I finally ordered a 24-70L

I've been considering ordering this lens for a while now, must be GAS.
If it is as great as they say, I'm likely to sell my 24-105 which has served me well.

Tapeman wrote in post #16765712
I've been considering ordering this lens for a while now, must be GAS.
If it is as great as they say, I'm likely to sell my 24-105 which has served me well.

I'll be very interested in your thoughts once you have a chance to use it... The 24-70 L II I rented recently was nearly indistinguishable from my 24-105.

Congrats. This is an awesome lens, it is as sharp as lens in this focal range come. It is also very high contrast and great colours, it is a zoom with a Zeiss like image quality.

Mornnb wrote in post #16766852
Congrats. This is an awesome lens, it is as sharp as lens in this focal range come. It is also very high contrast and great colours, it is a zoom with a Zeiss like image quality.

I sure hope so.
We've all seen it discussed many times, "is it worth the money?" and "why no IS?".
The question for me is will I miss the extra focal length of the 24-105.
Got a great deal, $1760. net after rebate.

I moved from a 24-105 to a 24-70 II a few months back and I'm lovin' it. I have absolutely no regrets at all. For me, it was well worth the money, my pictures are that much better.

Got one too with double rebate at UK photo show. Its sharp ! So much so I could count every single hair in my dogs coat in my first test shot.

It's a fantastic lens, it may not have IS but it has what counts, image quality. If you find yourself shooting at 70 to 105mm a lot of the time, I would suggest a 70-200mm 2.8 instead.
I feel there is absolutely no reason to own a 24mm, 35mm or 50mm prime. 2.8 is plenty in these focal ranges. The high image quality the 24-70mm II provides is on par with any prime.

If you don't believe me, take a look at this, the 24-70mm II vs the Sigma 35.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

Compared to the 24mm II L.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

And look at how much better it is than the 24-105mm.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Mornnb wrote in post #16768292
I feel there is absolutely no reason to own a 24mm, 35mm or 50mm prime. 2.8 is plenty in these focal ranges. The high image quality the 24-70mm II provides is on par with any prime.

I couldn't disagree more. I own the 50 1.4 along with the 24-70II and while I love both, I typically leave the 50 on my Mark III because of the weight, sharpness and versatility of 50mm. The bokeh and pop factor of the 50 @ 2.0 is in a different league than the zoom, but the af motor sucks butt.

From your signature, looks like you have the zoom trinity. Can't go too wrong with that, I suppose. I myself have 2 of the 3.. don't shoot wide enough to justify the 16-35 II, although I got myself a Rokinon 14/2.8 for those rare instances where 24mm isn't wide enough for me.

I have been shooting 35mm SLRs/DSLRs since 1970. At this point I have a pretty good feel for what gear suits my style of photography.

I haven't bought a new lens in over a year!
It should be here Friday.

Mornnb wrote in post #16768292
It's a fantastic lens, it may not have IS but it has what counts, image quality. If you find yourself shooting at 70 to 105mm a lot of the time, I would suggest a 70-200mm 2.8 instead.
I feel there is absolutely no reason to own a 24mm, 35mm or 50mm prime. 2.8 is plenty in these focal ranges. The high image quality the 24-70mm II provides is on par with any prime.

If you don't believe me, take a look at this, the 24-70mm II vs the Sigma 35.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

Compared to the 24mm II L.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

And look at how much better it is than the 24-105mm.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

No reason for the primes other than 1.4. That is enough reason for me. Ymmv.

dylan81 wrote in post #16768498
I couldn't disagree more. I own the 50 1.4 along with the 24-70II and while I love both, I typically leave the 50 on my Mark III because of the weight, sharpness and versatility of 50mm. The bokeh and pop factor of the 50 @ 2.0 is in a different league than the zoom, but the af motor sucks butt.

The 24-70mm II is sharper than the 50mm L.
See: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=5

Though granted, if you want to shoot at f/2 the 50mm is the only choice.

Believe me, I did my research before purchasing the 24-70II and know all about it's sharpness. I compared it to the 24 1.4II and and 70-200II. I was impressed enough after those tests along with the lens rental chart that I bought it. I use the digital picture to compare lenses also, but have to still disagree. When I see pics from the prime, they seem different. Slightly sharper and a different bokeh. That being said, I'll back up my claim by conducting a test. Who knows, it might surprise me. I'll post my results later on this thread.

dylan81 wrote in post #16770476
Believe me, I did my research before purchasing the 24-70II and know all about it's sharpness. I compared it to the 24 1.4II and and 70-200II. I was impressed enough after those tests along with the lens rental chart that I bought it. I use the digital picture to compare lenses also, but have to still disagree. When I see pics from the prime, they seem different. Slightly sharper and a different bokeh. That being said, I'll back up my claim by conducting a test. Who knows, it might surprise me. I'll post my results later on this thread.

Thanks Dylan! I look forward to your results as well. I'm also debating on whether to pick up the 24-70II. I love primes but I hate having to always change lens, especially outdoors. I already have dust on my sensor <cries>

I hope to replace my 24-70L with the 24-70LII. It just all depends on how much $ I can get for my existing one. Don't think I can justify it just yet. I hear great things about the new one though.