topic Re: 24-70mm Mk II in EF & RF Lenses

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

RobertTheFat — Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:35:11 GMT

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.

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

Waddizzle — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:29:45 GMT

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

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

kvbarkley — Tue, 29 Nov 2016 23:16:21 GMT

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.

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

ScottyP — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:35:07 GMT

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

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

RobertTheFat — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:48:45 GMT

@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.

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

Waddizzle — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 01:19:04 GMT

@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.

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

ScottyP — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 02:41:57 GMT

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

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

RobertTheFat — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:28:37 GMT

@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.

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

Mitsubishiman — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:48:22 GMT

I have the lens and I have no regrets, it is remarkable, I also have the 70-200 II and it is as good, perhaps a little better, all of the newer L series are worth the money in my opinion, I just acquired the 16-35 f2.8 L III and will be trying it out, I upgraded from the original 16-35 L, I will probably always feel that the 24-70 f2.8 II is the best lens I own, it has versatility in wide angle and short zoom, one of my favorite features is the 24mm lock, I wish all of the zoom lenses had it.

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

diverhank — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 03:49:25 GMT

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.

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

ebiggs1 — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:33:39 GMT

Bob the man for Boston,

My favorite lens of all time is the ef 70-200mm f2.8L II. I mean it was until I got the ef 24-70mm f2.8L II. I can say, from a guy that has owned or used probably 200+ lenses over the years, this is the best lens made. I had the ef 24-105mm f4 and it is not even in the same zip code. I also had the ef 24-70mm f2.8L version 1. Not even close either the new one blows it out of the water.

I have the Nikkor version and it is good but not quite up to the Canon. Sorry Nikon buds. I also have the Sigma offering and the Tamron offering. IMHO, the, or at least my copy of the Tamron is in second place. Sorry Nikon buds.

The second part of your question, is it worth it? That is up to you to determine. Do you want the best lens made? I would buy it all over again in a heartbeat but that's me. This lens lives on my camera.

Also, IMHO, way to much weight is put upon IS. That is not a deal breaker or deal maker to me and it shouldn't be to any of you. Learn how to use your gear for Pete's sake. I don't subscribe to the thought that turning off IS makes the lens sharper. That is nonsense!

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

ebiggs1 — Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:35:41 GMT

diverhank

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

Ditto!

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

RobertTheFat — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 02:27:31 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
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.

To those who responded, thank you. I appreciate your advice. The lens is on its way and is supposed to be delivered tomorrow.

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

ebiggs1 — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 12:15:13 GMT

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

Waddizzle — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:30:53 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
You will love it.
My bag has really got down to three lenses. The 16-35mm f2.8L, the 24-70mm f2.8L and the 70-200mm f2.8L. The others just sit unless there is a special need, like the super zoom 150-600 'S'. Then it goes by itself.

Change your 24-70mm to the 24-105mm and that's my typical walk around kit, with a 6D and a crop body. My alternate lens kit is the 16-35mm in the bag, 70-200 mounted on the 6D, and the 100-400 mounted on a crop body.

When I carry the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, it is usually all that I carry, which is my lone major complaint about it.

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

Waddizzle — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 14:57:59 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
@RobertTheFat wrote:
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.
To those who responded, thank you. I appreciate your advice. The lens is on its way and is supposed to be delivered tomorrow.

If I don't hear from you today, I'll understand. If I don't hear from you for a week, I can understand that, too. ENJOY IT.

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

ebiggs1 — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 14:51:54 GMT

I probably need to unload some more lenses. I did pull out the 85mm f1.2L for this year's Senior photos but that is all it got to do. I guess I can't do wiht out my 400 f5.6L and 300mm f4L either. But the 500mil and 600mil, aw forget it. They all have a home................

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

Tsleel2811 — Fri, 02 Dec 2016 15:37:27 GMT

I'd like to give my first bit of advice on this forum. Hello everybody. I have the 24-70mmL II and the 70-200 II as well. I work for a variety of modeling companies and a few landscape jobs here and there. Honestly the 24-70 barely ever leaves my camera. The sharpness, speed and precision of this lens is definitely not met by any of my lenses (yes including the 70-200) post processing is sped up considerably more. Profile correction is barely needed nor is chromatic aberration removal. This lens is definitely worth the money. My friend has a funny saying about this lens. "If God ever came down to earth to make a lens, The 24-70 is the lens he'd make" . This holds true to me. Go for it and enjoy it

Re: 24-70mm Mk II

johnwinky94 — Mon, 10 Apr 2023 16:55:41 GMT

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns regarding the 24-70mm f/2.8 II lens. As a photography enthusiast, I completely understand your dilemma and the importance of investing in high-quality camera equipment.

Regarding the lens, it's essential to understand that every individual has a different set of expectations and preferences when it comes to photography gear. While some photographers may find the 24-70mm f/2.8 II lens to be a game-changer, others may not be as satisfied with its performance.

However, based on my personal experience and extensive research, I can confidently say that the 24-70mm f/2.8 II lens is indeed an excellent investment for any professional or serious amateur photographer. It offers exceptional image quality, a versatile focal range, and a robust build quality that can withstand even the harshest conditions.

Moreover, the lens's fast maximum aperture of f/2.8 makes it an excellent choice for low-light photography, portraiture, and even landscape photography, allowing for beautiful background blur and sharpness.

In conclusion, while the reviews on the B&H site may be mixed, I would encourage you to try the lens for yourself and make an informed decision based on your own needs and preferences. If you're already satisfied with your 24-105mm lens and don't feel like the 24-70mm f/2.8 II would add significant value to your photography, then there's no need to invest in it.

I hope this helps, and happy shooting!

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

ebiggs1 — Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:25:03 GMT

"I hope this helps, and happy shooting!"

You are replying to a 7 year old thread. In fact the OP is no longer living, he passed away several years ago.