So what is the verdict for the 24-70 II?

If we cut the crap, what is the verdict for the 24-70 II?

* Sample variation issues : if we buy one now, we will have to wait 3 months to find the perfect copy because every retailer seems to get a small amount

* Prime killer : Is it better than say 35L or 50L @ 2.8 and above?

* Price : Is it really worth $2,300. Is it as important and crucial as 70-200 IS II?

Sorry, those 24-70 II threads became quite useless, I had to make a new one.

I never cared much for it so I don't/wont own it.

I'm still curious to see if it is equal to the 40mm/2.8 pancake! I'm not kidding, either.

A friend has ordered the 24-70ii, so I hope to see for myself soon, because I am not close to seeing it online yet. I would love the convenience of the zoom, but I'm more likely to get the 17mm TS-E, as that will be an instant and huge improvement over the 17-40 where I use it most, for the same money, even if I never tilt or shift it.

Its still too early. Not enough reviews.

On paper and pretty much the only two reviews, and a few hands-on, it seems as sharp, not sharper.
So I wouldn't say its better than the 35L and 50L. They are different lenses and they have their own area of work.

Worth 2300$? Do you earn money from your gear? If so, it can be worth it. If not, its probably not.
And crucial as the 70-200? Its only as crucial as you make it.

I've only had my copy or a few days but so far very happy indeed. Very fast and extremely sharp.

It's not as good as the 70-200 ii, which we all hoped it would be. It doesnt have IS which we all wanted. Contrast isn't great. It's a disappointment.

jwhittaker wrote in post #15058237
It's not as good as the 70-200 ii, which we all hoped it would be. It doesnt have IS which we all wanted. Contrast isn't great. It's a disappointment.

Wow, that's certainly very negative

Yeah it bums me out too. If it had 70-200 II quality i would have purchased it but with all of the early reviews except one (lens rentals) giving it ho-hum reviews i am going to stick with the 24-105.

The thing that gets me is why cant canon come up with something for full frame with as good IQ as the 17-55? Why is the best standard zoom in canon's inventory only for crop cameras?

dadgummit wrote in post #15059481
Yeah it bums me out too. If it had 70-200 II quality i would have purchased it but with all of the early reviews except one (lens rentals) giving it ho-hum reviews i am going to stick with the 24-105.

The thing that gets me is why cant canon come up with something for full frame with as good IQ as the 17-55? Why is the best standard zoom in canon's inventory only for crop cameras?

Don't be bummed out. Check the ISO12233 charts at The Digital Picture:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0
The new 24-70 II looks much better than the 17-55! Of course, it's a little too early to be sure, but those charts make me very optimistic that Canon has succeeded.

If Canon had given this lens "IS" then there would be no debate and everyone would be in love. As it is Canon gave us a better built, lighter weight and sharper lens than its predecessor yet people who have not even used one keep running it into the dirt while those who are lucky enough to own one seem to really love em. There is no doubt Canon will sell a lot of them and most can only hope that a year or two from now Canon will have a Holiday rebate deal too good to pass up.

If the 24-70 had IS and quality of 70-200ii, I would only need those two lenses to have a huge focal range cover for life. So yes, I am hugely bummed out that it hasn't delivered the eye popping quality and IS. I think there must be more to this story that we don't know. Perhaps the genius who designed the 70-200ii got headhunted by Nikon or something.
I can't overstate how important IS is to me after having used it. My 15-85 crop has IS and it is just so useful for video. Shooting handheld video just looks terrible without IS, it would have been amazing to shoot video with 2.8 aperture and IS. And for photos the keeper rate is so much higher with IS. Yes, a tripod would sort that, but you lose the spontenaiety.
As for the image quality of24-70ii, it is very good and I would buy one if it had IS. But just look at the 70-200ii sample thread, those photos are representative of what comes out the camera for the main part. It seems similar results can be acheived with the 24-70ii but it takes processing to get there.

I have been using it for the last week...

Equally as awesome as the 70-200 II... Sharpness is amazing end to end with no CA to be seen. Sharpness and contrast is unreal. For those judging without trying one, don't. This lens IS that good.

There seems to be field curvature variance in which the left or right side at times may be sharper than the other depending on focus distance. I have heard of three people so far reporting this. About the only fault thus far. I may send mine to Canon Monday to let them take a look and calibrate it to my body just for the hell of it. I will have it back by Friday so no real loss to me

Overall I am extremely happy. Amazing duo with the 70-200 II. Happy I have up the 24-105 and 35L for it.

Zlatko Batistich wrote in post #15059577
Don't be bummed out. Check the ISO12233 charts at The Digital Picture:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0
The new 24-70 II looks much better than the 17-55! Of course, it's a little too early to be sure, but those charts make me very optimistic that Canon has succeeded.

Hmm what is the point comparing it to the 17-55? Not to mention a crop vs FF?
Its like comparing a Lamborghini to a Mazda 6 and saying "see? the lambo is better!"...

So I'm not sure if you are sarcastic or not, but its just wrong.

Do you think there is any chance they might bring out an IS version in a year or something?

jwhittaker wrote in post #15059784
Do you think there is any chance they might bring out an IS version in a year or something?

doubt it or Canon would have already done it just to save engineering and manufacturing cost.