Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

VirtualRain

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
118
Vancouver, BC
Reviews are starting to trickle in and I'm wondering if any Canon users are considering this lens? If so, what is the draw? What kind of shooting are you targeting with it?

I currently have the 24-105 f4 and 35 f1.4 and while it would be nice to consolidate those two with a single high quality fast zoom like the 24-70 f2.8 II, I'm not convinced that would provide me much advantage over my two lens combo. If the new lens had IS it would be a less difficult decision.

Thoughts?
 
VirtualRain said:
Reviews are starting to trickle in and I'm wondering if any Canon users are considering this lens? If so, what is the draw? What kind of shooting are you targeting with it?

I currently have the 24-105 f4 and 35 f1.4 and while it would be nice to consolidate those two with a single high quality fast zoom like the 24-70 f2.8 II, I'm not convinced that would provide me much advantage over my two lens combo. If the new lens had IS it would be a less difficult decision.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The 82mm diameter is a bummer because you would need to buy all new filters, so it's not on my list for a next lens purchase.
 
Ultimately the answer depends on how you shoot and the availability of the new 24-70 mm Mark II is largely irrelevant in the decision making process. To me, it ultimately depends on how you shoot: compared to the 35 mm prime, you'll lose two stops – which makes a big difference when taking pictures in low light. Personally, I prefer shooting with primes, so in that case, a bread-and-butter zoom, no matter how good it is, will likely stay in my camera bag.

If, on the other hand, you're shooting with the 24-105 mm most of the time, going to a faster 24-70 mm makes sense. At the longer focal lengths, you'll mostly fight with motion blur in dynamic scenes, so I'd gladly trade in the IS for an extra stop if I were you. In this case, you can debate whether a Mark I or Mark II makes more sense. If you want to save a few bucks, perhaps you can find a used Mark I for a good price?
fcortese said:
The 82mm diameter is a bummer because you would need to buy all new filters, so it's not on my list for a next lens purchase.
Click to expand...
That's a bummer, most »better« lenses use 77 mm or smaller.
 
I dont know what cannon are doing here.... 70 - 200 there are four L lenses from £400 - 1800...plenty of choice

from 24 70 there is now just one at £2000+???

I have the 24 105 but i would like something faster and a bit sharper...I also find the CA on the 24 105 to be a problem..i often end up removing it by hand..on one photo its not a problem on a few hundred it becomes a right pain.

I was offered a 2nd hand 24 70 mk1 recently for more than then a new one used to retail at!!

I shoot a 5dmk2 so i cant use the 18- 55 2.8.....which is a great alternative for anyone not on FF..

I'm looking between the tamron and this... just waiting for the reviews on the cannon...and seeing what used Mk1's go for when the mk2 start selling
 
Last edited:
I'm tempted, but that £2000+ price tag tells my wallet... 'Not a chance mate!' :(
I've got the MkI. which I use as my main lens, and I'm not really sure what the difference is between the MkI & MkII. Is there really £1000ish worth of improvments?
If I could get a great price for my MkI then I could be slightly more tempted to upgrade. Would look nice on my 5D MkIII :D
 
fcortese said:
The 82mm diameter is a bummer because you would need to buy all new filters, so it's not on my list for a next lens purchase.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 have no real idea why the Mk II was designed that way. It is much lighter than the Mk I and slightly smaller in length and is supposed to have some improved image qualities. Maybe the shorter length warranted a wider end to the lens??? Just the thought of having to pay all that money for a new lens then add a new CPL, ND filters, etc just piles onto the price. Nikon guy did a nice review comparing the two lenses here. And although the Mk II edged the Mk I out, it wasn't by much.
 
^ I would imagine in order to move to that you'd want to sell everything and hope to come close to breaking even on what you paid ... then you pay slightly more for the new but I seriously doubt that would happen. On the other hand, for a slight increase in specs, people sell computers and phones here all of the time so ...
 
TheDrift- said:
I dont know what cannon are doing here.... 70 - 200 there are four L lenses from £400 - 1800...plenty of choice

from 24 70 there is now just one at £2000+???

I have the 24 105 but i would like something faster and a bit sharper...I also find the CA on the 24 105 to be a problem..i often end up removing it by hand..on one photo its not a problem on a few hundred it becomes a right pain.

I was offered a 2nd hand 24 70 mk1 recently for more than then a new one used to retail at!!

I shoot a 5dmk2 so i cant use the 18- 55 2.8.....which is a great alternative for anyone not on FF..

I'm looking between the tamron and this... just waiting for the reviews on the cannon...and seeing what used Mk1's go for when the mk2 start selling
Click to expand...

Look at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. It's my go-to lens and most of what I post here is done with that lens. It's not as sharp as my 100mm L macro, but it's now $xxxx, either.

Dale
 
Am I interested in it? Yes. However, at most, I would probably just rent it. I can't see myself forking out $2,300 for this lens. Even though I'm sure it will go down in price eventually. Plus, I'm pretty content with the lenses that are already in my bag.
 
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.
 
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!
 
I was tempted by the original 24-70, at the time it came down to a decision between that and the EF-S 17-55 to sit on the front of my 30D.

I eventually went with the 17-55 for the image-stabiliser and slightly lighter weight.

I was interested to see a new 24-70 announced.

Then I saw the price.

Ouch. I'll stick with what I have, thanks!
 
Eventually, yes. I want to sell my 24-105 to buy it later on. The reason being this: I'm getting the 70-200 USM IS II eventually, so i won't need the extra 35mm of the 24-105, so i'd rather have the f/4 to f/2.8 instead.
 
Very tempted indeed.

Like others have mentioned price and different filter size are big cons but the reviews are fantastic.

I am interested in using the 24-70 Mark II and my 70-200 Mark II with my main body(5DMIII) on commercial and wedding shoots and keep my actual 24-105L on my secondary body(7D) as back up for wedding and as my travel/street photography gear.

But yeah, THAT PRICE TAG is definitely going to hit this year's budget hard, hahaha.
 
Not tempted. Photographers made too much of a deal over Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 L IS MKII and emboldened Canon in the process. Now, every new lens coming from Canon is at least 120% more than it should be at roll-out MSRP. And details I have seen and read about this MKII are minimal improvements; doesn't even come with IS for the gratuitous price.
 
FieldingMellish said:
Not tempted. Photographers made too much of a deal over Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 L IS MKII and emboldened Canon in the process. Now, every new lens coming from Canon is at least 120% more than it should be at roll-out MSRP. And details I have seen and read about this MKII are minimal improvements; doesn't even come with IS for the gratuitous price.
Click to expand...

I'm going to rent a 24-70 II and test it against the 24-70 I on the 5D Mark III to see how much of an improvement there is with regards to CA and IQ wide-open.

I bought the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II when it came out and did comparisons against the v1 and wide open (f/2.8) the differences were obvious. Less CA and better resolving of the image.

But again, since I don't use the 24-70 very much, even if the II shows drastic improvements over the I on the 5DIII, I won't be buying it, yet.
 
I'd love it!
but I have the 24-70 bought a year ago and as been my favourite walk around lens for video and photo on my 5dmkii and now 5dmkiii

----------

quick note for anyone considering buying a 5dmkii or a 5dmkiii I'd say if you can buy either new (for the full warranty), we bought the III recently so we own both bodies and I don't notice any real differences at all in our usage for video, with photo a few differences, so if you can save $1000 or more buy the 5dmkii but buy it new for the full warranty, I would have liked to have saved a grand and bought another 5dmkii new but I had to keep up with the joneses which I won't keep doing.

Maybe the same with the 24-70ii as is around $1000 more and I don't really notice much of a difference with the 24-70 - mind you we only had it for a weekend from Calumet rental.
 
Kebabselector said:
Tempted, looks at price - no longer tempted.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back