Living without a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L

Well back at the end of April I was really thinking of buying the new 24-70mm f/2.8L II
to replace the Mark 1 version I had. My thinking was that I just used it so much I wanted the best possible one available even if was a lot more. Also I liked he convienance so much I didn't use my 35L or my 50L that much and thought I would also sell those when I got the new 24-70mm to fund it. So I sold my mark I and put in my pre-order. Then Canon slipped the date from end of April to some time in July and I was SOL without any 24-70 f/2.8L.

Without one I am using my 35L, 50L, and 85L (my favorite) a lot more and now wondering if I should just forgo the Mark II since it gives me no optical advantage to what I still own. I also do have the 24-105 if I want the flexibility of a mid range zoom and the cost of the Mark II is so high.

My primary use of the 24-70 is indoors, at gatherings, with and without flash depending on the room. That's why I liked the flexibility. The 24-105 was more of an outdoor walk arround or the one lens on my backup I would make sure i had for just in case.

Some say a mid range zoom, no matter how good, just is not needed if you have a fast 50mm and a wide and tele zoom like the 16-35 f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L II.

Should I just forget about getting one and learn to work without it?

For me 24-70 is more flexible when shooting indoor events rather then keep switching out primes.

May consider the new Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC in the meantime while you wait for the Mk II.

Keep your primes, save your money for something else. I have the 16-35 , 24-70 , 70-200 IS2 and 35L,85L
My zooms always stay at home. If you ever feel like you need a zoom, the 24-105 should be enough to fill the itch to use one.

Does one ever itch to use a zoom? I always thought it was out of necessity.

With that said, will someone please buy my 24Lii (UZ)?? I want a 16-35Lii.

I sold my 24-70L about 2 years ago now, and have not missed it at all. I usually use the 50L and the 24LII.

I sold off my 24-70 when I got the 50L and haven't looked back.

I would really like to use my 50L more but its giving me some fits getting it to focus. I'll have to spend more time with it this weekend on the 5D3 to see if the combo, plus some learning, make it work better. I always thought the problem of not focusing would be worse if I used it wide open. So I would typically try to stop it down to increase the DOF. Now if I understand some of the post I read the problem is more when you stop it down. I.e the AF sets the focus when wide open, then when it stops down to take the actual image the focus moves. If you open it up then the focus point set by the AF doesn't change very much. But that's if I understand them correctly. I love the 85L which focuses great but some times its just not wide enough so I'd really like to get my 50L to work better then I might not miss the 24-70mm much.

I did stop by the local store and they had the new Tammy but it didn't feel as robust to me. Also, I wasn't sure about the focusing speed. Seemed a little slow. Couldn't tell how well the IS worked but I'd have to have it for a day or two to really evaluate it properly,

So for now I'll keep my pre-order in but I agree with other posters I should be able to save my money and use it for something where I get some real new capability. I really like the idea of a 300mm f/2.8L with IS.

I've lived without a 24-70 my entire shooting career, except for ONE day when I used my friend's 24-70L at his baby shower. I liked the lens and kind of want one, but do I really need it? No. I litterally just had a 17mm TS-E and Sigma 300-800mm in my cart while ordering other photo stuff online, and a 24-70mm didn't even cross my mind. I just don't need it. And no, I did not order either the 17mm or 300-800mm because of my own reasons. I was very close though.

Amazingly, the only time I've really needed it is for weddings and events like 65th b-days.

I could absolutely live without it.

While I can accept that primes are sharper, the 24-70 f/2.8L is my go anywhere, do anything lens that is fitted to the body when in my backpack or at home. I'd be lost without it.

The cost of the mark 2 is certainly making me think, but provided it is a big enough sharpness gain I will happily switch to the mark 2 when it arrives. There are people claiming to know how the new lens will perform, but I've seen nothing.

swldstn wrote in post #14515170
I would really like to use my 50L more but its giving me some fits getting it to focus. I'll have to spend more time with it this weekend on the 5D3 to see if the combo, plus some learning, make it work better. I always thought the problem of not focusing would be worse if I used it wide open. So I would typically try to stop it down to increase the DOF. Now if I understand some of the post I read the problem is more when you stop it down. I.e the AF sets the focus when wide open, then when it stops down to take the actual image the focus moves. If you open it up then the focus point set by the AF doesn't change very much. But that's if I understand them correctly. I love the 85L which focuses great but some times its just not wide enough so I'd really like to get my 50L to work better then I might not miss the 24-70mm much.

I did stop by the local store and they had the new Tammy but it didn't feel as robust to me. Also, I wasn't sure about the focusing speed. Seemed a little slow. Couldn't tell how well the IS worked but I'd have to have it for a day or two to really evaluate it properly,

So for now I'll keep my pre-order in but I agree with other posters I should be able to save my money and use it for something where I get some real new capability. I really like the idea of a 300mm f/2.8L with IS.

I've read the focal plane isn't straight, but curved, so if you focus and then recompose, even if slightly, it can throw off the focus.

PLLphotography wrote in post #14515469
I've read the focal plane isn't straight, but curved, so if you focus and then recompose, even if slightly, it can throw off the focus.

Depends on the curve. Done right it could improve the focus/recompose problem. The curved focal plane needs to be at a fixed distance from the lens, which is a curve, rather than a completely flat sheet. Surely curved focal planes are the norm?

sol95 wrote in post #14513274
I sold my 24-70L about 2 years ago now, and have not missed it at all. I usually use the 50L and the 24LII.

Thought this would be the case, I rarely used my 24-70 but I guess there is a reason most camera come with a lens in the 24-105 range. Sometimes its just to hard to use primes.

TS, if you go the prime route, you need the 24mm to cover the wide angle of the 24-70.

The biggest drawback of the 24-70 is easily the size. It was just a pain to lug around, but not as painful as lugging two primes and switching all the time.

given you've gone this long without it, and found alternatives you like - i'd skip it getting the new 24-70. i'd say the lesson here is don't sell something based on Canon's proposed release dates, wait until you've got new product in hand before selling.