Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Steve Tinetti, Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List

FM Forums \| Wedding Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

Robin Usagani
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

A while back I shot with 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200L f/2.8L IS. Then I switched to primes because I wasnt very impressed with my 24-70. Now I am ready to jump back on the zoom bandwagon. Unfortunately it wont be an easy transition back because I have to sell some of my lenses to fund it thanks to the high price. For those who owns it, how do you like it? Do you find your self use it more and more than your primes?

Dec 28, 2012 at 04:54 PM

jcolman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

I bought one a while ago. It has become one of my favorite lenses. It's just as sharp wide open as any of my primes.

I also owned a 24-70 mk I a few years ago. I sold it because, like you, I was not impressed with the quality.

Dec 28, 2012 at 05:00 PM

dsouzl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

I couldn't be happier with my 24-70 II. The colour, contrast, and sharpness are crazy good. I never owned the v1 of this lens so can't comment on the differences.

Rent or borrow one for a day - you will be impressed!

Dec 28, 2012 at 05:08 PM

sherijohnson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

I happen to love this lens madly

I didn't have the 1st version, this was my first for Canon.

Dec 28, 2012 at 05:25 PM

stempsons
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

Robin Usagani wrote:
Do you find your self use it more and more than your primes?

I just picked up this lens after using primes only for the last several years. I to had the original 24-70 as well as the 24-105 but didn't use them due to the better image quality of the primes. The new version is as sharp as my sharpest prime (35L) at the same focal length and aperture.

One thing to consider though, is what apertures do you shoot your primes? I find my self preferring lots of subject isolation which comes with wide apertures.

The zoom is more of a handy trade off for fast primes if you're shooting at f/2.8 or more, but not a replacement for low light shooting where fast primes are a necessary.

-Seth

Dec 28, 2012 at 05:40 PM

Robin Usagani
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

stempsons wrote:
Robin Usagani wrote:
Do you find your self use it more and more than your primes?

I just picked up this lens after using primes only for the last several years. I to had the original 24-70 as well as the 24-105 but didn't use them due to the better image quality of the primes. The new version is as sharp as my sharpest prime (35L) at the same focal length and aperture.

One thing to consider though, is what apertures do you shoot your primes? I find my self preferring lots of subject isolation which comes with wide apertures.

The zoom is more of a handy trade off for fast primes if you're shooting at f/2.8 or more, but not a replacement for low light shooting where fast primes are a necessary.

-Seth

You are correct Seth. With today's sensor though, the only advantage I see is the shallow DOF the shorter primes can produce. Thanks for the reply guys! Going to pull the trigger!

Dec 28, 2012 at 07:21 PM

Jeff Simpson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

stempsons wrote:
Robin Usagani wrote:
Do you find your self use it more and more than your primes?

I just picked up this lens after using primes only for the last several years. I to had the original 24-70 as well as the 24-105 but didn't use them due to the better image quality of the primes. The new version is as sharp as my sharpest prime (35L) at the same focal length and aperture.

One thing to consider though, is what apertures do you shoot your primes? I find my self preferring lots of subject isolation which comes with wide apertures.

The zoom is more of a handy trade off for fast primes if you're shooting at f/2.8 or more, but not a replacement for low light shooting where fast primes are a necessary.

-Seth

Yeah.. you don't need fast primes anymore for shooting in low light

Dec 28, 2012 at 08:48 PM

ZachOly
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

I shoot too much at ~3200 ISO @ f/1.4
There's no way I could get by being limited with a 2.8

Dec 29, 2012 at 02:10 PM

Robin Usagani
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

ZachOly wrote:
I shoot too much at ~3200 ISO @ f/1.4
There's no way I could get by being limited with a 2.8

Then up the iso 2 stops with 2.8 (with newer sensor).

Dec 29, 2012 at 02:26 PM

joelconner
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

I am interested in trying the mark II. We have and use the mark I, and we have been very pleased with our copy of the lens. Honestly, we have had almost none of the issues that most seem people have with that lens, and we have produced most of our best images with our copy. I have had it for about 6 years now.

A few of the reviews I read said that it was an improvement over the mark I, but not necessarily enough to justify the cost. Hard for me to know for sure without testing (especially considering we have one of the few good copies of the mark I)

Dec 29, 2012 at 03:31 PM

evertdoorn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

I found that it gives me freedom and I can shoot a great variety of shots with it. Sold the 24L to fund it (used that mostly stopped down anyway). The 35 is my shallow depth/really low light option if the zoom doesn't cut it.

Prior, I had the 35 on one 5d and the 85L on the other; now it's the 24-70 and 85L (and the 35, 70-200 and 17-40 within reach if I need them).

Dec 29, 2012 at 04:35 PM

form
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

Anytime I think of getting another standard zoom, I shoot for a while with 16-35 and stopped down primes...and then when I'm reviewing the photos, I always inevitably go, "I don't like these photos, they don't have the subject isolation or subject focus I like."

I like the look of primes too much to go back to zooms. At least, right now. Maybe if I become a better photographer someday I will say, "I like zooms because they will give me great shots and it's so much more compact than carrying around 3-4 lenses for the same focal range."

Dec 29, 2012 at 05:22 PM

D. Diggler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

Robin Usagani wrote:
With today's sensor though, the only advantage I see is the shallow DOF the shorter primes can produce.

Advantage prime: brighter viewfinder at those dark receptions.

Improved auto-focus in low light due to more light being transmitted through the lens with the wider aperture of the prime.

Dec 29, 2012 at 08:26 PM

D. Diggler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

Robin Usagani wrote:

ZachOly wrote:
I shoot too much at ~3200 ISO @ f/1.4

Then up the iso 2 stops with 2.8 (with newer sensor).

Of course, the image quality will look a lot better at 3200 than at 25,600. It gets bad enough at the 25,600 you suggest that some here go to black and white because the color image would be unacceptable for professional output.

Dec 29, 2012 at 08:28 PM

WNStudio
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

Is it better that 35L? NO. Is it better that 50L? NO. Is it better that 85L? NO. Is it more expensive? YES. Is it better that 24-70 v.1? Probaby yes, but does it justify the price difference?
If you didn't like v.1 probably you won't love v.2. Maybe a bit sharper wide open, that's it. It's still 2,8.
WE are the market- if we start paying this big $$$ for lenses, there will be no end to this ridicoulousness (just imagine the price of 50L v.2 when it finally arrives).
Just my 02 cents.

Dec 29, 2012 at 10:05 PM

ZachOly
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

Robin Usagani wrote:
ZachOly wrote:
I shoot too much at ~3200 ISO @ f/1.4
There's no way I could get by being limited with a 2.8

Then up the iso 2 stops with 2.8 (with newer sensor).

But with that logic, we might as well all buy the 24-70 f/4 IS

Dec 29, 2012 at 10:18 PM

NathanHamler
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

D. Diggler wrote:
Robin Usagani wrote:
With today's sensor though, the only advantage I see is the shallow DOF the shorter primes can produce.

Advantage prime: brighter viewfinder at those dark receptions.

Improved auto-focus in low light due to more light being transmitted through the lens with the wider aperture of the prime.

Is that AF part really so?? I've heard that Nikon AF sensors are optimized for f/2.8, so faster glass doesnt necessarily mean faster af performance (from what i've been told, i dont shoot 1.4 primes, and Canon may be different..)... Thoughts?

Dec 30, 2012 at 12:14 AM

joelconner
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

NathanHamler wrote:
Is that AF part really so?? I've heard that Nikon AF sensors are optimized for f/2.8, so faster glass doesnt necessarily mean faster af performance (from what i've been told, i dont shoot 1.4 primes, and Canon may be different..)... Thoughts?

This is what I have heard/read as well. AF on most systems (which is based off one of the camera company's original system) was designed at 2.8, so anything faster can have issues with it. This may not be accurate, but someone from either Canon or Sigma talked to me about is and it made sense.

Dec 30, 2012 at 06:39 PM

whtrbt7
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

I was interested in this lens as well but I switched to primes because I prefer primes. The original 24-70/2.8 iS USM L was pretty soft unless it was stopped down. I sold it to another wedding photog buddy that just switched back to Canon. I don't have the new version but from what I've read, the AF snaps very quickly compared to the older version and doesn't have IS. So if anything, it would require a higher skilled photographer to operate one better. Out of the images I've seen, it's MUCH sharper than the V1 but its still a 2.8 aperture lens. The main reason I personally switched to Primes was not for the AF advantages (if there even are any), but rather for the ability to shoot wide open in low light. 2-3 stops is light is a lot of wiggle room between the different primes and even though I could jack up the ISO, I would rather reserve higher ISOs for when I really need them. That said, the V2 of the 24-70 seems really tempting to me for just casual shooting since it could allow me to just carry one lens instead of 3-4. If I was only going to use a single body and didn't really care about low light, I would definitely pick one up. (Maybe I should invest in some good lighting gear, any recos?)

Jan 02, 2013 at 12:43 AM

mjoshi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II

Okay need to revive this old thread - Robin how do you like 24-70 ? Any real life shoot with it so far ?
Okay my current line-up is 35L + 70-200F2.8LISii + 100F2.8L + 17-40F4L (rarely used except for landscapes) + 5Dmkii + 60D (just for back-up and not planning to use this anymore).
Here is my question - will I be better-off getting 24-70 or another full-frame body like 6D or 5Dmkiii (refurb from canon) ? or get 24-70 + lens-changer bag and carry 3 lenses to cover it all with single body ?

Mar 12, 2013 at 03:17 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Wedding Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end