Anyone here tempted by the new Canon 24-70 II?

Not remotely interested at the price they are asking






so it will be this

NZed said:

Im tempted for the second hand price of the 24-70 I

Its heading down baby!

Click to expand...

No

I'm quite content with my 24-105, my favorite of 12 lenses for my 1DIII, 5DII, and 5DIII

jessica. said:

Do you know why they had to change the filter size or did they just change it to change it? I see that as a move similar to Apple. They seem to be changing their charging ports for reasons that do not seem entirely clear to me.

Click to expand...

Bigger glass to account for the shorter overall lens length at the same aperture:



Nobody is complaining that this outresolves the old one, at a shorter length. Someone called this Brick II, but it's a quarter pound lighter than the original Brick.

The guy from LensRental positively gushes about the resolution of this thing.

Is it worth the jack? Everyone will have to decide that for themselves.

I hope it does not have the "fog" of the I. Don't like that lens. It is very sharp, but it gives very annoying "hiss" or "fog" with headlights. A bit like instagram with fingerprints on your cellphone. A lot of contrast goes away and the fog can have weird colours. With the primes I can shoot directly into the sun, and no problems at all, but not with the 24-70 I.

ocabj said:

I have the 24-70 f/2.8L (I), and I use it so infrequently enough that I can't justify the upgrade to the II.

Click to expand...

I have the EF 24-70 f/2.8L, LOVE it, and use it all the time.

And btw, it's a 77mm ...

Can't see it , especially at that price . My 24-105 does all I want plus gives me extra reach , which to me is more important than an extra stop. If I did feel that 2.8 was necessary , I'd look for a used Mk 1 .

Kronie said:

Same here. Let the price drop 500+ and well see. I keep looking at my 70-200MKII and what that cost and then the 24-70 MKII and I cant help but think I am getting much less for the same amount of money.

Click to expand...

Well, I flip flopped and ended up buying one. $2,300 is hard to stomach BUT here are my thoughts compared to my 24-105:

It produces the same colors and slightly sharper results than the 24-105. It has much sharper corners and slightly more contrast. Less flare and CA. It auto focuses faster and more accurately. (on a 5d2) Basically the same weight and size. BUT it has 2.8 which I think I would rather see at this point than an F/4 lens. I will miss the 71-105mm...

I can say the 24-70 II is better in every way than the 24-105. Except for price and the 71-105mm. Well, 82mm filters kind of sucks as well...

Here's my take on it.
The 82mm thread and the normal zoom are what kills it for me. Does sharpness and marginally better bokeh justify a +$1000 price hike? Is it worth it for you to get the lens at that price? That is what you should ask yourself.

Canon shaved off a couple grams from the 24-70 by making the lens out of mostly plastic. Whereas the Mark I had metal threads and barrel, the Mark II has plastic. Not to mention that the lack of reverse zoom means you don't get that awesome deep hood of the Mark I; no, you're stuck with the conventional hood.

I mean, even Nikon took somewhat of a cue from Canon by having a stationary deep hood on its own 24-70. So you know it's a very desirable, popular feature. It's a shame that it's gone, and makes justifying the $2200 price tag even harder. The lack of IS is even more disappointing at this price point.

In the end, is it worth getting the Mark II when there's the original 24-70 selling for ~$1400 on the streets? Only if you really, really need the sharpness. Otherwise, you're just wasting money on an incremental improvement.

If I may be permitted to expand the topic a bit:

In the same lens class, does anyone here have an opinion on the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC?

I am intrigued... as a hobbyist, the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II is way above what I am willing to spend on a single lens. But at $1300 MSRP, the Tamron is more of a possibility. If I am patient and wait a few months I bet I'll be able to pick one up refurbished or lightly used for couple of hundred less than the MSRP.

In addition to the cost savings, the VC of the Tamron would definitely be useful to me, as I shoot a fair bit handheld in the 1/30 - 1/60 shutter speed range, which is pushing it at 70mm without image stabilization, especially since I'm shooting on a crop sensor (I'm shooting on a T3i/600D right now).

I was going to buy the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. But looking at what I shoot on my 18-135mm kit lens right now, I shoot a lot more in the 55-70mm range than I do in the 18-24mm range. So I'm guessing a 24-70mm lens would be more useful to me than a 17-55mm. It is a bit more money, but not tons more. And while I'm not looking to upgrade my body anytime soon, it is also definitely a plus to have the option of keeping the lens if I decide to upgrade to full-frame at some point.

I dunno... I'm in no rush to make a purchase right now, but I'd be curious to hear opinions.

problem is canon is overpricing all of their new gear.

equilibrium17 said:

If I may be permitted to expand the topic a bit:

In the same lens class, does anyone here have an opinion on the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC?

Click to expand...

These guys do:


(A great YouTube channel to follow, by the way)

jessica. said:

Do you know why they had to change the filter size or did they just change it to change it? I see that as a move similar to Apple. They seem to be changing their charging ports for reasons that do not seem entirely clear to me.

Click to expand...

I'd guess it was an attempt to reduce vignetting, particularly with additional filters. It is a bummer, since 77mm seems to be the largest relatively standard filter size. If only 4x4 matte boxes/filters weren't so cost prohibitive...

I would have embraced Apple's new port 100% if it were thunderbolt.
1) It would have made the current iPhones and next iPads PERFECT lag-free DSLR monitors.
2) Potentially uncompressed sensor data recording.
3) Immediate sync
4) Smaller ports mean easier weather resistance (@ $700, clearly they don't care).

These technologies (phones/tablets + cameras) were born to sex each other... The past 4 years have been one big tease.

firestarter said:

I have the 24-70f2.8 (I) and I use that 80% of the time on my 5DII (use the 85 f1.8 second most).

I have no desire to 'upgrade'. The first version is a fine lens, sharp wide open with great bokeh. The price of the new one is ridiculous!

Click to expand...

I love the bokeh and color of the 24-70 I, and f4.0-5.6 appear unbeatably sharp.
I feel like II really needs a new 46MP camera or something to make the added sharpness noticeable.
No IS is fine for me from a photo perspective, but I would have considered upgrading if it had IS for the sake of video.
Of course, it degrades image quality, so it's not ideal... but rolling shutter is MOST noticeable (and hardest to fix) when walking/running.

Looks like the Tammy got a beat down. Here is a couple from the MKII:

6 shot Pano:


My kid:

I'll consider it when the price decreases! I have "The Brick" and like it. I read a few reviews on POTN and so far I'm impressed. People say it is sharper than 70-200 2.8 II, which is a sharp lens. Down the road it will be part of my kit, just not now!

firestarter said:

These guys do:

(A great YouTube channel to follow, by the way)

Click to expand...

Thanks for that, and I'll definitely follow that channel in the future. I had read a couple of reviews but there's something about actually seeing the lenses in action on video that's helpful.

I'm actually pretty favorably impressed with the Tamron based on this and other reviews. There is no doubt that the Canon 24-70 Mk II has strictly better IQ, and the focus speed of the Canon is also something I would really like to have. But the Canon is also nearly twice the price and this simply puts it out of my budget. So for me the choice would be between the Tamron and another option at or below this price -- maybe lightly used or closeout Canon 24-70 Mk I, for example. At some point I'll have to give them both a try, but right now the Tamron is looking like it might be the better choice for what like to shoot.

I have the 35/1.4. It is a dream of a lens and I cannot imagine parting with it for a zoom and all the inevitable compromises that you get with one, especially one that tries to cover a wide angle to modest tele range.

All lens choices are a compromise, but the shots I 'lose' by having the 35 attached are more than outweighed by the sheer quality of the best shots I get from my prime.

I have one

I sold all my gear a few years ago, including a 24-70mm 2.8. In the last month or so, I've bought all new equipment and saw there was a version II of both the 24-70 and 70-200. I bought one of each.

A couple nights ago I had my first shoot with the 24-70 II and I'm blown away, the pics are brutally sharp. Like, see each pore in someone's face sharp, on a full-body shot. This is shooting wide open at all focal lengths.

The version I was great, version II is phenomenal. I couldn't be happier. Well, I'd be happier if it was much less expensive!

Not tempted at all. Far too expensive, not a big improvement over the Mk I, I'm happy with my 24-105. Sure its a stop slower, but with Image Stabilization, I get about 3 extra stops anyways, so in practical terms its a faster lens with more zoom for less money. I'm far more interested in the ultra fast L primes.

For me, no. I have a 50mm, going to buy the 35 or 40mm, 100mm macro, so i pretty much have the 24-70 range covered, all the way up to 135 (I have the 135 L already). I'm not big on zoom lenses anymore. I think the only zoom i'm going to get is the 17-40, and that's just because of price and to have a versatile walk around lens.

VirtualRain said:

Why not?

I thought this was an interesting observation from Bryan's review at The-Digital-Picture...



BTW, this is my current thinking as well...



I really like the 24-105 as a travel lens. It's great for landscapes, monuments, and inside dark venues like cathedrals. I also have the 35L and think it's ideal for shooting in bars, clubs, etc. I think the combo of these two lenses fits my needs better than the 24-70 would.

Click to expand...

Even if the difference in sharpness and contrast isn't as great as it used to be, it's still there. I want the best quality lenses. I'd rather have ten lenses that i consider a 10/10 than two to three lenses that cover the same range that i would consider an 8.5/10.

cocky jeremy said:

Even if the difference in sharpness and contrast isn't as great as it used to be, it's still there. I want the best quality lenses. I'd rather have ten lenses that i consider a 10/10 than two to three lenses that cover the same range that i would consider an 8.5/10.

Click to expand...

Unless you have to schlepp 10 lenses around. My fully stocked camera bag weighs ~7 kg. No way I'll carry that around all day (except for special occasions). Instead, I usually pack two primes and a zoom. A 10 % loss in sharpness or contrast doesn't mean anything if you're unable to make the shot, because you either can't change lenses fast enough or you didn't take your equipment with you.

OreoCookie said:

Unless you have to schlepp 10 lenses around. My fully stocked camera bag weighs ~7 kg. No way I'll carry that around all day (except for special occasions). Instead, I usually pack two primes and a zoom. A 10 % loss in sharpness or contrast doesn't mean anything if you're unable to make the shot, because you either can't change lenses fast enough or you didn't take your equipment with you.

Click to expand...

I don't care to carry lenses with me. It's all about getting the best shot possible for me. I'll give myself a workout to do that, no problem.

cocky jeremy said:

I don't care to carry lenses with me. It's all about getting the best shot possible for me. I'll give myself a workout to do that, no problem.

Click to expand...

Then you don't travel far enough