failing to give you a Ferrari led you to happily buy 3-4 Fords implies you probably didn't want a Ferrari in the first place.

- A

I had a similar reaction to Lee Jay's post, but doubt that I could have articulated as well as you have.

That said, I confess that my photographic skills and needs probably don't require or call for the collection of L lenses in my arsenal.

 

[ahsanford]

That said, I confess that my photographic skills and needs probably don't require or call for the collection of L lenses in my arsenal.

Precisely why I am not selling my 5D3 and buying something better: I must develop my skills at this point.

As much as I'd love more resolution or a bump in DR for landscapes, my biggest deficiency right now is no longer my gear -- it's my skill level. I just need to shoot more.

- A

 

[Lee Jay]

Canon's failure to produce the last 24-70/2.8 with IS ultimately, through a long and winding road, led me to abandon the full frame system. This saved me thousands of dollars and led me to a system that really works well for me.

5D + 24-105/4L IS became 7DII + 18-135 USM, with twice the range and three times the frame rate. I traded the 35/1.4L for the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Nice to have at least a little zoom range. The 85/1.8 was traded for the 50/1.8 STM. The Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye became the Canon 8-15/4L fisheye. I kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II which I mostly used on crop anyway. For almost nothing, I also added the 10-18STM and 55-250STM.

Had the 24-70/2.8 been an IS, I would have probably bought the 5D III or IV to replace my 5D and the 24-70/2.8 IS would have replaced the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 and 24-105.

Glad you've found what you were looking for, but it seems a very odd flowchart governed your decision making. If you moved from FF to crop over a 24-70 f/2.8 IS not being offered, I get it... if what you moved to offered that specific functionality.

Long and winding road, remember?

The 24-70/2.8IS would have replaced two primes and an f/4 zoom with IS which I used for moderate light, stationary subjects and general walkaround. Combined with better sensors, the f/2.8 would have been fast enough for freezing moving subjects in low-light.

Instead, I still have separate lenses for this - 18-35/1.8 (same effective speed as 2.8 on full-frame) for freezing moving subjects in low-light, and a slower hyperzoom with IS for stationary subjects in low light and general walkaround. The advantage is the 18-135 USM is a way more flexible lens - way more range than the 24-70, works really well for video including compatibility with the PZ-E1. So, I lost the ability to use one lens for all low-light situations, but I gained three times the range in better light and way better video capabilities, not to mention saving something like $5,000.

 

[slclick]

That said, I confess that my photographic skills and needs probably don't require or call for the collection of L lenses in my arsenal.

Precisely why I am not selling my 5D3 and buying something better: I must develop my skills at this point.

As much as I'd love more resolution or a bump in DR for landscapes, my biggest deficiency right now is no longer my gear -- it's my skill level. I just need to shoot more.

- A

T H I S

 

[ahsanford]

Instead, I still have separate lenses for this - 18-35/1.8 (same effective speed as 2.8 on full-frame) for freezing moving subjects in low-light, and a slower hyperzoom with IS for stationary subjects in low light and general walkaround. The advantage is the 18-135 USM is a way more flexible lens - way more range than the 24-70, works really well for video including compatibility with the PZ-E1. So, I lost the ability to use one lens for all low-light situations, but I gained three times the range in better light and way better video capabilities, not to mention saving something like $5,000.

Apologies, thanks for clarifying. So you got a superfast standard zoom with limited FL multiplier and a slower standard zoom with a much larger FL multiplier. Bases covered, got it.

I have a bad habit of seeing something - 35mm and thinking it's an UWA zoom, so I didn't think of the Sigma as a standard zoom option in crop. My bad.

- A

 

[Berowne]

Canon's failure to produce the last 24-70/2.8 with IS ultimately, through a long and winding road, led me to abandon the full frame system. This saved me thousands of dollars and led me to a system that really works well for me.

5D + 24-105/4L IS became 7DII + 18-135 USM, with twice the range and three times the frame rate. I traded the 35/1.4L for the Sigma 18-35/1.8. Nice to have at least a little zoom range. The 85/1.8 was traded for the 50/1.8 STM. The Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye became the Canon 8-15/4L fisheye. I kept the 70-200/2.8L IS II which I mostly used on crop anyway. For almost nothing, I also added the 10-18STM and 55-250STM.

Had the 24-70/2.8 been an IS, I would have probably bought the 5D III or IV to replace my 5D and the 24-70/2.8 IS would have replaced the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 and 24-105.

The 7DII is a fantastic camera. My son purchased one a year ago and is pretty happy with it, especially together with the new 100-400. But since we acquired a 6D half a year ago (my first FF), he is all the Day talking with Daddy about a 1DxII (AF, Speed and FF). We rented one and he (and me) would not give it away again.

But this is a lot of Money for a camera and my Feeling is, similar to ahsanford, that I should better develop my skills. Anyway I will not longer prefer a crop camera. If you compare Crop+10-18STM and FF+16-35/4, the choice is clearly with the FF-variant. I would also not replace FF+85/1.8 with Crop-50/1.8STM. The IQ is simply better with FF.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I am actually remarkably happy with my 24-70/f4 IS. The weight/size is awesome, and the performance is just great.

I originally intended on buying the 24-70/2.8 II, but when I tried the f/4 IS at the store, I fell in love with it right away, and it has since become one of my favorite lenses.

I do agree that Canon "needs" one in its portfolio, if only for completeness.

Agree completely. Though I would love f2.8, the sharpness and overall feel and size of my f4 IS is just right. It balances perfectly with my 5Diii (just replaced with iv). Also the macro switch is far more useful and handy than most people give it credit for.

 

[Antono Refa]

Instead, I still have separate lenses for this - 18-35/1.8 (same effective speed as 2.8 on full-frame) for freezing moving subjects in low-light

Isn't it the same effective depth of field as f/2.8 on FF, and same effective speed as f/1.8 on full frame?

 

[privatebydesign]

Instead, I still have separate lenses for this - 18-35/1.8 (same effective speed as 2.8 on full-frame) for freezing moving subjects in low-light

Isn't it the same effective depth of field as f/2.8 on FF, and same effective speed as f/1.8 on full frame?

Depends on how you weigh the equivalence equation but if you factor in noise then Lee Jay is correct, take these two exposures and they will yield identical images if the sensors are same generation. Same dof, subject movement, image noise etc.

FF 1/200 sec f2.8 iso 400
Crop 1/200 sec f1.8 iso 160

 

[Talys]

But this is a lot of Money for a camera and my Feeling is, similar to ahsanford, that I should better develop my skills. Anyway I will not longer prefer a crop camera. If you compare Crop+10-18STM and FF+16-35/4, the choice is clearly with the FF-variant. I would also not replace FF+85/1.8 with Crop-50/1.8STM. The IQ is simply better with FF.

The price difference is huge, though (between double and triple).

Also, I don't think I would buy a 85/1.8 today, except used (any more than I would buy a 50/1.4 new). Mostly, the autofocus on newer generation L lenses are just so much better. I'd either go cheap and buy 50/1.8, or go high and get the new 85/1.4. Yeah, yeah, 3x the price, I know

Depending on the FL that you need 100/2.8L Macro is a cheap fantastic alternative too.

 

[mb66energy]

That said, I confess that my photographic skills and needs probably don't require or call for the collection of L lenses in my arsenal.

Precisely why I am not selling my 5D3 and buying something better: I must develop my skills at this point.

As much as I'd love more resolution or a bump in DR for landscapes, my biggest deficiency right now is no longer my gear -- it's my skill level. I just need to shoot more.

- A

Quite good "self analysis". I had similar feelings after upgrading in some fields from 5D classic to 200D or 5D mark iv.
I have chosen the 200D / SL2 because I have to learn a lot of things and current APS-C is good enough for my current
tasks and skills.

While DR isn't that important in a lot of situations I am running out of DR very often because I really like contra light for
landscape, architecture, macro, etc. The 200D delivers. This is confirmed by my experience how easy I can get the results
I intended or I have seen in the real scene.
While the dxomark ratings of sensors are obscure, the DR measurements give some hint about the usable DR and the 200D / SL2
gained a good rating between 80D and 5D iv in DR.

Back to the topic: Though a while that 24-70 WITH IS is an interesting option for me, just for the 200D / SL2 but: It is
too large to make sense on a light and compact SLR like 200D. And (see above) I tend to leave FF at least for a while.
For me an optically very good EF-S 4.0 20-60 IS nanoUSM with 1:3 closeup capability would be the best "standard zoom".
I need sometimes moderately wide optics, but usually live in the tele region + like to capture smaller objects. And it would
fit to the perfect EF 4.0 70-200 IS USM ...

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

That said, I confess that my photographic skills and needs probably don't require or call for the collection of L lenses in my arsenal.

Precisely why I am not selling my 5D3 and buying something better: I must develop my skills at this point.
As much as I'd love more resolution or a bump in DR for landscapes, my biggest deficiency right now is no longer my gear -- it's my skill level. I just need to shoot more.

Quite good "self analysis". I had similar feelings after upgrading in some fields from 5D classic to 200D or 5D mark iv.
I have chosen the 200D / SL2 because I have to learn a lot of things and current APS-C is good enough for my current
tasks and skills.
While DR isn't that important in a lot of situations I am running out of DR very often because I really like contra light for
landscape, architecture, macro, etc. The 200D delivers. This is confirmed by my experience how easy I can get the results
I intended or I have seen in the real scene.
While the dxomark ratings of sensors are obscure, the DR measurements give some hint about the usable DR and the 200D / SL2
gained a good rating between 80D and 5D iv in DR.

Back to the topic: Though a while that 24-70 WITH IS is an interesting option for me, just for the 200D / SL2 but: It is
too large to make sense on a light and compact SLR like 200D. And (see above) I tend to leave FF at least for a while.
For me an optically very good EF-S 4.0 20-60 IS nanoUSM with 1:3 closeup capability would be the best "standard zoom".
I need sometimes moderately wide optics, but usually live in the tele region + like to capture smaller objects. And it would
fit to the perfect EF 4.0 70-200 IS USM ...

How can you come on a website for gearheads like us, and suggest that APS-C can be better than full frame in any measure? Do not you know this is blasphemy? You have achieved the feat of annoying at the same time supporters of the "big is better" and those of the "small mirrorless is the future".

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Next up a 16-35 f/2.8 with IS!

Yes, because that's what everyone is screaming at Canon for: another UWA L zoom. :

Off the top of my head, besides the lens this thread is all about, I can think of 10 lenses we need more in Canon's portfolio than an UWA f/2.8 IS zoom:

1) A workhorse all-battlefield 50 prime with a flat plane of focus and some form of USM
2) Some way to shoot with first party AF longer than 400mm FF without using a teleconverter or spending $9k
3) A proper astro lens
4) Better EF-M lenses, particularly ones with USM focusing
5) Either refresh the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM or as least offer 7D2/80D users a constant f/4 USM standard zoom
6) An update to the 400 f/5.6L to give it IS
7) 135 f/2L refresh, surely with IS
8.) 85 f/1.8 USM refresh, likely with IS
9) Wider FL 1:1 macro for FF
10) More pancakes (especially a wider one for FF)

- A

I agree with you on points 7 and 1, the rest are a bit meh...
The 100-400 LIS II is easily the better lens than the 400m f5.6 L and makes it completely redundant in most measurable areas except cost.

 

[mb66energy]

[...]
While DR isn't that important in a lot of situations I am running out of DR very often because I really like contra light for
landscape, architecture, macro, etc. The 200D delivers. This is confirmed by my experience how easy I can get the results
I intended or I have seen in the real scene.
While the dxomark ratings of sensors are obscure, the DR measurements give some hint about the usable DR and the 200D / SL2
gained a good rating between 80D and 5D iv in DR.

[...]

How can you come on a website for gearheads like us, and suggest that APS-C can be better than full frame in any measure? Do not you know this is blasphemy? You have achieved the feat of annoying at the same time supporters of the "big is better" and those of the "small mirrorless is the future".

I am scientist. I never heard the word "blasphemy". Therefore I do not know what it is

And I am enjoying my not big (is better) and not mirrorless (is the future) plasticky, limited, unobtrusive 200D / SL2 with a very good sensor ...