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

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

OR SOMETHING! With Canon more like closer to 10 years. They made their decision to go non IS and they'll stand by that for many years to come. They'll keep upgrading lenses. like the 24mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2.8, to IS rarther than release another 24-70mm variant with IS. Hopefully when they do they'll make it a 24-105 f/2.8L IS then we'll all be happy and have nothing to complain about other than the price. Right now I would pay $3500 for that lens if they made it but in 10 years it will probably be at least $5000 so let the moans begin.

Invertalon wrote in post #15059768
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.

So you've heard someone beside us also note that weird field curvature thing at or near 24mm? I'm still trying to figure out what it means.

It sure focuses well indoors, only 2 misses out of 73 test shots at f/2.8! (maybe on a non-5D3/1DX AF system it would be as impressive though, perhaps it has the new super precision mode that can be used both those bodies, as per Lens Rentals findings about many new Canon lenses and the new bodies).

Also fights PF exceedingly well it seems. At least in terms of say bright white sky, dark forest, where the sky shows through, many lenses make tons of purple crap appear, some like the 24 1.4 II make a little, but this one, I think it makes absolutely none! Have to test it more but it might be a full apochromatic like the supertele where the longitudinal CA is all fixed (it has some of the typical side to side lateral, but almost all wider lenses do other than a few zeiss or the 24mm T&S II). I was shooting at f/8 though which usually reduces LoCA to almost nothing, but in this extreme scenario even at f/8 most lenses show at least a little and many a ton.

Eyal wrote in post #15059780
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.

The point is in the quote that I included in my post. You must have missed it. I was quoting dadgummit where he/she specifically asked why doesn't Canon make a standard zoom for full frame that is as good as the 17-55 zoom for crop cameras? Here it is again:

dadgummit wrote in post #15059481
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?

It sounded as if dadgummit was already bummed that the new 24-70 II would be worse than the 17-55. So, I was saying, don't be so convinced that the new 24-70 II is worse than the 17-55. The charts suggest that the 24-70 II is indeed better, as it should be for the price.

No sure about the verdict but I say, When you have the money, buy it. Best all around lens made by Canon.

Zlatko Batistich wrote in post #15059883
The point is in the quote that I included in my post. You must have missed it. I was quoting dadgummit where he/she specifically asked why doesn't Canon make a standard zoom for full frame that is as good as the 17-55 zoom for crop cameras? Here it is again:

It sounded as if dadgummit was already bummed that the new 24-70 II would be worse than the 17-55. So, I was saying, don't be so convinced that the new 24-70 II is worse than the 17-55. The charts suggest that the 24-70 II is indeed better, as it should be for the price.

Because they want you to pay for it.
You want standard zoom for FF? Get a 24-105?
Oh you want 2.8? Well pay up.

Same reason why the 70-200 F/4 cost as much as it cost, and the 70-200 F/2.8 cost as much as it cost, and the aftermarket alternatives cost about as much as the F/4.

The 17-55 is there to give someone who bought a lower-level body, something standard at 2.8, and it doesn't cost so much because it also cost less to make.

It's basically a ho-hum mid range lens, be it VR1 or 2.

Eyal wrote in post #15060847
Because they want you to pay for it.
You want standard zoom for FF? Get a 24-105?
Oh you want 2.8? Well pay up.

Same reason why the 70-200 F/4 cost as much as it cost, and the 70-200 F/2.8 cost as much as it cost, and the aftermarket alternatives cost about as much as the F/4.

The 17-55 is there to give someone who bought a lower-level body, something standard at 2.8, and it doesn't cost so much because it also cost less to make.

Sorry we must not have been clear. If the 24-70 has the same near perfection as the 70-200 ii then it will do great. Unfortunately canon forgot IS so the optics would have to be better since they are the same price (not to mention less material cost). If canon can do it with a 70-200 telephoto range then why not with a wide to standard zoom?

My point about the 17-55: i understand many full frame shooters out there look down their noses at people who use crop cameras but please put that aside just long enough to understand that those poor lowly croppers have a standard zoom that has 4 stop IS, sharp corner to corner and a constant f 2.8. And it costs less than than half of canon's current offering for full frame. I know ff has a larger image circle but for twice the cost they should have room in the budget to come close.

Eyal wrote in post #15060847
Because they want you to pay for it.
You want standard zoom for FF? Get a 24-105?
Oh you want 2.8? Well pay up.

Same reason why the 70-200 F/4 cost as much as it cost, and the 70-200 F/2.8 cost as much as it cost, and the aftermarket alternatives cost about as much as the F/4.

The 17-55 is there to give someone who bought a lower-level body, something standard at 2.8, and it doesn't cost so much because it also cost less to make.

There must be some serious miscommunication here. Your statements have nothing to do with what I was writing. I wasn't questioning Canon's pricing or other decisions, so I really don't know what you're arguing about. I don't "want" anything and I wasn't asking a question. I was just addressing dadgummit's apparent disappointment based on his/her belief that Canon had not made a lens for full-frame that is as good as the 17-55 for crop. Sorry if I couldn't make it clearer.

Partly because of Invertalon and all his pics (!!), yesterday I found a local place with the lens in stock and I bought it. Last night, I covered a charity gala and this morning a marathon. In both cases, I exclusively used my 5D Mk III with the 70-200 2.8 II and the 24-70 II lenses. Besides the obvious difference in focal lengths, I'm seriously hard pressed to tell the difference in PQ, focus accuracy, color/contrast, or general wonderfullness of pictures. Granted, I'm not pouring over the photos looking for similarities or disimiliarities. But still.

And I find I'm not missing IS either. I shot at some pretty slow shutter speeds last night during the gala, and all was good. I will try to find some time to post photos after the weekend (and after I've processed and submitted them to the newspaper).

The bonus is that I don't know if I need primes for low light anymore. Changing lenses when you're shooting stuff for a paper is a total hassle, no doubt about it, and the 5D Mk III really deals beautifully with high ISOs. And you know, you can get some prety decent background blur with this lens. So I may be selling off some primes soon (to help cover the really, really high cost of the 24-70).

I know, I know, a post like this is nothing without pics. But I'm off to shoot more stuff right now, and don't have the time. Hopefully soon.

I think the "verdict" is that it is better than the version 1. That shouldn't surprise anyone. I know many people disagree for various reasons, but for me, the lack of IS gives me a strong nudge towards the Tamron 24-70 VC. I'm usually very good at convincing myself that "need" a particular lens when I "want" it, but I'm still finding it difficult to justify the cost over the Tamron which has IS. In my humble opinion, I feel that IS adds a bit of versatility.

I'm a big supporter of the "buy right and buy once" mentality, but I'm very close to going with Tamron and seeing if there is really a need to spend the extra $1000 for a bit more sharpness and contrast.

dadgummit wrote in post #15061038
If canon can do it with a 70-200 telephoto range then why not with a wide to standard zoom?

I'm not an optical engineer but the larger field of view I'm sure makes a huge difference in how well you can achieve the min to max performance. You can see that by the increased size of the elements to 82mm. Your statement is like saying going to Mars is as easy as going to the Moon, and isn't it the same problem? Well mine arrives Monday so I will see for my self how well the did. Wish me luck.

Isn't it too early to reach a verdict? I have not followed the release of 24-70 II, I see that some people already have it yet you cannot find it in stock anywhere to order one. It seems it is not even released yet.

Check out the teardown on lensrentals. Looks like it has superb resolution, is built/designed well and is a major improvement on the previous version. If you need a 24-70 lens I would say this one was the one to get.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …he-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii

2ndviolinman wrote in post #15058218
I'm still curious to see if it is equal to the 40mm/2.8 pancake! I'm not kidding, either.

I compared my 24-70II to my 35L and 40mm pancake. At equivalent apertures, the 24-70 was too close to call against the 35L, but was noticeably sharper than the 40mm pancake. However, the 40mm has less distortion.

-Mike

swldstn wrote in post #15062342
I'm not an optical engineer but the larger field of view I'm sure makes a huge difference in how well you can achieve the min to max performance. You can see that by the increased size of the elements to 82mm. Your statement is like saying going to Mars is as easy as going to the Moon, and isn't it the same problem? Well mine arrives Monday so I will see for my self how well the did. Wish me luck.

Sorry Man, I am not an engineer either so I may be wrong but I do know that there are some very simple lenses out there that cover the wide to normal ranges. If you look in alt forums at the little pancake Zuiko 21mm f3.5 it has amazing full-frame corner to corner IQ in a tiny/ simple package, I was also thinking that all 50mm primes are some of the smallest, simplest and sharpest lenses in most line ups and for decades the 50 (or 55) was the only lens you got and they only had like 5 or 6 elements. Telephoto lenses have always been more of a specialty lens, they are huge with lots of glass and other expensive materials. Same reason why a 600L prime is much more expensive than a 24L so I was thinking the opposite:

If you can go to mars why not the moon?

I truly hope that some forum member's hypothesis of larger-than-normal sample variation is true and some of the early reviewers just got their hands on imperfectly calibrated lenses. An f2.8 standard zoom would be perfect with the 5D3's high ISO performance, I would almost never need a flash again.

Good Luck with your lens and please let us know how the boarders are at 70mm.