Not long ago Canon released a newer version of their popular 24-70mm F/2.8L lens, but at almost double the price of the original version and without Image Stabilization (which many hoped for). Sure, there's some major differences in the design and in image quality, but not enough for someone like me to spend that extra cash to upgrade. I'm curious if anyone out there has decided on the upgrade, and if you think it was worth it? Leave a comment. One thing I will say is if you shoot Canon, this is one lens you need to have in your bag. If not the version 2, you can still find the many of the version 1 F/2.8L on eBay for a fair price (seen here).
Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L - via eBay
Regardless about my opinion, there is a great price on the new 24-70mm F/2.8L II lens if this is what you've been looking at. Normally runs for $2800 dollars (as seen here on Amazon), B&H is running a special today knocking off an extra $500 bucks (check it out here).
Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L II USM
I've been trying to score a deal on the Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 L USM for a few months now. I use a mono pod and should rig, so I am haven't been too worried about the lack of IS on the Canon, but now I am not so sure. It's nice to know their is a high quality Tamron model available, so thanks for posting the review.
Okay, I haven't tried the V2...but here's what I did after much agonizing and research.
For a few years now, I've been using a used 24-70L f/2.8 V1, hoping that it could do everything. It's a heavy beast and is still my favorite lens, and has proved simply amazing for some of my best food photography shots. However, the lack of IS has proved problematic for TV production.
Eventually, I purchased a used 24-105L f/4 IS specifically for video use and for travel photography as a walk-around lens. The 24-70L and the 24-105L are similar lenses, but I've found that they really suit different purposes. Given that both are wonderfully sharp, I don't see any reason to upgrade to a V2 anytime soon.
I just got back from traveling around France, and I used a 16-35L V2 when I needed shallow DOF shots on my 5DMkII and for going super-wide (Europe has a lot of narrow streets...). At times, I wished that I had my 24-70L with me for better food photography, but more often than not I appreciated the extra range on the 24-105L, let alone the fact that it was lighter to lug around.
Again, it depends on what you need to use it for, and i think that the 24-105L is going to prove far more useful for shooting video, as our sets should be properly lit. Just my 2 cents.
the tamron 24-70 has some weather sealing, and i've been very happy with the sharpness not to mention the IS. maybe i have a really good copy, because it rivals the canon 70-200 f2.8, which is an extremely sharp lens. also for video, a super sharp lens is not alwys an advantage IMO.
I shoot a lot of set photography here in Los Angeles and I was having trouble with my old Canon 24-70 being sharp at 2.8-4.0. I was sent into Canon a few years ago and they said it was fine. I traded my old lens plus cash in for the new one and the new lens is much much sharper at wide open. That is what I needed. This lens will blow away the Tamron on sharpness but the Tamron lens is still a good lens. I was not happy about the price increase. Thanks Canon. I had to get a new blimp tube made for the new lens because it is an 82 size now and the function on the zoom is reversed compared to the old lens. The is my work horse lens and so far I have been happy with it.
@Ed - Tamron makes great lenses, I have quite a few. Keep in mind though that the build quality is not like the Canon L glass. I once took my Tamron to shoot on a football field and it was only slightly drizzling. The humidty of the weather ended up inside of the Tamron and the lens was pretty much garbage after that. If you don't deal in these conditions, there's nothing to worry about.
If you deal in various conditions with dust, dirt, light rain, then go for the weather sealed Canon L glass or weather sealed Sigma lens.
Actually, $2,299 is the regular price for this lens. It even says it on the official Canon website. Amazon is just over-charging for it, which they've done before with DSLR products.
The Tamron 24 - 70 is a much better (and cheaper ) alternative - for one thing, it's got image stabilization. See the head to head comparison in this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVKcY4IZ5Ag&feature=related
Still far too over-priced and for video, IS makes a huge difference. A much smarter buy in this focal range is the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC which does have IS (VC) and is a fraction of the price at around $1200. With the possible exception of some people struggling with the "onion bokeh" in certain light situations its been extremely well reviewed.
Wait- what older IS version? lol. Are you saying there is a 24-70 f2.8 lens made by canon that has IS? Please do point us all in that direction (:
From a stills view point I heard it smokes previous zooms and even a fair few primes. Apparently its the sharpest corner to corner lens canon have ever produced. For video it needs IS so put it on a tripod. The older IS version will be a good buy 2nd hand. (rubs hands together)
I love websites that shut down at night...?
great if you're only using it for photos. without IS its worthless in the video dept.
Picked this lens up last week and I think it's worth it considering the prime like performance throughout. Also I think it makes up for the mark iii softness. I normally shoots primes so its nice to not have to keep switching lenses.
As far as I know the msrp is 2299. That's what I bought it for at Keeble and schucket and they are usually pretty on the ball about pricing
One factor to consider is the nd filter which if your going to spend this
Much on a lens, it would be a shame to negate its color and sharpness with a subpar filter.
@hilmi topalogu - Oops, thanks. Corrected.
it's a 500 dollars of knock off . not 600.
Sean D Brown
I just shot with the New 24-70 this week on a shoot. I have the old one and was super impressed. Still not quite worth the price but it was SHARP!