24-70 II - why the price?

I can tell you even though I have now owned the 24-70 II for a while (2 months?) I am still surprised on how this lens renders images. It really is like having an army of f/2.8 prime lenses built into one lens. Sure, you may not get the nice f/2 or f/1.4, but the versatility is well worth the price of admission for such excellent IQ and build quality. I shoot with it wide open about 95% of the time and am amazed at the detail at 100%. Very much prime-like, no doubt. If you stop the lens down to f/4 or f/5.6 it honestly does not get any better for landscape stuff. It beat the 35L at f/5.6, for example. So sharp edge to edge...

Canon is proving people wrong that zooms can never be the level of primes sharpness wise... With the 70-200 II and now the 24-70 II. Again, you don't get the nice f/1.4 or whatnot, but that is why it is great to have both if you can afford it.

Was it worth the $2300 to me? Hard to say... I am VERY happy with the lens, no doubt... It was a lot of money, sure... But I am completely happy with the performance and feel good about my purchase. I guess that is all that matters!

I rented one a few weeks ago and was amazed at how sharp and detailed the images were on my 5D3, at any aperture and focal length. I will be buying it at some stage, would be nice if it drops a little, but I personally see it as worth every penny.

Because Canon can charge that much and people will still buy.

Invertalon wrote in post #15293739
I can tell you even though I have now owned the 24-70 II for a while (2 months?) I am still surprised on how this lens renders images. It really is like having an army of f/2.8 prime lenses built into one lens. Sure, you may not get the nice f/2 or f/1.4, but the versatility is well worth the price of admission for such excellent IQ and build quality. I shoot with it wide open about 95% of the time and am amazed at the detail at 100%. Very much prime-like, no doubt. If you stop the lens down to f/4 or f/5.6 it honestly does not get any better for landscape stuff. It beat the 35L at f/5.6, for example. So sharp edge to edge...

Canon is proving people wrong that zooms can never be the level of primes sharpness wise... With the 70-200 II and now the 24-70 II. Again, you don't get the nice f/1.4 or whatnot, but that is why it is great to have both if you can afford it.

Was it worth the $2300 to me? Hard to say... I am VERY happy with the lens, no doubt... It was a lot of money, sure... But I am completely happy with the performance and feel good about my purchase. I guess that is all that matters!

the 24-70L II is really a joy to shoot with. the detail at 100% is very similar to my 70-200L f4 IS. i don't have anything with IS below 70mm so my plan is to someday get the 35 f2 IS.

It's overprice and definitely not better than the Nikon or Zeiss equivalents to have such a high price tag. Canon has been doing this with every single new lens they released. I will stick with the mark I version if I want one.

I assume you have used one, correct? ^

Tony_Stark wrote in post #15293821
Because Canon can charge that much and people will still buy.

Those fools.....