So I took the plunge! 24-70mm f/2.8L II

I'd been considering upgrading from my 24-105L (which I loved!) to the 24-70mm f/2.8L II for quite a while now and the price has been steadily dropping over the past few months. Then this weekend WEX here in the UK had an offer on of an extra 10% off for three days which made it £1260! It was too good an offer to resist so I got it yesterday. After doing a few test shots all I can say is WOW! This lens is incredible! Accurate focusing with no MA required on my 1D4 or 5D3, extremely sharp with excellent colour and contrast wide open and it's very well built. The zoom ring is a little tight, but no doubt it'll loosen a bit over time, it's not something that bothers me. You've probably heard all this before, but I just wanted have my say about it! I just wish the weather here in the UK was better or I would have been out and about with it.

I've had exactly the same experience. Owners of the 24-105 don't like to hear it, but the 24-70II is noticeably sharper and I don't miss that extra reach at all. Happy shooting to you.

James P wrote in post #17577958
I've had exactly the same experience. Owners of the 24-105 don't like to hear it, but the 24-70II is noticeably sharper and I don't miss that extra reach at all. Happy shooting to you.

I had always been happy with my 24-105L, it's a great lens. The 24-70L II is on another level though and it's exceeded my expectations.

Sir_Loin wrote in post #17577952
I just wish the weather here in the UK was better or I would have been out and about with it.

That's no excuse. It's weather sealed. Now get out there.

Congrats on the lens.

PineBomb wrote in post #17578003
That's no excuse. It's weather sealed. Now get out there.

Yes it is, but I'm not!

Sir_Loin wrote in post #17578029
Yes it is, but I'm not!

I'm with you on the not being weather sealed.
I got my 70-200 2.8 Mk2 recently but the weather is abysmal and changeable.
I don't care how well its sealed, I don't want my new toy getting wet.

James P wrote in post #17577958
I've had exactly the same experience. Owners of the 24-105 don't like to hear it, but the 24-70II is noticeably sharper and I don't miss that extra reach at all. Happy shooting to you.

Don't like to hear it? I'd assume it's better, yes. For triple the price, it had better be better. The only question is whether it's worth it over the 24-105 plus a prime or two.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17579415
Don't like to hear it? I'd assume it's better, yes. For triple the price, it had better be better. The only question is whether it's worth it over the 24-105 plus a prime or two.

It's not triple the price now, more like double. But, I agree with your sentiment that for the extra cost it should be better and so far in my couple of days with it, it certainly is! Well worth the extra in my opinion.

Sir_Loin wrote in post #17579546
It's not triple the price now, more like double. But, I agree with your sentiment that for the extra cost it should be better and so far in my couple of days with it, it certainly is! Well worth the extra in my opinion.

I see it as $1800 for the 24-70Lii (a little less used) and ~$600 for a white box 24-105L (I don't know of anyone who paid retail, or close to it, for the 24-105L). So, triple from a real-world cost-benefit perspective. But either way. I don't know who would "prefer" the 24-105L, but the 24-70Lii comes with a major opportunity cost (the price difference could be, say, adding a 70-300L, or getting a 100-400Lii instead of 70-300L, or a 50A and 17-40L, or or or...).

I think a lot of 24-105L owners say that it's "good enough" and take offense when they're told it's not. For me, it'd be used in the same situations as (though sadly shorter than) my 18-135 STM, which is itself an affordable compromise lens. It means that I can get nice shots from a neighborhood walk or a race without a bag of primes, and cheaply, since I'd still want to own fast primes for the apertures.

Here in the UK the 24-70 f/2.8L II is £1400 while a 24-105mm f4.0L IS is £727 and a white box isn't much cheaper so pretty much double by my reckoning. Obviously in the U.S. a white box 24-105 must be significantly cheaper than here.

Ohh yes I see. At that rate I'd be a bunch more inclined to take the plunge myself, if I were in the FF market.

Glad you're enjoying the new lens!

I'm an IS junkie, or I would have gotten the II over the Tamron, even considering the cost. But alas, no stabilization

IS on this lens would have been great, but obviously Canon thought it would degrade the image quality. I find that surprising considering the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is probably the best 70-200 ever made by any manufacturer and puts a lot of prime lenses to shame! But I have 3 primes without IS so I'm used to not having it on occasion.

Yeah, I never understood the "IS degrades IQ" argument, but I don't build 'em, so who knows.

Back when I had steady hands, it wouldn't have been a big deal.

Mine just arrived yesterday and I am absolutely floored by it. It is every bit as sharp as my 70-200 2.8L IS mk2. I debated back and forth between getting the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, Tamron 24-70 VC and even the Canon 24-70 2.8L mk1 and ultimately went with the Mk2.