Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

[turtle]

Calydus, they are thorough, but sadly there is sample variation. Their results certainly don't square with mine, which would suggest their copy is towards the bottom of the pile. I don't even need to run a test chart. Its blindingly obvious from the few hundred files I have shot. I thought my 70-200 F4 L was good, but this lens is a definite notch up on that and light years ahead of my Sigma 24-60 f2.8. I might test it against my 24 1.4L II, but I can already see the new zoom will match it, if it does not surpass it. Gut feeling tells me the zoom has more contrast than the prime too.

A little internet research suggests most people are amazed by their copies, some ambivalent and think it 'very good but not astounding' with one or two people not seeing the fuss at all. There will be some calibration issues in there along with a few dog lenses. I have no reason to think mine exceptional as plenty of others seem to share my amazement at the performance.

The one thing I will agree with is that the lens gets noticeably weaker towards 70mm, but it is still very good indeed. Distortion could be better too.... but on resolution, contrast and bokeh, its an a stunning lens.

I suggest you guys read this review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff

These guys are VERY thorough with their review.
Based on this, I decided to go for the Tamron (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff) as each of the lenses has their pros and cons, but the price vs the pros of the Canon 24-70 II wasn't enough for me justifying buying this lens against the Tamron one.

It seems that a lot of people just like to have the "fame" or "high end image" that seems to come with a red ring on the Canon lenses, but they aren't necessary the best, just because it's "Canon" and the price tag is crazy high.

Don't get me wrong I love Canon lenses and all the other lenses that I got, are Canon lenses. But I had high expectations and they didn't came. Many of the reviews had high expectations too... and I find Canon failed to impress with this one, mainly because of the price tag... but still no IS, or any other thing you would expect in this price range.

 

[gmrza]

Calydus, they are thorough, but sadly there is sample variation. Their results certainly don't square with mine, which would suggest their copy is towards the bottom of the pile. I don't even need to run a test chart. Its blindingly obvious from the few hundred files I have shot. I thought my 70-200 F4 L was good, but this lens is a definite notch up on that and light years ahead of my Sigma 24-60 f2.8. I might test it against my 24 1.4L II, but I can already see the new zoom will match it, if it does not surpass it. Gut feeling tells me the zoom has more contrast than the prime too.

I am now beginning to think that is probably the only place were photozone.de's process falls down.

In order to review a lens properly, you need to review a statistically relevant sample of the overall population of that lens. That probably represents a cost which the guys at photozone could not stomach.

Ultimately, a really thorough review would also give a view of the expected sample variation in the population, as this is also an important characteristic of the quality of a lens - i.e. the lower the variance of the quality the better the manufacturing and QA process is, and the higher the likelihood that you as a purchaser will get a good copy.

Now if the guys at Photozone.de had access to the stock at Lensrentals.com..... (Unfortunately, that would require some tectonic engineering to achieve.)

 

[Invertalon]

I agree, Photozone definitely had an off copy of the lens. It seems there is some serious variation with many 24-70 type lenses. Must be due to the complexity of the optical design. Tends to be more than any other it seems.

I have tried (2) copies of this lens. The first was excellent all around except for the fact at 24mm the right edge of the frame was soft compared to the left, MOST of the time. It is like the focus plane was very far forward on that edge. Very strange.

I swapped it for another and no longer have that issue. Equally as sharp on both sides of the frame at 24mm... I am guessing a decentered lens element for sure. The lenses were very comparable sharpness wise on both ends wide open, though. I see no real difference besides the softness I had at 24mm on the first.

Amazing lens though... Made that range fun again simply due to the amazing IQ. I rarely ever used my 24-105 for the years I had it. Great lens, but the IQ was decent at best. The 24-70 II has become a staple in my shooting, much like the 70-200 II has. Will be in my bag for a long time, no doubt.

 

[JVLphoto]

Only a Canadian would post a photo of a car with its winter tires installed. Of course, I guess, it takes a Canadian to notice something like that.

lol - well played - it was a shot of my buddy on the way back from a commercial shoot. 4 hours of driving, we just wanted to have some fun with the sky and all the equipment on-hand.

And the winter tires

 

[JVLphoto]

Nice job of reviewing, Justin. I've had five of the Mark I copies. None really bad, but not good enough for me to keep them.
I've been watching and reading the reviews, and deliberating if f/2.8 is fast enough for my low light use. Right now, I use fast primes, and usually find them at f/2 or faster even with extreme high ISO settings.
I did purchase a D800 with 24-70G lens, and found myself at ISO 12800 much of the time, and the D800 requires a ton of NR at 12800. The images still look good, but I need a supercomputer to do that level of NR on a 150mb image. I gave up pretty quickly on that idea.

Thanks! Noise all depends on what your final output is required for. I'm thankful so much of my work is for web, I neither need the MP's or to worry too much about noise as it's suppressed when downsized.

 

[LSV]

Good review, but I was distracted by multiple instances of incorrect usage of "it's" for the possessive pronoun "its". It's worth mentioning because it is a formal review.

 

[julescar]

I have both the Tamron which I paid $1000 for and the 24-70 ii I paid $2200 in Australia, I own heaps of Canon & Nikon Lenses many of them expensive primes and without any doubt after a week of shooting with it the 24-70 ii is the best lens I have ever used. The Nikon 24-70 is only $300 cheaper (best price non grey market) and the Canon is much better.

 

[JVLphoto]

Good review, but I was distracted by multiple instances of incorrect usage of "it's" for the possessive pronoun "its". It's worth mentioning because it is a formal review.

Thanks man, I'm the worst at checking my own work, I have an editor for future reviews, hopefully CRG can make some edits to the live site (since I don't have access).

 

[Razor2012]

Yes good review. Now just waiting for the 14-24 2.8 to show up (then I can trade it for the 16-35).

 

[Dylan777]

Yes good review. Now just waiting for the 14-24 2.8 to show up (then I can trade it for the 16-35).

+1.....get ready to put another thousand on top of that 16-35 II ;D

 

[al-toidz photography]

@ trulandphoto
I agree with you. I have the mark I and even if I have the money to buy the mark II, I wouldn't. The lens design of the mark I and including the 28-70 is much better than the mark II. Given that it is lighter and smaller it doesn't justify the new design as it is vulnerable in some situations. For example, from DigitalRev, Kai have mentioned and showed on youtube video that he dropped there company's 24-70 mark I and the only damage it has is the dent filter thread. Now imagine that happening to the new mark II lens. With its plastic filter thread, I cant imagine whats going to happen with that lens. Now I know that the chances of that happening is slim to none but if that happens, well, you better pray to the God of lenses.

On several occasions, one, when I was shooting a model on location, someone just pass by and bump in with my 24-70 mark I on it with the hood on. I was confident that nothing happened with the barrel because the hood protected the lens while I was shooting approximately at 35mm. On a separate occasion, I was walking around for a casual street photography, someone bump in again to my lens. And sure enough, I wasn't worried the lens was damage because the barrel was protected by the lens hood.

As I mentioned, even if I have the money to buy the mark II lens, I wouldn't, just simply because of the lens design. I just wish that the sharpness it has is also at the mark I version (based from users and reviews). However, when I was watching the review of SLRLounge on youtube comparing the mark I and mark II side-by-side, I can't see *any or *big difference against the mark I. Maybe because of the fact that I own the mark I and not the mark II that the ownership ego is getting the best of me to *blindly not admit the difference between the two versions. I would like to hear some comments regarding this issue after you watch the lens review from SLRLounge.

 

[deleteme]

@ trulandphoto
I agree with you. I have the mark I and even if I have the money to buy the mark II, I wouldn't. The lens design of the mark I and including the 28-70 is much better than the mark II. Given that it is lighter and smaller it doesn't justify the new design as it is vulnerable in some situations.

According to Roger at LensRentals the mkI was very vulnerable to becoming banged out of calibration because of its construction that he deemed quite inferior to the new version. Not only was the new version better made but was much more likely to stay aligned and calibrated throughout its life.
After hearing years of wailing about the problems of unsharp ver1 models I am glad to be able to buy this one.

 

[deleteme]

>>The Front Group of the 24-70 Version I
I put this part separately because I’m convinced the front element design of the original 24-70 f/2.8 accounted for a lot of its problems.<<
Roger Cicala-teardown review of the 24-70mkI

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii

 

[al-toidz photography]

@NormalNorm
That's good to know. However, canon and other lens/camera manufacturer, professional lens rental stores, professional and experienced individuals recommends to annually (preferably 2X a year) to send lens to their own respective manufacturers or other professional camera store that offers calibration to calibrate lenses in order to 1. calibrate the lens for optimal use and 2. to service the lens itself for longer life. But point taken, the mark I version has its own flaws and one of which is the front area being too heavy thus making it vulnerable for easy misalignment. It is undeniable that LensRental is also bias on there review because they don't want people to buy their own lens but instead rent it. *People* will not call it a workhorse for no reason if this problem occurs a lot. LensRental review is very subjective as it does not portray a real world accidents that happens in terms of the lens being bump-in while walking in real world. After all, why would they have such lens on their store if the mark I is really vulnerable on this area. Don't you think that is a little pain in their *ss to keep fixing it the mark I lens every time this happens. Furthermore, why would they still keep the mark I on their inventory if mark II is been out already. I mean, sure, people still wants to rent it to see what is the mark I all about, specially for people that are thinking of buying one in the used market. But why keep many? I called LensRental and ask them how many do they have in their inventory as I told them I might need several copy for my friends and they said they have a lot.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

@NormalNorm
That's good to know. However, canon and other lens/camera manufacturer, professional lens rental stores, professional and experienced individuals recommends to annually (preferably 2X a year) to send lens to their own respective manufacturers or other professional camera store that offers calibration to calibrate lenses in order to 1. calibrate the lens for optimal use and 2. to service the lens itself for longer life. But point taken, the mark I version has its own flaws and one of which is the front area being too heavy thus making it vulnerable for easy misalignment. It is undeniable that LensRental is also bias on there review because they don't want people to buy their own lens but instead rent it. *People* will not call it a workhorse for no reason if this problem occurs a lot. LensRental review is very subjective as it does not portray a real world accidents that happens in terms of the lens being bump-in while walking in real world. After all, why would they have such lens on their store if the mark I is really vulnerable on this area. Don't you think that is a little pain in their *ss to keep fixing it the mark I lens every time this happens. Furthermore, why would they still keep the mark I on their inventory if mark II is been out already. I mean, sure, people still wants to rent it to see what is the mark I all about, specially for people that are thinking of buying one in the used market. But why keep many? I called LensRental and ask them how many do they have in their inventory as I told them I might need several copy for my friends and they said they have a lot.

People were complaining about it going soft after time before LR ever mentioned that.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I suggest you guys read this review: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff

These guys are VERY thorough with their review.
Based on this, I decided to go for the Tamron (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/741-tamron2470f28eosff) as each of the lenses has their pros and cons, but the price vs the pros of the Canon 24-70 II wasn't enough for me justifying buying this lens against the Tamron one.

It seems that a lot of people just like to have the "fame" or "high end image" that seems to come with a red ring on the Canon lenses, but they aren't necessary the best, just because it's "Canon" and the price tag is crazy high.

Don't get me wrong I love Canon lenses and all the other lenses that I got, are Canon lenses. But I had high expectations and they didn't came. Many of the reviews had high expectations too... and I find Canon failed to impress with this one, mainly because of the price tag... but still no IS, or any other thing you would expect in this price range.

The near 24mm range is super important to me. The Tamron is good there but it's not a match for a 24 1.4 II or anything and yet the 24-70 II is. The 24-70 II tests out better almost everywhere on PZ other than edges and corners at 70mm, that is a little bit of a shame, but I mean it tests better everywhere else, including center frame 70mm including wide open so in a more portrait, low DOF mode it does better than the Tamron there and it does better as corner to corner landscape lens everywhere else so to me the Canon is the one. The only one to finally bring truly stunning performance to a standard FF zoom. Plus, it also has the super precision AF for use with 5D3/1DX. I don't believe the Tamron does.

The tamron is a solid value though, no doubt. And it does have VC.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Compression/Distortion: this doesn't change between bodies, so it's still 70mm, not 112mm.

These are referring to perspective, and the only thing that determines perspective is distance to subject, i.e. focal length is irrelevant. Since you're further from your subject for the same framing on APS-C, there will be more perspective compression, which is usually viewed as a 'good thing' for portraits.

Really?!? So if I shoot a portrait on a medium format body with a 150mm lens and do another from the same distance with a 60D and 50mm lens, then crop both photos to identical framing the perspective will be exactly the same?

think about it this way, without magic the lens could have no idea what is behind it, a large or small sensor, the lens projects what it projects and that is that, the exact same image is projected onto a wall behind it, different sensor sizes are just like drawing different size boxes on the wall, draw a large box for MM and then draw a small box inside that frame, erase the outer box and the smaller box inside is the APS-C frame and it is still the same box you were able to draw inside th MF box and nothing about the image projected into it suddenly changes as you erase the larger outer box that you draw on the wall (unless maybe you are a witch or warlock ;D)

 

[Klick]

Hi everybody,

I was a tiny bit 'scared' buying this lens with the price in mind. It is quite a commodity to have on your 5DmkII in a land like Indonesia.

After using it on my last trip to Bali i must say; this is THE lens. It is not only the best Canon lens but also the first lens you should get if your budget allows you to, at this point in life, get just one lens.

I used to own the 24-105 because it came with my camera but sold it years ago when the first rumors of the 24-70 II appeared. Haha... Yes, i waited a long, long time for this lens. I even bought the 50mm 1.2 to fill the gap between my 16-35 II and my 70-200 IS II 2.8.

If there is one thing i want to point out here is; don't even consider the 24-105 IS in favor of this lens ! It is such an inferior lens in comparison. The IS ? I have been able to be successful with the 24-70 II many times at shutter speeds as low as 1/40 th of a second. Tag sharp ! Not streetphotography-blurry-style. No, tag sharp images during daytime on the steets of Bali.

So, IS ? For me it is a non-existent barrier. And the optical quality of the 24-105 is a joke in comparison. Making video ? Buy a 50$ Joby flexible tripod and use it as a shoulder-stabilizer if you have to.

But... I am extremely happy with my new all-round lens. It is so much sharper and faster that it bumps your focusing success rate of your 5DmkII considerably. (Yes, i also considered to buy a 5DmkIII instead of this lens to be more successful in photographing moving objects but i am so glad i made this decision since the image quality of the mkII and mkIII are on par)

So overall, for those of you who are not sure for whatever reason; the price, the IS or family planning; it hurts a lot in your wallet but it's worth every penny in my opinion.

Thx for reading,
Cheers !

 

[JVLphoto]

Update: I've been using this lens now as part of my regular workflow since December. In this time I've found the lens hood has become quite loose. While it hasn't fallen off completely, I find that when it's at my side (like at events) the hood twists a bit which makes the petals mis-align with the format of the sensor, essentially resulting in them showing up in ~24mm wide shots. I might want to add a bit of gaffer tape to the hood just to keep it in place and avoid this problem later on.

So yeah... FYI.

 

[philmoz]

Update: I've been using this lens now as part of my regular workflow since December. In this time I've found the lens hood has become quite loose. While it hasn't fallen off completely, I find that when it's at my side (like at events) the hood twists a bit which makes the petals mis-align with the format of the sensor, essentially resulting in them showing up in ~24mm wide shots. I might want to add a bit of gaffer tape to the hood just to keep it in place and avoid this problem later on.

So yeah... FYI.

The hood should lock in place and only come off when you press the release button - if you can twist it off without pressing the release button then you probably need a new one.

If it's coming loose hanging down at your side, then it could be the release button getting bumped against your hip/leg - I had this happen a few times, then I just started putting the hood on with the button facing away from me when the lens is hanging down.

Phil.