My thoughts regarding the 24-70L...

So I recently rented a 24-70L from Lensrentals.com. (Fabulous service!!!) I took it with me for two weeks while traveling on business in Germany.

It's now been a week since I returned, and I've had more time to evaluate the pictures I took on my larger monitors at home and therefore better rate my experience with the lens as a whole.

To put it short, I fell in love with the lens. I use to own the 24-105L and have rented the 35L several times but didn't fall in love with either. But my conclusion regarding the 24-70L is as follows:

$1399 is a lot to pay for a lens that I would say is only 85-90% perfect for my needs. The lens I rented was a sharp UY (2010) model. In my impression it was certainly sharp enough at 2.8. My biggest problem with the lens was the lack of IS. I have shots taken at 1/50 of a second or slower that definitely suffered from lens movement.

Moreover, I think I would easily be willing to pay $2000-$2400 for a 24-70L with IS and updated coatings/elements. I just think it would fill my needs very adequately.

So like many of you I join the ranks of those who wait for the II version. I will make due with what I've got until then. In the mean time, I save my pennies!

I have been hearing the II version would be in the market since 2009. I can't just wait so I ordered one yesterday and will receive it on Friday.

Cannot wrote in post #12699307
I have been hearing the II version would be in the market since 2009. I can't just wait so I ordered one yesterday and will receive it on Friday.

nah it went farther back than that. I heard the rumors of a II version when I first started getting into photography back in 2008
My guess is that Canon will not make a new version until a much higher resolution FF camera is released and the current 24-70L won't be able to keep up with the
high res sensor

I couldn't wait for the IS version so I decided to buy it as well. I mean once the IS version comes out, it won't be the same price as the non-IS. It'll be somewhat like buying the 70-200L non-IS vs the 70-200L IS. So I rather buy the non-IS right now, and once the IS comes out, sell the non-IS (which I'm pretty sure it'll retain its value pretty good even with the IS out) and simply get the IS then.

i owned the 24-70L for more than three years and a couple of years ago switched back to the 24-105L. they're both very good lenses but i wanted the longer reach, lighter weight, smaller size and IS for travel.

ed

The 24-70 is a very nice lens. I can't imagine waiting for the new version when or if it comes out. The current offering can do what I want it to do and what I need it to do.

Jon.

I love my 24-70. Mine is tack sharp throughout the focal length and at 2.8. I also have the UX code which I believe is 2008. I also had the 24-105 and although it was great and gave me the first insight into an "L" lens, I really prefer it over the 24-70. It's just that much more sharper, or at least in my opinion. The 24-105L that I had was a 2009 date code by the way.

I think if canon does make the IS version of this lens, the non-IS version will still be produced, like 70-200 series. And as a happy 24-70L user, I'm in the line for Mark II as well!

After stretching my budget by all means, I could afford this lens. I have learned the art of keeping speed at or above 1/100sec and really miss IS in 5% shots only. So looking at likely cost really not waiting for IS.

ssmanak wrote in post #12701671
After stretching my budget by all means, I could afford this lens. I have learned the art of keeping speed at or above 1/100sec and really miss IS in 5% shots only. So looking at likely cost really not waiting for IS.

You can hand held slower then that with the 24-70mm focal range even without IS.

thestone11 wrote in post #12702199
You can hand held slower then that with the 24-70mm focal range even without IS.

of course that really depends on a lot of different factors like focal length, crop factor and the shooter's ability to steady a camera.

i know i can handhold an IS lens at MUCH lower shutter speeds than a comparable IS lens.

ed

ed rader wrote in post #12702524
of course that really depends on a lot of different factors like focal length, crop factor and the shooter's ability to steady a camera.

i know i can handhold an IS lens at MUCH lower shutter speeds than a comparable IS lens.

ed

+ 1

+2. I'm not the most steady shooter these days either.

Jon.

Yeah, 1/60 is the lowest I will go at low light with 24-70. I got a shaky hand. IS will be a luxury for me.