Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 20 Jul 2013 (Saturday) 18:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Comparing $$$ value: 24-70 2.8 II vs 70-200 2.8 IS

 
Roshan
Senior Member
319 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Toronto, Ontario
     
Jul 20, 2013 18:38 |  #1

Let's talk value between these two lenses that are the class of their fields.

Things they have in common:

- Similar Pricepoint $200 difference give or take
- Both L series (duh)
- Both are amazingly sharp! Best zooms in their class!
- Both focus almost instantaneously!
- Both Weather-sealed

How they differ:

- The 70-200 is mostly metal; the 24-70 is mostly plastic
- 4 stops of IS on the 70-200 and 4 stops of nada on the 24-70
- The lens hood on the 70-200 is right sized. Lens hood on the new 24-70 is too small and extension of zoom barrel being exposed is not as sealed as the Mark 1 lens.


So, where am I going with this? I feel considering the price one pays for the 24-70, it's an absolute travesty of a Value!!! Especially when you compare it to the 70-200 2.8 II, which justifies its price.

Had canon released the 24-70 with a metal build, did not expose the barrel to outside conditions, and included IS, I can fully understand paying $2000+ for this lens. The glass is magnificient, but everything about it is - frankly, crap considering the price. It simply does not offer the kind of value you would expect for the price.

Ok, I hope I'm not the only one who feel this way.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jul 20, 2013 18:56 |  #2
bannedPermanent ban

Different focal length, what's there to compare about?

24-70II can't do 71-200mm, and 70-200 can't shoot at 24-69mm...

Better comparison - does 24-70II really worth $1k more than the Tamron 24-70 VC?


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roshan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
319 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Toronto, Ontario
     
Jul 20, 2013 23:22 |  #3

kin2son wrote in post #16138400 (external link)
Different focal length, what's there to compare about?

24-70II can't do 71-200mm, and 70-200 can't shoot at 24-69mm...

Better comparison - does 24-70II really worth $1k more than the Tamron 24-70 VC?

Focal length is not the issue here. The glass in both lenses are amazing. I'm talking about the rest of the stuff that makes it worthwhile to spend the extra bucks.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frankchn
Senior Member
459 posts
Likes: 158
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jul 21, 2013 02:14 |  #4

Roshan wrote in post #16138906 (external link)
Focal length is not the issue here. The glass in both lenses are amazing. I'm talking about the rest of the stuff that makes it worthwhile to spend the extra bucks.

Focal length is very much the issue in these sort of comparisons. If not, I can compare the 70-200 against the 200-400 (both well regarded IQ wise, fast AF, weather-sealed, internal zoom and focus, etc...) and ask why the 200-400 is 5x more expensive while being one stop slower than the 70-200.

Roshan wrote:
Ok, I hope I'm not the only one who feel this way.

I am sure some people do, but enough people think that even without the IS and the conventional zoom, etc... it is worth the $2300 to them.

Ultimately, Canon prices its lenses at what it thinks will make the most profit. In this case, it happens to be $2300 and we, as consumers, will either have to pay up or find alternatives (e.g. Tamron 24-70VC).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdang
Senior Member
263 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jul 21, 2013 02:18 |  #5

It is a lot harder to make a good 24-70 than to make a good 70-200.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vertigo1
Senior Member
310 posts
Likes: 49
Joined Sep 2006
     
Jul 21, 2013 07:02 |  #6

Roshan wrote in post #16138906 (external link)
Focal length is not the issue here. The glass in both lenses are amazing. I'm talking about the rest of the stuff that makes it worthwhile to spend the extra bucks.

frankchn wrote in post #16139204 (external link)
Ultimately, Canon prices its lenses at what it thinks will make the most profit. In this case, it happens to be $2300 and we, as consumers, will either have to pay up or find alternatives (e.g. Tamron 24-70VC).

cdang wrote in post #16139206 (external link)
It is a lot harder to make a good 24-70 than to make a good 70-200.

Put these things together and you have the answer. The lenses are both priced at what Canon thinks the market will bear, balancing profit against sales.

It's obviously more expensive to get the optics in the 24-70 to perform on a par with those in the 70-200, leaving less money for things like build quality etc. There are also weight considerations - adding metal construction to the 24-70 would not just increase the cost but also the weight which is more of a concern for a walkabout lens like a 24-70 than it is for a 70-200 (for most people at least).

All that said, I do share your concerns about the design and construction of the 24-70 II. Whilst the optical performance is obviously better, in all other ways I prefer my Mk1.


Canon 5D3/6D | EF 16-35 f/4L IS | EF 24-70 f/2.8L II | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II | EF 35 f/1.4L II | EF 50 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
XxDJCyberLoverxX
Goldmember
Avatar
1,139 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 144
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
     
Jul 21, 2013 07:17 as a reply to  @ Vertigo1's post |  #7

I really agree with the OP's opinion on the "value" of the new 24-70II. Don't get me wrong, if somebody gave that lens to me I'd be more than happy.

Other than the improved optical performance & the weight reduction, I can't see the new 24-70 II being a value. Others would argue, but to each their own.

At $2000+, most would love for it to also have IS, even if they don't need it.

Optical performance? The most common word I hear people say about the 24-70II's optical performance is "it's sharp!" Bokeh, color rendition, flare, etc., although mentioned a bit, there's no stress placed on these aspects of optical performance.

Adjusting the Sharpening slider in LR or in PS would make a shot from the 24-70 & the Tamron 24-70 (or any other equivalent) indistinguishable IMO.

Focal length isn't really much of a big factor here. Sure they're both different lenses with for different purposes, but if you compare the price increase of the 24-70 from the MK1 to the MK2, the additional "upgrades" of the MK2 isn't much of a value, compared to what you can get with the 70-200 MK2.

cdang wrote in post #16139206 (external link)
It is a lot harder to make a good 24-70 than to make a good 70-200.

Where did you get this information? I'm just curious.


Daniel
Sony a7 / Sony a7s / FE 24-70mm / FE 28mm F/2 / Samyang 135mm
Nebula 4000 Lite / Manfrotto 190cx
POTN Feedback / My Work! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdang
Senior Member
263 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jul 21, 2013 08:39 |  #8

Do a quick search on "why are wide angle lens more expensive than telephoto" on google.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Jul 21, 2013 08:45 |  #9

I think both are equally awesome and worth the price.

I love the 24-70 II..... Build, IQ, hood, etc.... I would hate a large hood like the old version.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rittrato
Goldmember
Avatar
1,224 posts
Likes: 26
Joined May 2010
     
Jul 21, 2013 11:16 as a reply to  @ Invertalon's post |  #10

I too have always questioned the value of the 24-70L ii. I understand its a step up in the IQ over the first version, but I can't justify buying it. Its sharp from corner to corner but that's it in my opinion. The 70-200L II is a an amazing lens and is worth every buck, I can't say the same for the 24-70Lii.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RickRandhawa
Senior Member
599 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Chandler, AZ
     
Jul 21, 2013 12:27 |  #11

I was one of the early adopters of the 70-200 MKII. Back then everyone was saying how the 70-200 wasn't worth it, overpriced, couldn't be justified, etc.


6D l 24-70L II l 85L II l 70-200/4L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roshan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
319 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Toronto, Ontario
     
Jul 21, 2013 14:33 |  #12

RickRandhawa wrote in post #16140167 (external link)
I was one of the early adopters of the 70-200 MKII. Back then everyone was saying how the 70-200 wasn't worth it, overpriced, couldn't be justified, etc.

But I don't think anyone questioned it's build quality, IS improvement etc...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nightdiver13
Unabashed nerd!
Avatar
2,272 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2010
Location: Bigfoot Country
     
Jul 21, 2013 15:35 |  #13

I don't understand why some consider the high-grade plastics being used in many of Canon's lenses to be inferior to metal. I also don't understand why the 70-200 is being used to gauge the value of the 24-70.


Neil

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ben805
Goldmember
1,197 posts
Likes: 97
Joined Mar 2007
     
Jul 21, 2013 15:50 |  #14

The 24-105L is a better value lens than 24-70 II, personally I won't even pay $1700 for the 24-70 II, left alone over $2000.


5D Mark III, Samyang 14mm, 35LII, 85L II, 100L IS Macro, 24-105L, 70-200L 2.8 IS II. 580EX, AB400, AB800.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gasrocks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,431 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Portage, Wisconsin USA
     
Jul 21, 2013 16:38 |  #15

Is a Ferrari or a Volkswagon a better value?


GEAR LIST
_______________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,861 views & 0 likes for this thread
Comparing $$$ value: 24-70 2.8 II vs 70-200 2.8 IS
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mcsdet
1541 guests, 277 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.