Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L II USM arived

The Canon 7D Kid wrote in post #14993496
=The "Canon 7D" Kid;14993496]Here You Go! http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=iTlsoTYImjM
goto 4:40

I'm pretty sure this guy knows what he talking about! Also at the beginning of this post he is talking about build quality.

That's interesting. Most reviews I've seen from actual users that have both lenses say the 24-70L is the clear winner. I wonder if Kai's results had anything to do with the v1 variability or internal issues from wear and tear (#lensrentals.com review).

I don't have a 24-70L v1, but my 24-70L II arrives on Monday and I have a UA date code 24-105L in my bag...so I'll be sure to do a comparison (and maybe throw the 70-200 II in the mix).

I read in some early reviews that the zoom ring is a bit tight. Is this the case for all production units?

kin2son wrote in post #14985011
Lensrental has tested the 24-70II, @ f2.8 it's sharper than the 24 TS-E @ f3.5 at both center and corners. The margin might and should be even bigger when stopped down.

There's no doubt that 24-70II is miles ahead of 24-105 in terms of sharpness.

Mind you Lensrental uses the Imatest and that's the industry standard. There's no question about their credibility.

Being $1300.00 more I would hope so! Me personally I still say the 24-105 is a better buy. Just my opinion. I cant fully speak on the 24-70 MKII because I don't have it. Nor have I used it.

If someone took 10 photos with each lens, do you honestly think that you would be able to distinguish all of the 24-105 photos from the 24-70 MKII photos. Maybe....... Maybe Not!

JLai81 wrote in post #14993596
That's interesting. Most reviews I've seen from actual users that have both lenses say the 24-70L is the clear winner. I wonder if Kai's results had anything to do with the v1 variability or internal issues from wear and tear (#lensrentals.com review).

I don't have a 24-70L v1, but my 24-70L II arrives on Monday and I have a UA date code 24-105L in my bag...so I'll be sure to do a comparison (and maybe throw the 70-200 II in the mix).

That could very well be possible!

I think it's important that we all remember that!
#1 - NO Lenses are created equal. None, Nada
#2 - "Reviews" Reviews when it comes down to it, is just an individuals opinion.
#3 - Buy what you can, and form your own opinion. You might get a good copy of a lens. You might get a bad copy.

At the end of the day! Do what works for you!

The Canon 7D Kid wrote in post #14993689
=The "Canon 7D" Kid;14993689]........I cant fully speak on the 24-70 MKII because I don't have it. Nor have I used it......

You and me both. In fact it was suggested to me yesterday that the UK may not see this mythical lens until mid December. I would hope its before then, but Canon are obviously having trouble getting the pre-orders delivered, never mind ordinary stock.

Still no direct comparisons to the version one

It'd be nice to see charts but at least the same frame of real life as the first.

Amazing how things switch around.

I've just received a phone call telling me there is a 24-70 mk2 waiting for me in the shop. I asked how many they had received and was told "One".

So they are here in the UK as well.

The Canon 7D Kid wrote in post #14993712
=The "Canon 7D" Kid;14993712]That could very well be possible!

I think it's important that we all remember that!
#1 - NO Lenses are created equal. None, Nada
#2 - "Reviews" Reviews when it comes down to it, is just an individuals opinion.
#3 - Buy what you can, and form your own opinion. You might get a good copy of a lens. You might get a bad copy.

At the end of the day! Do what works for you!

Agree 100%.

The Canon 7D Kid wrote in post #14993689
=The "Canon 7D" Kid;14993689]Being $1300.00 more I would hope so! Me personally I still say the 24-105 is a better buy. Just my opinion. I cant fully speak on the 24-70 MKII because I don't have it. Nor have I used it.

If someone took 10 photos with each lens, do you honestly think that you would be able to distinguish all of the 24-105 photos from the 24-70 MKII photos. Maybe....... Maybe Not!

the 24-105 is a better buy, so is the 50 1.8 and 40 pancake.... doesnt mean they're better lenses, and for the record, if you shoot the 24-105 a lot and compare to the 24-70, you would be able to see the difference.

swldstn wrote in post #14987640
When did you order yours?

June 18th.

The Canon 7D Kid wrote in post #14993689
=The "Canon 7D" Kid;14993689]Being $1300.00 more I would hope so! Me personally I still say the 24-105 is a better buy. Just my opinion. I cant fully speak on the 24-70 MKII because I don't have it. Nor have I used it.

If someone took 10 photos with each lens, do you honestly think that you would be able to distinguish all of the 24-105 photos from the 24-70 MKII photos. Maybe....... Maybe Not!

you wouldn't be able to tell. well, perhaps, you could personally (bokeh quality, lens flare, etc.), but when people walk through your home and look at the pictures on your wall (or throughout your facebook albums) they wouldn't be able to distinguish. I mean, who is it other than yourself do you really need to please when it comes to equipment options?

A few years ago I would have said the 24-70 was the clear winner between the 24-105. Now, even having never tried the 24-105, I would probably say otherwise. I grew very tired of the limited focal length of the 24-70. Indoors, yes, it was somewhat usable. The studio was the only environment I found the 24-70 to be a true winner. However, having abandoned any studio work, I found the 24-70 completely and utterly frustrating and eventually got rid of it. The 24-70MK2 seems like a compelling lens for studio to work in my view, especially if you have access to stunning models and backdrops. Studio work is all stopped down at the aperture anyways, so either mk1 or mk2 would do the job for me. It really just looks like a pixel peepers (and landscape shooters) wet dream to me. I'm really not sold on these super sharp lenses. Average looking people without makeup artists handy do NOT need their facial features razor sharp, which is where the viewer looks first.

Wow, I just realized that I went off on a rambling trail. I'm done.

Lowner wrote in post #14994211
Amazing how things switch around.

I've just received a phone call telling me there is a 24-70 mk2 waiting for me in the shop. I asked how many they had received and was told "One".

So they are here in the UK as well.

Park Cameras down in Burges Hill have stock but they're going straight out to pre-orders.

Pearlallica wrote in post #14995446
you wouldn't be able to tell. well, perhaps, you could personally (bokeh quality, lens flare, etc.), but when people walk through your home and look at the pictures on your wall (or throughout your facebook albums) they wouldn't be able to distinguish. I mean, who is it other than yourself do you really need to please when it comes to equipment options?

A few years ago I would have said the 24-70 was the clear winner between the 24-105. Now, even having never tried the 24-105, I would probably say otherwise. I grew very tired of the limited focal length of the 24-70. Indoors, yes, it was somewhat usable. The studio was the only environment I found the 24-70 to be a true winner. However, having abandoned any studio work, I found the 24-70 completely and utterly frustrating and eventually got rid of it. The 24-70MK2 seems like a compelling lens for studio to work in my view, especially if you have access to stunning models and backdrops. Studio work is all stopped down at the aperture anyways, so either mk1 or mk2 would do the job for me. It really just looks like a pixel peepers (and landscape shooters) wet dream to me. I'm really not sold on these super sharp lenses. Average looking people without makeup artists handy do NOT need their facial features razor sharp, which is where the viewer looks first.

Wow, I just realized that I went off on a rambling trail. I'm done.

Some good points. It seems like many people look to sharpness as the primary deciding factor, when in reality, any L lens (and some non-L) are well beyond what the majority would call "razor sharp". In regards to the focal range, I don't think this lens is meant to replace the duties of the 24-105, but rather it is meant to be an entirely different tool.

p360 wrote in post #14994641
June 18th.

Ok, I ordered mine on April 23rd so I wonder when I will get mine? Sold my Mk I for the second time in anticipation. Based on the sharpness comments I can't wait.

jwp721 wrote in post #14954590
Congrats on the new lens... but if you really want to share then maybe a couple pictures of something stationary with some detail in it would be nice. Not someone who looks like they were trying to avoid getting their picture taken! And low light pictures are not helpful. And using the polarizer is not necessary either....

Would like to see some pictures of the exact same thing taken with the new lens at f2.8 and then at f6.3.

Or just keep showing us pictures of the box and instruction manual........?

At least you're polite