Does anything compare to the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM?

I've got it in my head that I must have a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. From what I've been able to glean, nothing compares to it. I'm hoping someone has found something comparable that is not quite as expensive.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what else to look at? F2.8 (or wider) aperture is a must. Focal range should be similar. IS would be a very nice bonus. This will be going on a full frame (which I don't yet own).

Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. the Canon does not have IS.

Primes, I guess. (even tho I've never used that 24-70)

The 24-70 II is sharper at 24mm than the 24L II, for one. More aperture blades for more pleasing starbursts and has the ability of the zoom range. Stronger performance at the edges of the frame and corners. Also better AF performance.

I compared them side by side when I loaned the 24L II... I was not impressed much at all to be honest. I have no desire to ever buy it as long as I have the 24-70 II... But I do love the 35L, though!

Honestly, I am somewhat glad Canon left out IS if they tried to maximize resolution. I never ran into a situation myself that required IS, as generally aperture is more important for what I shoot (low light, action... Where IS does nothing). Plus, one left thing to go bad in the lens.

In longer lenses, I prefer to have IS... But the 24-70 does not require it IMO. Makes me laugh now when people want IS in f/1.4 lenses... I don't see the appeal unless doing video, especially if IQ takes a hit when they include it.

Well, you have bad timing as you just misssed all the rebates.

people consider the tamron to be a good alternative. the AF is NOT as good as the canon, but it has IS. it's also cheaper.

don't let Ed Rader see this though, he'll tell you nothing compares :P

Invertalon wrote in post #16591197
The 24-70 II is sharper at 24mm than the 24L II, for one. More aperture blades for more pleasing starbursts and has the ability of the zoom range. Stronger performance at the edges of the frame and corners. Also better AF performance.

I compared them side by side when I loaned the 24L II... I was not impressed much at all to be honest. I have no desire to ever buy it as long as I have the 24-70 II... But I do love the 35L, though!

Honestly, I am somewhat glad Canon left out IS if they tried to maximize resolution. I never ran into a situation myself that required IS, as generally aperture is more important for what I shoot (low light, action... Where IS does nothing). Plus, one left thing to go bad in the lens.

the 24L is a 1.4, so...

also implying that IS would somehow reduce resolution and is prone to failure? lets be honest, canon left it off so they can make the 24-70 2.8 IS and sell it for 2800. IS is always a benefit to a lens, whether you always use it doesn't mean it's not sometimes helpful.

To be honest, The 24-70 II is probably the best performing lens I have ever used... Even more-so than the 70-200 II... Its just the range is not as "interesting" to use. It is on the wide end what the 70-200 II is for the long end. Extremely perfect compliments to one another.

I would not expect a third party lens to match the incredible IQ, AF performance and build of the Canon version. But you do pay for it, indeed.


Jero,

Yes, it does have the capability of f/1.4... But I was simply comparing apples-to-apples... 24mm at f/2.8. If you need the low light ability, you need the prime. I am just speaking for general image quality.

paddler4 wrote in post #16591166
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8. the Canon does not have IS.

I am thinking of a 24-70 How do the Tamron and Canon compare in image quality?

I haven't a lot of experience with other lenses (not since film days of yore) but my 24-70 f2.8 II is amazing...

I know it's not an L lens but my 50 f1.4 doesn't match up in sharpness for bbeing a prime. ...

Ah! I found a review on Youtube from the camera store ("The Camera Store") I actually shop at comparing the two lenses.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=wcsnsJUKhAg (I hope I didn't break any forum rules posting that, if I have, I'll remove the link).

I'm a bit torn, now. I'll mostly be using the 24-70 for landscape work, and I think the Canon will excel in that regard. But, the IS on the Tamron is really appealing (especially after the 1/10 shots in the review video). The 24-70 will do double duty as a protrait/candid lens in low light conditions (hockey rinks).

The lower cost of the Tamron means I would have both my 6d and the 24-70 much more quickly. My plan is actually to purchase the 6d before the 24-70, but that may not be the best way to go about things.

My plan is to have the 24-70 on a 6d and my 70-200 on my 70D for my hockey work. I would be able to carry one body (probably the 6d) and both lenses on a regular "non-hockey" basis in my Lowepro Classified 160 AW.

First and foremost, I'm a 'scape photographer. But, hockey photography has eaten my life. I'm kind of resentful of the way hockey photography has taken over my decision making process when it comes to gear (though that's why I purchased my 70-200, and I'm in love with that lens).

I have some things to mull over.

Invertalon wrote in post #16591212
To be honest, The 24-70 II is probably the best performing lens I have ever used... Even more-so than the 70-200 II... Its just the range is not as "interesting" to use. It is on the wide end what the 70-200 II is for the long end. Extremely perfect compliments to one another.

I would not expect a third party lens to match the incredible IQ, AF performance and build of the Canon version. But you do pay for it, indeed.


Jero,

Yes, it does have the capability of f/1.4... But I was simply comparing apples-to-apples... 24mm at f/2.8. If you need the low light ability, you need the prime. I am just speaking for general image quality.

For landscapes, no question: Zeiss 21mm. It's manual focus, but I think it makes the most striking landscape shots.

For hockey: If you need the best of the best zoom in that range, the 24-70Lii is king. But, for a good deal less $$$, the other options in that range offer comparable performance. If I shot more events and needed the versatility the zoom offered, no question that would be my choice. But for my needs (hobbyist for the most part), I get a massively more interesting look from my primes in that range than the dull 24-70mm focal length and f/2.8 aperture can offer.

I bought the 24-70Lii, and it was used alongside my 24Lii for about a month. The zoom really is astoundingly sharp when shot wide-open, equally as sharp as the stopped-down prime! So if sharpness is your thing, then the 24-70Lii will not disappoint. But, as I sold the zoom off due to simply being bored with the focal length range... bored enough that I didn't think the lens was worth the $2200 investment when I already had the 24Lii.

neacail wrote in post #16591313
Ah! I found a review on Youtube from the camera store ("The Camera Store") I actually shop at comparing the two lenses.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=wcsnsJUKhAg (I hope I didn't break any forum rules posting that, if I have, I'll remove the link).

I'm a bit torn, now. I'll mostly be using the 24-70 for landscape work, and I think the Canon will excel in that regard. But, the IS on the Tamron is really appealing (especially after the 1/10 shots in the review video). The 24-70 will do double duty as a protrait/candid lens in low light conditions (hockey rinks).

The lower cost of the Tamron means I would have both my 6d and the 24-70 much more quickly. My plan is actually to purchase the 6d before the 24-70, but that may not be the best way to go about things.

My plan is to have the 24-70 on a 6d and my 70-200 on my 70D for my hockey work. I would be able to carry one body (probably the 6d) and both lenses on a regular "non-hockey" basis in my Lowepro Classified 160 AW.

First and foremost, I'm a 'scape photographer. But, hockey photography has eaten my life. I'm kind of resentful of the way hockey photography has taken over my decision making process when it comes to gear (though that's why I purchased my 70-200, and I'm in love with that lens).

I have some things to mull over.

I use my tammy near exclusively for event photography and still life. Easily matches my other L glass when it comes to sharpness and contrast. AF not as blazing as the 135L, but matches the 50L when tested. The lens is very very sharp, and I've printed 20x30" with excellent sharpness. I cant imagine a single lens that I own being able to produce better results.

Love the IS, when doing landscapes without the tripod/museums/low light. Love shooting 1/FL and getting super consistent results. I simply will not shoot using the 1/FL rule with non stabilized lenses, that rule is antiquated, it doesn't work consistently.

Best FF lens for color and edge to edge IQ. Images have a pop to them that other lens with the same range don't have. Here are two pictures taken shortly after I got my 24-70 2.8 II . If you shoot landscape shots this lens is the best.

Pictures below have pleasing starburst.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/keviikev/104202​75666/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/keviikev/108670​73205/

Jerobean wrote in post #16591198
Well, you have bad timing as you just misssed all the rebates.

people consider the tamron to be a good alternative. the AF is NOT as good as the canon, but it has IS. it's also cheaper.

don't let Ed Rader see this though, he'll tell you nothing compares :P

He's right...

Bakewell wrote in post #16591951
He's right...

Having owned both the Tamron and the Canon MKII i would agree with Ed.

Both are sharp enough for almost any use, but the build quality, AF speed and low light accuracy are not on the same level.
Whether this matters to the OP only he would know, but my opinion is dont just base the decision on charts and graphs.