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.

[ebiggs1 · Accepted solution]

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!

[Mitsubishiman]

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.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@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. 

[ebiggs1]

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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@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.

[ebiggs1]

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................

[Tsleel2811]

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

[johnwinky94]

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!

[ebiggs1]

"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.