Anyone used the EF 24-70/2.8 II yet?

<p>I haven't had a normal zoom for my EOS bodies for a couple of years, and am thinking of acquiring the new 24-70. I've read several reviews of it online, but no reports of real-world use.</p>

<p>Would anyone who's had an opportunity to use the lens please comment on it. Since I'll be using the lens mainly for informal portraiture, I'm primarily concerned with center sharpness at wider apertures throughout the zoom range, as well as with contrast and bokeh. And while I intend to use it mainly with my 5DII, I'm hoping it'll be okay with my 50D as well. (I don't really need to go that wide with the crop body, and would rather not have shell out for an EF-S normal zoom).</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I've got one, and it's stellar. Wickedly sharp even wide open (on par with L primes) and good bokeh. A solid step up from the old 24-70. It has more contrast, better colors and sharpness too. Not cheap, but a great lens.</p>

<p>Available right now to rent and check out and post a review!<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/canon-24-70mm-f2.8l-ii">http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/canon-24-70mm-f2.8l-ii</a></p>

<p>Center sharpness is stellar according to Photozone. Otherwise their review is I think (surprisingly) unenthusiastic suggesting the Tamron VC is as good. Lensrentals gush over it. I don't really know what to think. Never tried it, but I am in the market for it (possibly). Not sure it is worth it over the ver 1 considering that I don't use the 24-70 as much as I thought I would.</p>

Amateur photographer (UK magazine - very good reputation - been published weekly for over 130 years) did a

comparison test with the older lens on July 21st this year. For many years I have found their tests reliable. Interestingly

they suggested that optically there was little to choose between the old and new lenses. They did conclude that the new

lens was better but many when stopped down quite a lot. The copy they tested evidently showed more barrel distortion at

the wide end than the new lens and slightly more vignetting despite being 82mm rather than 77mm. It is smaller and

works the other way so the lens hood is evidently quite a bit smaller - the lens is 145g less. Their conclusion is that it is

the best 24-70 for Canon but is not worth the upgrade for users of the old lens. Since I own the old lens I took their

advice. Interestingly their Resolution tests differ from the lens rentals results. Lens rentals show a significant difference -

Amateur photographer shows only a small difference and they claim that the resolution difference is only observable (in

use) when the lens is stopped down a lot - the mention even down to F22 where obviously diffraction is also having an

impact. The conclusion I took was buy the new lens if you don't have one but don't bother upgrading. It was interesting that their advice on the 70-200 F2.8 IS and IS II was that the newer lens was significantly better and some users might benefit from an upgrade.

<p>I got one last week and, for the first time when receiving a new lens, took a series of photos of a brick wall. I was shocked at the pronounced light falloff in the corners when wide open, and that didn't go away until about f/5.6 or f/8. Sharpness was not very good in the upper left corner (even after taking care to have the camera perpendicular to the wall), and it seemed to me that corner sharpness never quite matched center sharpness. I was profoundly disappointed (especially considering the price) and am sending mine back. Perhaps it's just a bad copy; I'll reconsider if/when there is a price drop.</p>

Shot with one this past week, using it with a 1D X. It was very impressive. However I don't photograph brick walls unless

an architect, builder, or brick manufacturer is paying me too. Instead I make photographs of people and people making

and doing things.

I had been shooting with the 24-105 f4 for over 6 years. It was my primary, walk around lens. Recently bought the 24-70

f2.8 II.

 

On the plus side, I think it is much sharper than the 24-105. I love the zoom lock.

 

On the down side.... I do miss the extra range of the 24-105. Time will tell if the lack of IS offsets the sharpness

advantage. Filter size is different.

<p>Philip</p>

<p>I'm not sure AP has a stellar reputation to be honest. We used to call it "Amateur Pornographer" as it spent a section of each issue with semi nude women a la the <em>Sun</em> tabloid. I don't really consider it any better than, say, <em>Popular Photography</em> - the usual pandering to frequent advertisers. I think the BJP has a much better reputation. Maybe its better than it was.</p>

Wow! I'm surprised that the impressions differ so widely.

Robin I would agree that BJP is a better journal but I personally find AP one of the better reads - definitely better than pop

photo. I think their porn days are long behind them - that was late 1970s to mid / late 1980s. That said being published

weekly for 130 years is no mean feat (I believe that this is a record for non news magazines). In terms of the lens many

things that I read said it was better but not great (photo zone had the same sort of review). To be honest I have never

shot the new model. I have owned and used the older lens for many years although I don't use it that heavily.

<p>I'm real happy with mine. At 24mm on a 5DII it's just as good as the (unshifted) TSE 24 II from f/5.6 to f/16, even in the corners at print sizes up to 16x24. IMHO, it's the first normal zoom that's good enough for serious landscape work. I can't speak for portrait and other work, though.</p>

 

<p>I though about this lens but went with the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC and love it for the excellent center sharpness, great build, price and VC. I believe the colors on L-series lens maybe slightly nicer. I can get very close with Hoya Filter. However, the VC sets it far apart from a 24-70 with no IS. The photographic opportuninty of F2.8 and VC @ 24-70 puts this lens in its own category. If I need super high quality I use my Canon 85 1.2L, but my go to lens hands down is Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC.</p>