An Expensive Disappointment
Given the price of this lens, the lack of Image Stabilization is an unforgivable omission. If you read the Canon propaganda, it says that they skipped I.S. on this lens in the name of image quality; that adding I.S. would have somehow made it worse. I’m not buying that argument. I own (and LOVE) the fabulous EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM – and Image Stabilization definitely didn’t hurt THAT lens.
I think my 24-70 f/2.8L II is every bit as sharp as my 70-200, but what makes the 70-200 such a joy to use is the 4-stops of shake correction that you get from its phenomenal (mk. II) I.S. system… That, plus it’s constant max. aperture of f/2.8 makes the 70-200 SO versatile; you can take handheld shots with it in (VERY low light) situations where common sense says that a telephoto zoom lens simply shouldn’t work.
I can’t speak for others here, but what I was really hoping for with the 24-70 f/2.8L II was a companion piece to my 70-200; a lens that picks up at 70mm and goes down to some reasonable wide-angle figure (24mm is fine), that offers the same image quality AND PERFORMANCE as my 70-200. Canon seems to have nailed the image quality part with the 24-70 f/2.8L II, but without Image Stabilization, the lens fails dismally in terms of matching the 70-200’s low-light performance. A “general purpose” zoom lens that is no good in low light won’t be very useful to most.
I did some side-by-side testing of the 24-70 f/2.8L II against my trusty 24-105 f/4L IS, and I saw blur from camera shake at f/2.8 with the 24-70, but the same shots in the same light at f/4 (with I.S.) were just fine on my MUCH cheaper 24-105. When the 24-105 seriously outguns the 24-70 in low light, that’s a huge embarrassment.
Canon needs to develop an Image Stabilized version of the 24-70 f/2.8L II very soon – even if there is a miniscule, theoretical reduction in image quality. Those who are utterly insane about image quality tend to use primes anyway. Those of us who buy zooms (particularly in this “general purpose” focal length range) are willing to trade a bit of image quality for versatility. Unless Canon cuts the price of this lens by about 50%, I’d say don’t waste your money on it.
Get the 24-105 if you want a true “general purpose” lens – it has half again as much reach as 24-70, has Image Stabilization, and can be had for about a third of the price of the 24-70 f/2.8L II. Image quality of the 24-105 isn’t as good as the 24-70, but it’s still very good. For what you have to pay, the 24-70 isn’t several magnitudes better than the 24-105. I’m very underwhelmed my 24-70 and seriously disappointed with Canon. What were they thinking here?!
November 12, 2013
I was blown away
After talking to several photographers and reading several reviews I decided to sell my old 24-70 lens and purchase the new lens. Well I quickly learned that evertning that I had heard about this lens was true. Sharpness,color,contrast and focus speed was amazing. It was hard to beleive that it was better than my old 24-70 but it was. The only thing that I miss is the huge lens hood.
November 5, 2013
good lent but extream overvalued price
is a good lent but the price is overvalued!!! +
i can understand a 70 200 2.8 IMAGE S is in a price like this but not this one
October 24, 2013
The new 24-70 f2.8 L II is absolutely a great lens! Its sharpness is excellent + even better than my 70-200 f2.8 L II IS and auto focus speed and accuracy and also build quality is superb! i have been using this one about a month and i m really satisfied with buying this lens. The only negative point is its price which is so expensive! But believe me it s worth to buy and you will be definitely satisfied.
September 3, 2013