I just bought the 24-70II and it is really nice. Much better than version 1 IMO. Smaller. Size is similar to the 24-105. Very sharp. Very responsive. I'll be using it at a wedding in two weeks and will try to update.
I really want to like this lens, but the price just makes it out of my reach. About the only time I would use this sort of lens would be for studio work or travel pictures - both of which I rarely do.
That said, from everything I've read, this appears to be the "end all" for 24-70/2.8 lenses - ignoring the fact it doesn't have IS. When the price drops I might take a closer look at it. As is, the 24-105 F4L IS for about $650 is far more compelling.
"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 ? "
Robin Usagani wrote:
I wouldnt get 6D. Keep it simple. I dont think I will like using different cards. I rather sell 60D, get a nice lens and a used 5D classic for $600.
so if I'm reading you correct - better lens trumps body...
Really? What if we don't want to be limited by that style? f/2.8 is often too slow when I shoot ISO 6400 and I want available light. When you're in a reception that had a $10,000 lighting job you don't want to drown that all out with flash.
jcolman wrote:
You shoot at midnight in a dark room? Maybe you should buy some lights.
I've slapped two 24-70II's on my 5D3 and I didn't think the lens was worth $1700 let alone what they're charging. Although I have what's probably the world's best 24-70I. The weight sure was nice, but the feel of the lens (zoom and focus) didn't get me going and the AF was no different than my mark I. I need to try it again but a 24-70 mark I that's calibrated and projection tested is no slouch in my experience.
IMO this blows away V1. The people who are going to absolutely love this lens are zoom shooters. It satisfies that, "i wish i had a prime lens for this shot" feeling you get. It is super sharp consistently throughout the barrel. As shocking it is to say, it is prime quality or very close to it. Prime shooters are always going to wish they could open up the aperture. Contrast is spectacular throughout the frame. If the 24-70 mk1 is your workhorse lens, this Mk2 will be worth every penny. Almost every review out there says the same thing.
Cons for me- 82mm filter...gonna cost me an extra $100-$150. Lens cap kinda annoying to put on/take off with the hood on as there isn't too much room to wedge your fingers in....both are not big issues.
This lens will be desired and retain a high resale value for a long time. Worst case scenario, you make tons of $$$/get great imagery off of it, sell it for 80+ percent of it's value...boohoo.
cineski wrote:
Really? What if we don't want to be limited by that style? f/2.8 is often too slow when I shoot ISO 6400 and I want available light. When you're in a reception that had a $10,000 lighting job you don't want to drown that all out with flash.
If you're "drowning out the $10k reception lighting with flash" you're doing it wrong.
I've just bought the 24-70 mk ii and used it in the studio yesterday.
It pretty sharp. Need to do some more test on it.
I also got a 100 2.8 L macro for portraits and that thing will cut you!!
Oh great, I'm reviving this since Amazon, Adorama, and B+H are offering the lens at about $1700 or less at this point. I still haven't pulled the trigger on this one since I've been using the primes. From further research, I'm seeing where the lens is distorted. So at the 24mm FD, there is more barrel distortion than on the 24LII. At the 35mm FD, there is less barrel distortion and sharper corners than the 35L. At the 50mm FD, there is more pincushion distortion than the 50L. At 70mm/85mm FDs, there is less pincushion distortion than the 85LII but the corners are sharper on the 85LII. As a zoom lens, the the 24-70LII is pretty spectacular since at 2.8 it's about as sharp or sharper than the primes. After seeing this difference, the 24-70LII seems like a pretty awesome lens. The only issue I have with it now is the loss of 2 stops of light or more. The flexibility of a zoom is pretty alluring though since I find that I bolt on a single lens most of the time unless I need to change FDs. At $1700 or less now, the 24-70LII is pretty enticing.
whtrbt7 wrote:
Oh great, I'm reviving this since Amazon, Adorama, and B+H are offering the lens at about $1700 or less at this point. I still haven't pulled the trigger on this one since I've been using the primes. From further research, I'm seeing where the lens is distorted. So at the 24mm FD, there is more barrel distortion than on the 24LII. At the 35mm FD, there is less barrel distortion and sharper corners than the 35L. At the 50mm FD, there is more pincushion distortion than the 50L. At 70mm/85mm FDs, there is less pincushion distortion than the 85LII but the corners are sharper on the 85LII. As a zoom lens, the the 24-70LII is pretty spectacular since at 2.8 it's about as sharp or sharper than the primes. After seeing this difference, the 24-70LII seems like a pretty awesome lens. The only issue I have with it now is the loss of 2 stops of light or more. The flexibility of a zoom is pretty alluring though since I find that I bolt on a single lens most of the time unless I need to change FDs. At $1700 or less now, the 24-70LII is pretty enticing....Show more →
where are you seeing that price? I am not seeing anywhere close to that
joelconner wrote:
where are you seeing that price? I am not seeing anywhere close to that
If it's still going on, B&H and Adorama are having a sale where it's $1999 (you have to proceed to the final checkout page to see that price), and there's a $300 mail-in rebate through Canon as well.
