EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Opinions

[RobertTheFat]

Now that a couple of years have passed, is there a consensus about the 24-70mm f/2.8 II lens? When it first came out, some people (including at least one in this forum) pronounced it as good as the 70-200 IS II. But the bottom end of the reviews on the B&H site includes a fair number of disgruntled users who claim it's not nearly worth the money. When I retired, I got some $$ from my colleagues earmarked for camera equipment, and that arguably makes the lens affordable. But I already have the 24-105 and can live without the 24-70 if it's less than seriously great.

[Waddizzle]

Is there a convenient spot where you can rent one?  Do you know someone who has one, and can go on a shoot together?

[kvbarkley]

The company that starts with Lens and ends with entals will rent one reasonably and let you buy the copy you have if you want to keep it.

[ScottyP]

Seems like it couldn't have been too hard to put IS in that lens.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ScottyP wrote:

Seems like it couldn't have been too hard to put IS in that lens.

---

"Even bigger, even heavier, even more expensive" is the best explanation I've been able to come up with.

That said, I'm not sure it makes a huge difference to me. I'm glad my 70-200 has IS; but even at my advanced age, I can generally handle a mid-range lens. And the probability that I can still do so in five years is only slightly lower than the probability that I'll still be around at all.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ScottyP wrote:

Seems like it couldn't have been too hard to put IS in that lens.

---

I think the lack of IS may contribute somewhat to its' reputed sharpness.  It focuses and the lens elements stay put.  My Sigma long lenses are demonstrably sharper when I turn off their "Optical Stabilization", their name for Image Stabilization.

[ScottyP]

I think kvbarkley may be on to something with the rental suggestion.  

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ScottyP wrote:

I think kvbarkley may be on to something with the rental suggestion.  

---

It's an interesting thought, but frankly I'm at least as likely to trust the judgement of someone on this forum who's used the lens for a year over whatever impression I'd get from using it for a week. Let's face it: I think I know you guys pretty well by now and can do a decent job of putting what you tell me in context. And truthfully, many of you have more experience in this game than I do.

[diverhank]

I have used a 24-70mm f/2.8L II for a couple of years now.  It is my go-to lens...I use it about 90% of the time.  Prior to that, I have used the kit 24-105mm f/4L IS (ver. 1) lens.  While the 24-105mm was no slouch...there was no question the 24-70 was way better - sharper, better color and much less distortion at the wide end.  I didn't miss IS one iota - not at these focal lengths.

It's kinda funny my problem is usually the opposite of the norm...my pictures are usually too sharp for portraits, I actually have to blur them to make the ladies (wife and daughter) happy.  With this lens, I never touch the sharpening function.

[ebiggs1]

diverhank

 "It is my go-to lens...I use it about 90% of the time."

Ditto!