I had the 24-70 2.8L mark 1 and it was the best zoom lens I've ever used. They say this one is even better. I think it would totally be worth it and plan on getting it now that I went back to Canon from Sony. All of my best photos were taken with the 24-70 2.8L mark 1. Even for landscapes, I would choose it at 24mm over the wide angle zooms.
I originally purchased this lens in December 2014 but have only used it a very small amount. This year though I plan to restart my career mainly on sports & journalism. From what I’ve used it for in the past it’s is very good. I used it on the cropped 1D Mark IV.
You're a class act mate .. In 2020 I am still considering getting this! Even serious landscape photographers have nothing but praise for this lens. Cheers.
Melody Chest Just traded in my old version 1 with the version 2 a few days ago and I couldn’t be happier with the results. It’s sharper and rendering a more pleasing bokeh wide open at f2.8. I’m over the moon.. 😍
The 70-200mm II and this lens are my favorites and most used lenses. My only complaint is about the cheap and flimsy lens hood...I broke one already and im one of the most careful guy there with his 1DX.
Great video, love your sense of humor. I'm glad the prices went down on this (currently 1749). I just ordered a refurbished one from Canon for 1519, and can't wait to get it...thanks to your video!
As always thanks for your review. I got mine about 6 months ago for $1800 after the discount and rebate. I sold my mark 1 lens for $1400. While I agree with your review totally, I would give it a higher score on value. 8/10? Absolutely the sharpest and best zoom lens I have ever used.
opjoipopikopp[pl[p[ Thank you - yeah, value's a bit on the subjective side, there's no doubt the 24-70 Mark ii is the best 24-70 lens, but is it that much better? $1,000? I'm not so sure...
I agree with everything except value. It's $1700 now with rebates and is able to replace quite a few primes in my bag. It's quite expensive but all mkii zooms and L lenses Canon has made since 2010 is geared to handle high megapixels (5DSR)
This is a really great review Darren, two thumbs up. I recently obtained a used 24-70mm F/2.8 II USM. (Refuse to pay full price) I'm not a working professional, but one of the reasons why I purchased it is because I wanted the best everyday lens as I build my portfolio. I knew this lens would hold value for the long-term and I did not want to worry about nuisances and weaknesses of cheaper lens that did not have the full package. True, the 24-70 Mark II is not perfect, (No IS, some plastic) but it is near perfect compared to the Tamron or the Sigma in terms of build, speed and accuracy just like Darren confirmed through this review. I have used other versions of those lenses and the quality overall has not been as great as I would like in comparison with the Canon models. I will admit, Canon has been annoying me with their new product prices regarding 'value' like the upcoming 11-24mm Ultra Wide Angle for $3,000! Really Canon, WHY?
Thanks Ezra - I agree with you on Canon - their newest set of 5Ds are about as exciting as a fart in an elevator. More megapixels? Really? That's so 2010... And $3,000 for an ultrawide is - in my opinion - a bit over the top...
Hey Mac, Thank you for your inquiry. Allow me to explain. I would take a 1 or 2 stop improvement in dynamic range, ISO and shadow recovery over a 28MP increase all day. - that's just my opinion - and apparently the opinion of many others. This is not to suggest that all of the sudden canon doesn't make great cameras, but you're kidding yourself if you believe they haven't started to fall behind nikon and Sony. As far as what canon should do? I would suggest they do what nikon did and consider using Sony sensors. As a photographer that uses 3 systems I can tell you that in low light and/or crappy lighting I'm reaching for my nikons - I prefer the d750 because to me the d810 is overkill - 36mp - to me - is a bit much. That said if I'm in good light I prefer my canons because I love canons colors straight out of camera. I've shot some weddings recently in really low light and when raising the shadows the difference between canon and nikon isn't a little, it's a lot, in fact it's not even close. The canon turns into s pixelated mess of red and green noise whereas the nikons appear as if someone artificially turned the lights on. The nikon is like an insurance policy in the event something goes wrong. I still love my canons, but when they announced the new 5D's with the same dynamic range as the 5D3 - 3 years after the 5D3 - I wasn't all that excited. Canon makes great cameras and their lenses and lens selection are better, I just wish they would improve the capability of their sensors either by outsourcing to Sony or fixing them internally. Speaking for myself the one thing canon didn't really need to do was a big leap in MP, but with this release, it appears that's all they did. I hope that clarifies my statement. Darren
msc1963 Why so much contention in your message MSC. The upcoming 5DS are a step in the right direction, but Canon has been behind in MP and sensor technology for some time now. Canon even admitted that the new 5DS are not successors to the 5D3, which indirectly indicates that they have another ace up their sleeve in the future. I'm pretty discerning that you are attempting to make Darren sound like a hypocrite, but you missed the point of his previous comment. I hope you understand now.
I withdrew my comments because I was not trying to insult anyone or start a fight, but now I regret withdrawing it, everything I said was true. I stand by my statement that the Nikon D800 only was voted best camera the last 2 years simply because of the high resolution / MP's (every review said the Canon 5D MIII was better in almost every other category), everyone including DXOMark & Canon users complained about the low MP's. Now Canon supplies MP's to the extreme in the 5DS/R, and according to Darren it is a "fart in an elevator". Lets address this. So, a camera that provides the same resolution as a digital back like the Phase One, for THOUSANDS of dollars less, plus allows you to use Canon lenses for THOUSANDS of dollars less plus provides portability, weather sealing, ISO, better auto focus /speed. handling, not good? Not good for landscape, architecture, studio, digital artists, etc.? Are you guys high or just ignorant??? It is because it does not fit YOUR shooting style, so screw all those that it does fit. Just because the 5Ds/r does not fit YOUR shooting style / requirements does not make it a bad choice of Canon, sorry Canon did not change their whole production / design so you can shoot in the dark for weddings. Here's a tip - USE A FLASH. I use a 6D and fast prime when can't use a flash, otherwise with the power/size of 600EX/RT's (and current cheap triggers like Yongnuo for older flashes) there are no excuses. Figure it out. The majority of situations allow use of quick speedlite setups. I combine several along with a powerful studio light pointed at the ceiling set to trigger from the photocell sensor. If Nikon works for you in low light, fine, but the 6D has been proven to be the best in low light in countless tests so sorry I don't take your word over all the other testing and experiences including mine. Regarding recent lens cost increases, I am not happy either. HOWEVER, they are upgrading their lenses to meet the current / near future requirements of cameras. The 70-200 2.8L IS II was upgraded for higher resolution cameras (per Canon all the way back at it's introduction) and I saw a huge difference when I upgraded (combined with 5DMIII) . The 24-70 2.8L IS II is the same, just sold the version 1 and I can tell you the difference is very real and extreme. Want to pay 70% for a so-so current quality that is already outdated, or 100% for 100%+ quality good for many years to come? Your choice. Clearly I will see you guys on Craig's list in a year or two trying to sell, but sorry, not buying. Higher MP's also produce SHARPER IMAGES as long as the Lens can meet the current requirements. That means the current L lenses will all produce sharper images on the new 5DS/R in addition to the higher resolution. But according to Darren he would much rather see increases in dynamic range and color. Okay Darren, show us a video of the HUGE differences in color / range that will affect photos in a discernible / dramatic way for the paying customer. Tests have shown that unless you show the images side by side, the average person (and photographer for that matter) would never be able to tell the difference in dynamic range and color (in fact the majority of images the vast majority of the color and dynamic range are within the cameras range) and the average eye would not notice the difference of the remaining % unless shown images side by side. Do you know what is immediately noticed? RESOLUTION AND SHARPNESS.
At first I wasn’t sure if I really wanted to spend 1.5k on a lens... but seeing what you created with it, I really want it now! I’m hoping it does well with pet photography since that’s wha I mainly do... I’m excited
Thanks Darren foe all of your excellent reviews. Finally subscribed. You are my "go to guy" for canon lens reviews. Thanks for all the time you put into them. DrRich from cloudy NY
After wasting so much time listening to unprepared reviewers and blowhards and unprepared blowhards, it's a pleasure to listen to this reviewer's highly informative, smooth and professional review of a lens I own. My one personal note? I can't agree on the 7/10 mark Darrin gives the lens for value, simply because if you get one great extra shot per shoot primarily because of this lens, it more than pays for itself for professional use. Great review.
+Denys Bucksten Thank you very much! When it was introduced, Canon was the first manufacturer to put out these latest generation of optics at such price points, but since the Canon 24-70 Mark ii, 70-200 Mark ii and the 11-24, $2,200 just doesn't seem to be as ridiculous as it used to... One of Canon's best over all lenses...
Thanks, Darren. I'm just learning where the 24-70 fits into my news photo shoots. I rely a lot on my Canon 70-200 f/1.4 L IS and use a 50 mm 1.4 quite often, both on 6D bodies. But the 24-70 is going to cut into the use of both those setups quite a bit as I get used to it. And I'll be damned if I'm going to carry three cameras around my neck on each shoot. Question: Ive used a monopod with some luck, particularly low light, night shoots with the 70-200 and important, turning off the IS. How much tripod/monopod use would you figure is needed to offset the lack of IS on the 24-70?
+Denys Bucksten Hard to say, I usually find myself bumping the ISO to compensate as I'm usually using the 24-70 handheld in dynamic situations... I don't like to shoot at anything slower than 1/80th - 1/125th....
In dec 2013, both canon and b&h had $300 rebate on this one and the 70-200 which brought them at $1700 and $1800 respectively. At that price it was a steal. Sadly, this wasnt't the case this Christmas.
Thanks for the video review. I just got this lens today. Looking forward to use it this weekend with my 5dmk3. Darren you are right that it is very expensive and I do agree with you,for a business, it is an investment and the $$$ can be made back.
Excellent review of the 24-70mm lens, everything I own is Canon.. but like you said the price is holding be back just waiting for good thanksgiving sale. thank you !
Thanks Darren - that is a really comprehensive and interesting review. I've had two 2x to 70mm Canon lenses before: the 28-70 and then the 24-70 and like them both. I have no hesitation in upgrading this in readiness for the shift in 5Ds on the horizon. I have the 5D II and am looking to upgrade to the 5D III or the 5DS or S/R and like you, am not sure about the fixation on the increased pixels. But there is talk of a 5D IV. LOL. Where to get on the carousel?
I picked up the f4 version for 800 bucks after mail in rebate. Everything I read said that image quality was on par with this leans plus it has I.S and a neat macro mode thats awesome and a lot less weight. I love the f4 and I don't think I'll be stepping up to the f2.8 any time soon.
I will never waste my money on a Tamron or Sigma for my canons. Just dropped the money on the mark III 70-200 and about to buy this. I’m just a hobbyist tho lol.
Great review, and it's also cool how you take the time to respond to some questions. I have the 70D, and am trying to decide if I want to get the 24-70L now, or wait until hopefully later this year to see how much the IS version of it will cost. Question for anyone who reads this, in regular photography, does IS help a lot in low light with a slower shutter speed?
+Anthony Walters Thank you for the kind words - IS helps in low light at slower shutter speeds so long as your subject is static, if you move or your subject moves then the image will likely blur regardless of IS...
Great review from start to finish. I'm really debating my next purchase. I have to have accuracy first and speed second. Bot guaranteed. That's the only thing keeping me away from the Tamron and Sigmas. Subscribed
i have a 70D with a 18-135mm STM lens and a 35mm 1.4G L Prime Lens. Would I gain much from selling the 35mm L and put it towards the 24-70mm if you were in my position?
Depends, what do you want to use the 24-70 for? The 35L is dynamite for indoor events, and the 18-135 is a really nice and versatile video lens with the 70D... If you're doing more video, keep the 18-135, if you need a really (really!) nice general purpose lens, then the 24-70 Mark ii is really hard to beat...
Very refined manner of speaking from a gentleman of the South. May I ask what Camera-lens combination did you use? Your video is just so beautiful, with the bokeh very pleasing to the eyes. Everything within the frame is supremely picturesque.(And by the way since you are a Canon user, I subscribed immediately)
I love your reviews, I'm trying to figure out if i want to invest in the Canon 85mm 1.2 Lens or get the 24-70mm 2.8. I think this review just shifted my decision. 24-70mm it is!
Skip, Thank you sir! Boy that's a tuffy - here's my take, the 24-70 is a much more versatile lens, whereas the 85 f/1.2 is an absolute gem for portraiture - so if you're doing a lot of portraits, I might consider the 85, otherwise, I'd get the 24-70 - it's a **much** more useful general purpose lens. Darren
I would also say 70-200mm f2.8L II makes better and stronger bokeh and less vigneting while, in my opinion, the 24-70mm f2.8L II has better sharpness and better richer colors and contrast.
Mike guitar You probably got a good copy. Overall, the feedback on the tammy is it's just a hair less sharp than the mark ii - (probably not "field" - i.e. "Client" relevant) and doesn't focus as consistently or as accurately - that was my experience. However, you could argue that the Tammy is more of an all arounder if you plan on using it for video as well as the VC (IS) keeps the camera steady better for handheld shots...
Darren, Any rumours of a new 24-70 with or without IS? I have a 70-200mm MKII and I wanna invest in a 24-70 eventually but I just hate it when I buy a gear and one month later and upgrade comes out😒
Rza5675 I've not heard, but given that Canon already has the 24-70 f/4 IS, I'm not sure they feel it's important, which is surprising given how much Canon has dedicated to video, you'd figure they'd want an IS lens like a 24-70 with an f/2.8 - as for IS right now, it's only the Tamron for a full frame camera...
Dear Darren, would you reccomend this 24-70II or the 35mm f1.4 L II for travel photography? I know the 24-70 is more "versatile" but im looking for the ultimate in image quality aesthetics, bokeh separation, and that "magic" look. Thank you
This is a great lens on paper. But it’s a tripod lens. Take away the tripod and with lighting conditions anything but broad daylight, its advantage of great optics quickly drops. Unless you are shooting action or doing landscapes from a tripod you will get far more usable photos with its smaller sibling, the 24-70 f/4 IS which is optically almost as good.
Martino190 I had that lens for a short time and it was very erratic to focus for stills, but the VC worked GREAT in video... I may come back around to it at some point in the future.
Thanks for the review. Do you recommend this lens for someone attempting to getting better at shooting? Or should a person wait to hone their skills first? Just curious. I took a chance after this review with the notion of getting better and when I do, at least I'll have a great lens.
Image quality doesn't get much better, but if you're building your skill set, you'll likely only see a marginal improvement... Photography is so much more than the gear... But it is a piece of amazing!
Hey Darren, Do you think the "primes vs zooms" discussion in terms of IQ is something of the past, especially with this lens? Im new to photography so I was thinking about this lens, but I just love the IQ you get from a lens like the Sigma 50mm ART or the zeiss 50mm milvus, which are a tually cheaper. I just subscribed to your channel. Have the feeling im gonna be visiting often.
I already have the Canon 50mm f1.2. How would you compare image sharpness and AF-speed between the 50 and the 24 - 70. The reason I ask is some say the 50mm 1.2 is not sharp nor accurate focusing. I don't find that myself, so what gives? Am I missing something? The 50mm is in the middle of the 24 - 70mm range, so I can either back up or step forward to get the shot. Or is this zoom so incredible I should dump the 50 and go for it?
want to buy at least 3 lenses and that's it i really want a lens that i can keep on there to take all the shots i need instead of having to switch lenses to catch the shot i want
dang .....im torn on this. I need a great wide angle lens. low light.....I have been looking at the Canon L lens 16-35mm f.2. But now due to your video might go with the Canon 24-70 L ll 2.8 A bit more money but gotta have f2.8. thanks for the great video!!
Hi Darren, great review! What do you think about the price point not at 1699. Photography is my hobby, not paid , mostly love to shoot action photos of my kids and vacation. I have a 80D and really want to step up my game from the kit lens. Do you think this is too much a lens for me or worth it? Any thoughts would be helpful
Because you have a cropped sensor camera, I might suggest you look into the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 - it's not built as well, but it's optically excellent and totally worth it... If you plan on one day moving up to full frame - then I'd get the 24-70 Mark ii...
How would you compare this to the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 Pro for OMD? Obviously 2 entirely different systems and price points but the focal range is almost identical, both weather sealed, and both are fixed f2.8 "Pro" lenses. Would the biggest difference be better depth of field and bokeh given the sensor size difference and length from sensor? Is that why full frame lenses provide better bokeh than m43 counterparts?
UKingdom Tough question to answer. Mainly because the sensor attached to the 12-40 is so much smaller and as result you'll have more depth of field and are much more likely to nail focus - even if someone moves slightly. The 12-40 is an awesome lens and worthy of it's "PRO" designation, but the 24-70 Mark ii is in a league of it's own, and boy do you pay for it :-)
Hello, I think there's an issue with my 24-70 II lens - the focus on it is terrible when the subject/talent is a few metres away from the camera. I expected the quality to be a lot better considering it cost me over £1200 to buy. It feels like the lens goes into a weird soft focus when the subject is a distance away, and it looks really blurry and bad in quality. I have made sure the focus ring is completely focused on the subject, but it still has a terrible image quality. This is a huge pain to me, especially when filming conferences (when I am a few metres away from the speakers). Anybody else having a similar issue with this lens?
Nice lens and great review! Random question, how do you deal with humidity fogging up your lenses? I live in the south , as you do, and we always have the AC cranked up , but once I step outside with my camera it immediately fogs up the lens.
Let the room temperature warm up closely to the outside temperature before taking out the lens, or use a large ziplock bag and put the lens in it (ziplocked, of course) before you step out of the room. This will keep the condensation on the bag instead of the lens. Once the lens has acclimated to the outside temperature, you can take it out of the bag. In both of the schemes suggested, we really can't use the camera within the first few minutes we get out of an air conditioned room without the lens fogging up.
Hiya Darren, I'm deciding between the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm (both Canon) not sure which one can provide the versatility that I need (I shoot mainly landscape but also do some portraiture work as well.) What's your thoughts? Thanks, Samantha
Tough choice, they're kind of apples and oranges for portraits, hands down the 70-200, but if I were mainly shooting landscapes, I'd go for the 24-70...
I have a canon 70D, and am debating if i should get this lens or the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 for $799. I want to become a videographer as a hobbyist not a professional.
Hey everyone! I'm looking to shoot a short film for my film making class in high school. Is the 24-70 lens what I want for video? or the tamaron? Im looking to rent. Thanks so much!!
Great Review after i get the 70-200 mark 2 the 24-70 mark 2 ia next on my list . i was wondering why dont you ever review Zeiss Cp2 lenses or any Zeiss lens there great
@GamerGirlBarbieDoll friend of mines has that f4 model, man I didn't want to give it back. Soon as I get one I'll be shooting with that thing all day long. I hope it worth the 2400.00 ugh.
I've reviewed the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Plannar - problem for me with Zeiss lenses is they're manual focus, as great as their optics are (and they ARE) - they can be a bit challenging to use if you're working with moving subjects...
TIRONEX The lack of IS can be clear for those who make videos. If not, doesn't matter too much if you're not afraid to crank up your ISO. Also, F2.8 lets significantly more light than F4. You do lose that focal range but you're gaining in image quality. I've used both, ended up with the F2.8 as I take photos and never take videos.
good video, Darren. a bit more comparison would have made it excellent. Current owner of the version 1, i'm really trying to find comparisons btwn the two... not found yet (other than 'the-digital-picture .com). Any thoughts on the "design"? (that is the 24mm end is found when retracted - opposite the mk 1. ( personally i prefer the Mk 1 design - keeps the extended barrel inside the lens hood. " thanks for the overall fine review.
Fair enough, if only I had the time to do more comparisons between similar lenses. The mark ii is better than the Mark i, but it's the kind of difference professionals will hem and haw over, not the kind of stuff the average client would ever notice, nor care about...
Should I switch from 24-70 F4 to the F2.8? Still hyped to upgrade… but I often read, that sharpness ist not improved. Can someone share experiences in this regard?
Only really benefits you in lower light situations - the extra stop of light gathering capability is where the difference lies - image sharpness shouldn't be the deciding factor - IMHO...
Thanks Darren! Unfortunately I already bought a 2nd hand lens… but I’m quite surprised. I had two great occasions to try out the gear. Wedding of my brother and a pro cycling race. Pro cycling race got me 24h of Instagram fame (through an Instagram repost of a pro cyclist) and many happy people in my family for images of yesterdays wedding 🥰 Seems the sharpness ist not improved. But the bokeh at f/2.8 is utterly improved compared to the results of my previous f/4. Maybe it’s a psychological thing. That the results are tending to feel a lot more professional 🤤 Thank you for your feedback. 🙂
Hi Darren I loved your video and as a relatively newbie on the dslr camera circuit and as a very keen amateur i currently own the canon rebel t3i 600d and upgraded from the provided 18-55 lens to the 18-200 and have thoroughly enjoyed using it for just over two years. I would however now like to move up to another level and as i cant afford both a new camera and a new lens i just wanted to know if this lens would give me the same great results using the same camera i currently own. My futues plans are for the 6d but that may be a couple of years down the road. Was also a bit concerned about IS but understand this is usually only an issue when using on very slow shutter speeds. Appreciate your input.
+angela Bertz On a T3i, you equivalent field of view would be 38.4mm - 112mm - meaning the field of view wouldn't be as wide - I might suggest for a crop sensor camera that you consider Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 - it's a stellar lens (optically), with mediocre build, but it has IS and the optics are top notch. If you can swing it, then a 6D and a 24-70 would be a great combo.
+Darren Miles Darren thanks a lot for your input. I suspected there might have been an issue. I did look at the 17-55 and as you say its not a bad lens but my funds are limited so i would prefer to hold out for the 6d and24-70 which are expensive enough. The ecamera is quite a bit cheaper than the lens and if the costl is much cheaper in Duty free when i travel at the end of the year i might get the camera and then 6mths later the lens. There isnt a flash so what would you recommend and i dont need top of the range as i dont do so much indoor photography. thanks again for your assistance.
Kelvin Noble Thanks Kelvin - Apples and oranges. Let me put it this way, the 70-200 is my go to lens, it's on my camera 70% of the time... Draw your own conclusions from that :-)
Julian Pujols Quall They are on my list, I did a review of the 135 awhile ago - just pictures with a written review below - it's an amazing - albeit limiting - lens!
Darren Miles Great,Thanks! I think after watching other reviews I have chosen to get the 100mm f2.8L because of the amazing sharpness, IS, Macro, Weather sealing and a great focal length for portraits on my 60d. But Im not quite sure. By the way I really admire your reviews! Thanks
It will not prove the same results. The 7d is a crop sensor, and if you want my suggestion sell the 7d and go for a 6d ! The image quality is amazing. Low light also. That's where this lens really shines
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I had the 24-70 2.8L mark 1 and it was the best zoom lens I've ever used. They say this one is even better. I think it would totally be worth it and plan on getting it now that I went back to Canon from Sony. All of my best photos were taken with the 24-70 2.8L mark 1. Even for landscapes, I would choose it at 24mm over the wide angle zooms.
I am so glad you spoke about using it for video, which hardly no one talks about and had sample clips. Thank you
I originally purchased this lens in December 2014 but have only used it a very small amount. This year though I plan to restart my career mainly on sports & journalism. From what I’ve used it for in the past it’s is very good. I used it on the cropped 1D Mark IV.
You're a class act mate .. In 2020 I am still considering getting this! Even serious landscape photographers have nothing but praise for this lens. Cheers.
Melody Chest Just traded in my old version 1 with the version 2 a few days ago and I couldn’t be happier with the results. It’s sharper and rendering a more pleasing bokeh wide open at f2.8. I’m over the moon.. 😍
@@jsetiawan94 Thanks for that feedback. Awesome! How is it for a bit of macro? How close can you get? Cheers.
Really love the honesty of Darrens video review of the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 II Lens. What I like ever more is that he is brutal over a Sigma lens.
***** Thank you very much!
The 70-200mm II and this lens are my favorites and most used lenses. My only complaint is about the cheap and flimsy lens hood...I broke one already and im one of the most careful guy there with his 1DX.
Great video, love your sense of humor. I'm glad the prices went down on this (currently 1749). I just ordered a refurbished one from Canon for 1519, and can't wait to get it...thanks to your video!
As always thanks for your review. I got mine about 6 months ago for $1800 after the discount and rebate. I sold my mark 1 lens for $1400. While I agree with your review totally, I would give it a higher score on value. 8/10? Absolutely the sharpest and best zoom lens I have ever used.
opjoipopikopp[pl[p[ Thank you - yeah, value's a bit on the subjective side, there's no doubt the 24-70 Mark ii is the best 24-70 lens, but is it that much better? $1,000? I'm not so sure...
I agree with everything except value. It's $1700 now with rebates and is able to replace quite a few primes in my bag.
It's quite expensive but all mkii zooms and L lenses Canon has made since 2010 is geared to handle high megapixels (5DSR)
8 years later...thank you😊😊
This is a really great review Darren, two thumbs up. I recently obtained a used 24-70mm F/2.8 II USM. (Refuse to pay full price) I'm not a working professional, but one of the reasons why I purchased it is because I wanted the best everyday lens as I build my portfolio. I knew this lens would hold value for the long-term and I did not want to worry about nuisances and weaknesses of cheaper lens that did not have the full package. True, the 24-70 Mark II is not perfect, (No IS, some plastic) but it is near perfect compared to the Tamron or the Sigma in terms of build, speed and accuracy just like Darren confirmed through this review. I have used other versions of those lenses and the quality overall has not been as great as I would like in comparison with the Canon models. I will admit, Canon has been annoying me with their new product prices regarding 'value' like the upcoming 11-24mm Ultra Wide Angle for $3,000! Really Canon, WHY?
Thanks Ezra - I agree with you on Canon - their newest set of 5Ds are about as exciting as a fart in an elevator. More megapixels? Really? That's so 2010... And $3,000 for an ultrawide is - in my opinion - a bit over the top...
Hey Mac,
Thank you for your inquiry. Allow me to explain. I would take a 1 or 2 stop improvement in dynamic range, ISO and shadow recovery over a 28MP increase all day. - that's just my opinion - and apparently the opinion of many others. This is not to suggest that all of the sudden canon doesn't make great cameras, but you're kidding yourself if you believe they haven't started to fall behind nikon and Sony. As far as what canon should do? I would suggest they do what nikon did and consider using Sony sensors. As a photographer that uses 3 systems I can tell you that in low light and/or crappy lighting I'm reaching for my nikons - I prefer the d750 because to me the d810 is overkill - 36mp - to me - is a bit much. That said if I'm in good light I prefer my canons because I love canons colors straight out of camera. I've shot some weddings recently in really low light and when raising the shadows the difference between canon and nikon isn't a little, it's a lot, in fact it's not even close. The canon turns into s pixelated mess of red and green noise whereas the nikons appear as if someone artificially turned the lights on. The nikon is like an insurance policy in the event something goes wrong. I still love my canons, but when they announced the new 5D's with the same dynamic range as the 5D3 - 3 years after the 5D3 - I wasn't all that excited. Canon makes great cameras and their lenses and lens selection are better, I just wish they would improve the capability of their sensors either by outsourcing to Sony or fixing them internally. Speaking for myself the one thing canon didn't really need to do was a big leap in MP, but with this release, it appears that's all they did. I hope that clarifies my statement.
Darren
msc1963 Why so much contention in your message MSC. The upcoming 5DS are a step in the right direction, but Canon has been behind in MP and sensor technology for some time now. Canon even admitted that the new 5DS are not successors to the 5D3, which indirectly indicates that they have another ace up their sleeve in the future. I'm pretty discerning that you are attempting to make Darren sound like a hypocrite, but you missed the point of his previous comment. I hope you understand now.
Thanks Ezra!
I withdrew my comments because I was not trying to insult anyone or start a fight, but now I regret withdrawing it, everything I said was true.
I stand by my statement that the Nikon D800 only was voted best camera the last 2 years simply because of the high resolution / MP's (every review said the Canon 5D MIII was better in almost every other category), everyone including DXOMark & Canon users complained about the low MP's. Now Canon supplies MP's to the extreme in the 5DS/R, and according to Darren it is a "fart in an elevator". Lets address this.
So, a camera that provides the same resolution as a digital back like the Phase One, for THOUSANDS of dollars less, plus allows you to use Canon lenses for THOUSANDS of dollars less plus provides portability, weather sealing, ISO, better auto focus /speed. handling, not good? Not good for landscape, architecture, studio, digital artists, etc.? Are you guys high or just ignorant??? It is because it does not fit YOUR shooting style, so screw all those that it does fit.
Just because the 5Ds/r does not fit YOUR shooting style / requirements does not make it a bad choice of Canon, sorry Canon did not change their whole production / design so you can shoot in the dark for weddings. Here's a tip - USE A FLASH. I use a 6D and fast prime when can't use a flash, otherwise with the power/size of 600EX/RT's (and current cheap triggers like Yongnuo for older flashes) there are no excuses. Figure it out. The majority of situations allow use of quick speedlite setups. I combine several along with a powerful studio light pointed at the ceiling set to trigger from the photocell sensor. If Nikon works for you in low light, fine, but the 6D has been proven to be the best in low light in countless tests so sorry I don't take your word over all the other testing and experiences including mine.
Regarding recent lens cost increases, I am not happy either. HOWEVER, they are upgrading their lenses to meet the current / near future requirements of cameras. The 70-200 2.8L IS II was upgraded for higher resolution cameras (per Canon all the way back at it's introduction) and I saw a huge difference when I upgraded (combined with 5DMIII) . The 24-70 2.8L IS II is the same, just sold the version 1 and I can tell you the difference is very real and extreme.
Want to pay 70% for a so-so current quality that is already outdated, or 100% for 100%+ quality good for many years to come? Your choice. Clearly I will see you guys on Craig's list in a year or two trying to sell, but sorry, not buying.
Higher MP's also produce SHARPER IMAGES as long as the Lens can meet the current requirements. That means the current L lenses will all produce sharper images on the new 5DS/R in addition to the higher resolution. But according to Darren he would much rather see increases in dynamic range and color.
Okay Darren, show us a video of the HUGE differences in color / range that will affect photos in a discernible / dramatic way for the paying customer.
Tests have shown that unless you show the images side by side, the average person (and photographer for that matter) would never be able to tell the difference in dynamic range and color (in fact the majority of images the vast majority of the color and dynamic range are within the cameras range) and the average eye would not notice the difference of the remaining % unless shown images side by side. Do you know what is immediately noticed? RESOLUTION AND SHARPNESS.
Darren Miles Thanks for making these wonderful videos. Straight to the point. Wonderfully presented. Please keep making videos.
At first I wasn’t sure if I really wanted to spend 1.5k on a lens... but seeing what you created with it, I really want it now! I’m hoping it does well with pet photography since that’s wha I mainly do... I’m excited
Darren, the best review for canon lens ever, i buy it and really love fit perfect on my 5dm3 and 6d too... great review thanks for that!
These images are just... Waouaw
Lovely Footage, still samples and lovely piece of glass. Nice video.
Thank you very much!!
One if not the best review I've ever read from you.... Keep shooting Darrel!
Thanks for the response Darren
correction at 10:40!! Canon 24-70 f/2.8 version 1 is weather sealed as well, just like the version 2.
I like your reviews, keep them coming! :)
Nice catch, you're correct! Not sure how I missed that, thank you for brining that to my attention.
"The grand pooh-bah of them all." I love your choice of words and this one is going straight into my vocabulary. :D
Very well
Explained good e.g. of pic & video
Thanks Darren. Guess will wait till April to decide. 😊
Thanks Darren foe all of your excellent reviews. Finally subscribed. You are my "go to guy" for canon lens reviews. Thanks for all the time you put into them. DrRich from cloudy NY
This lens is my goto for wedding shoots. And in fact I use it more than any other in my bag. Not cheap but worth it.
It is an awesome lens! Very rarely off my camera.
Hi ma your videos are just great
After wasting so much time listening to unprepared reviewers and blowhards and unprepared blowhards, it's a pleasure to listen to this reviewer's highly informative, smooth and professional review of a lens I own. My one personal note? I can't agree on the 7/10 mark Darrin gives the lens for value, simply because if you get one great extra shot per shoot primarily because of this lens, it more than pays for itself for professional use. Great review.
+Denys Bucksten Thank you very much! When it was introduced, Canon was the first manufacturer to put out these latest generation of optics at such price points, but since the Canon 24-70 Mark ii, 70-200 Mark ii and the 11-24, $2,200 just doesn't seem to be as ridiculous as it used to... One of Canon's best over all lenses...
Thanks, Darren. I'm just learning where the 24-70 fits into my news photo shoots. I rely a lot on my Canon 70-200 f/1.4 L IS and use a 50 mm 1.4 quite often, both on 6D bodies. But the 24-70 is going to cut into the use of both those setups quite a bit as I get used to it. And I'll be damned if I'm going to carry three cameras around my neck on each shoot. Question: Ive used a monopod with some luck, particularly low light, night shoots with the 70-200 and important, turning off the IS. How much tripod/monopod use would you figure is needed to offset the lack of IS on the 24-70?
+Denys Bucksten Hard to say, I usually find myself bumping the ISO to compensate as I'm usually using the 24-70 handheld in dynamic situations... I don't like to shoot at anything slower than 1/80th - 1/125th....
+Darren Miles Thanks, Darren.
Thanks for the review, it's really helpful, you did a great job! Your little boy is so cute in the video!
Thank you very much!
That was a very helpful review! Beautiful images and Im really excited to order one!!
Thanks Denise! It's a piece of awesome!
This was super helpful,thanks Darren
This is the best review of this lens , awesome and thanks
+Cesar D. Vargas Thanks Cesar!
In dec 2013, both canon and b&h had $300 rebate on this one and the 70-200 which brought them at $1700 and $1800 respectively. At that price it was a steal. Sadly, this wasnt't the case this Christmas.
Great review, and really useful! Thanks Darren!
+Dave Wright Thanks Dave!
Thanks for the video review. I just got this lens today. Looking forward to use it this weekend with my 5dmk3. Darren you are right that it is very expensive and I do agree with you,for a business, it is an investment and the $$$ can be made back.
Excellent review of the 24-70mm lens, everything I own is Canon.. but like you said the price is holding be back just waiting for good thanksgiving sale. thank you !
Thanks Darren - that is a really comprehensive and interesting review. I've had two 2x to 70mm Canon lenses before: the 28-70 and then the 24-70 and like them both. I have no hesitation in upgrading this in readiness for the shift in 5Ds on the horizon. I have the 5D II and am looking to upgrade to the 5D III or the 5DS or S/R and like you, am not sure about the fixation on the increased pixels. But there is talk of a 5D IV. LOL. Where to get on the carousel?
I picked up the f4 version for 800 bucks after mail in rebate. Everything I read said that image quality was on par with this leans plus it has I.S and a neat macro mode thats awesome and a lot less weight. I love the f4 and I don't think I'll be stepping up to the f2.8 any time soon.
As Markdean said " Very refined manner of speaking ".
Subscribed!!!
And, yes i think i go for this lenses!
+Francisco Dias Thank you!
Funny! i recieved my 24-70 f2.8 II today! :D
( and of course you review hepled to decide )
I will never waste my money on a Tamron or Sigma for my canons.
Just dropped the money on the mark III 70-200 and about to buy this. I’m just a hobbyist tho lol.
really a good review... much appreciated
Great review, and it's also cool how you take the time to respond to some questions. I have the 70D, and am trying to decide if I want to get the 24-70L now, or wait until hopefully later this year to see how much the IS version of it will cost. Question for anyone who reads this, in regular photography, does IS help a lot in low light with a slower shutter speed?
+Anthony Walters Thank you for the kind words - IS helps in low light at slower shutter speeds so long as your subject is static, if you move or your subject moves then the image will likely blur regardless of IS...
Great review from start to finish. I'm really debating my next purchase. I have to have accuracy first and speed second. Bot guaranteed. That's the only thing keeping me away from the Tamron and Sigmas. Subscribed
i have a 70D with a 18-135mm STM lens and a 35mm 1.4G L Prime Lens. Would I gain much from selling the 35mm L and put it towards the 24-70mm if you were in my position?
Depends, what do you want to use the 24-70 for? The 35L is dynamite for indoor events, and the 18-135 is a really nice and versatile video lens with the 70D... If you're doing more video, keep the 18-135, if you need a really (really!) nice general purpose lens, then the 24-70 Mark ii is really hard to beat...
could the 24-70 replace my 35mm prime for indoor shots of people?
or would u recomend sticking with the 35mm
Very refined manner of speaking from a gentleman of the South. May I ask what Camera-lens combination did you use? Your video is just so beautiful, with the bokeh very pleasing to the eyes. Everything within the frame is supremely picturesque.(And by the way since you are a Canon user, I subscribed immediately)
+Markdean Masanque I'm pretty sure this video was shot with a 5D3 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 Mark ii - thank you for the kind words, much appreciated!
Nice video
overall 9.3/10
Darren you are a photo genius, i very much appreciate your reviews. keep up your good work ok?
OK!
Really great review! Thank you.
Great review Darren, i am definitely subscribing to your channel :)
Thank you!
Exceptional review. Thank you.
Thank you Jeffrey!
I love your reviews, I'm trying to figure out if i want to invest in the Canon 85mm 1.2 Lens or get the 24-70mm 2.8. I think this review just shifted my decision. 24-70mm it is!
Skip,
Thank you sir! Boy that's a tuffy - here's my take, the 24-70 is a much more versatile lens, whereas the 85 f/1.2 is an absolute gem for portraiture - so if you're doing a lot of portraits, I might consider the 85, otherwise, I'd get the 24-70 - it's a **much** more useful general purpose lens.
Darren
great review, good advice
I would also say 70-200mm f2.8L II makes better and stronger bokeh and less vigneting while, in my opinion, the 24-70mm f2.8L II has better sharpness and better richer colors and contrast.
Nice review.. Expensive lens without IS.. Still Can't believe that.. Stick with my Tamron.. No issues with that lens..
1 - 10 how do you grade that Tamron chief? Heard a lot about that lens
Mike guitar You probably got a good copy. Overall, the feedback on the tammy is it's just a hair less sharp than the mark ii - (probably not "field" - i.e. "Client" relevant) and doesn't focus as consistently or as accurately - that was my experience. However, you could argue that the Tammy is more of an all arounder if you plan on using it for video as well as the VC (IS) keeps the camera steady better for handheld shots...
***** really. That F-ing suck for 2 stack son. Mannnnnn. But that's something that can be fixed in post right?
***** Thanks but the 24-70MM is not first on my list. I'm liking that 70-200MM a lot right now.
Darren,
Any rumours of a new 24-70 with or without IS? I have a 70-200mm MKII and I wanna invest in a 24-70 eventually but I just hate it when I buy a gear and one month later and upgrade comes out😒
Rza5675 I've not heard, but given that Canon already has the 24-70 f/4 IS, I'm not sure they feel it's important, which is surprising given how much Canon has dedicated to video, you'd figure they'd want an IS lens like a 24-70 with an f/2.8 - as for IS right now, it's only the Tamron for a full frame camera...
Dear Darren, would you reccomend this 24-70II or the 35mm f1.4 L II for travel photography? I know the 24-70 is more "versatile" but im looking for the ultimate in image quality aesthetics, bokeh separation, and that "magic" look. Thank you
Just got this lens.. watch them come out with a Mark iii lol... btw we are "neighbors" I live in Sarasota, FL.
Love Sarasota, was just there for a concert! The 24-70 Mark ii is one of Canon's best!
This is a great lens on paper. But it’s a tripod lens. Take away the tripod and with lighting conditions anything but broad daylight, its advantage of great optics quickly drops. Unless you are shooting action or doing landscapes from a tripod you will get far more usable photos with its smaller sibling, the 24-70 f/4 IS which is optically almost as good.
Hi Darren thank you for another brilliant review! Would you be to do a review of Tamron 24-70 in the near future pls
Martino190 I had that lens for a short time and it was very erratic to focus for stills, but the VC worked GREAT in video... I may come back around to it at some point in the future.
Thanks for the review. Do you recommend this lens for someone attempting to getting better at shooting? Or should a person wait to hone their skills first? Just curious. I took a chance after this review with the notion of getting better and when I do, at least I'll have a great lens.
Image quality doesn't get much better, but if you're building your skill set, you'll likely only see a marginal improvement... Photography is so much more than the gear... But it is a piece of amazing!
Hi Darren, I believe you mentioned the 24-70 mark 1 doesn't have the weather sealing. I'm certain it does.
I believe you are correct! My mistake.
Very good lens review, very unsurprisingly corny references. Still love almost every video this guy puts out.
Hah, thank's Moses!
It took me 3 times watching this video to focus on what you were saying and not just look at the presenter 😍🤤
Does the lack of IS affects you that much?, or it isn't?, like do you really need the IS or is okay?
Hey Darren,
Do you think the "primes vs zooms" discussion in terms of IQ is something of the past, especially with this lens? Im new to photography so I was thinking about this lens, but I just love the IQ you get from a lens like the Sigma 50mm ART or the zeiss 50mm milvus, which are a tually cheaper. I just subscribed to your channel. Have the feeling im gonna be visiting often.
I already have the Canon 50mm f1.2.
How would you compare image sharpness and AF-speed between the 50 and the 24 - 70.
The reason I ask is some say the 50mm 1.2 is not sharp nor accurate focusing. I don't find that myself, so what gives? Am I missing something? The 50mm is in the middle of the 24 - 70mm range, so I can either back up or step forward to get the shot. Or is this zoom so incredible I should dump the 50 and go for it?
want to buy at least 3 lenses and that's it i really want a lens that i can keep on there to take all the shots i need instead of having to switch lenses to catch the shot i want
I have already had len 16-35 f4 , Do I need to change into len 24-70 because I often travel ?
The Canon 24-70 2.8L (V 1) does have weather sealing
Correct, it does - my mistake - nice catch!
Number of aperture blades does not matter when fully open.
Very useful review thank you :)
ikr
I'll will be fit on canon 700d?
wonder if I need my Canon L lens 50mm fixed 2.8 if I get the Canon 24-70 2.8 L lens?
dang .....im torn on this. I need a great wide angle lens. low light.....I have been looking at the Canon L lens 16-35mm f.2. But now due to your video might go with the Canon 24-70 L ll 2.8 A bit more money but gotta have f2.8. thanks for the great video!!
i was feeling the same. did you ever get the 16-35? or did you stick with the 24-70?
Get a 16-35 and 85mm.
Hi Darren, great review! What do you think about the price point not at 1699. Photography is my hobby, not paid , mostly love to shoot action photos of my kids and vacation. I have a 80D and really want to step up my game from the kit lens. Do you think this is too much a lens for me or worth it? Any thoughts would be helpful
Because you have a cropped sensor camera, I might suggest you look into the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 - it's not built as well, but it's optically excellent and totally worth it... If you plan on one day moving up to full frame - then I'd get the 24-70 Mark ii...
Did you shoot the shot at 6:42 handheld? Or use warp stabilizer? It looked super smooth.
How would you compare this to the Olympus 12-40 f2.8 Pro for OMD? Obviously 2 entirely different systems and price points but the focal range is almost identical, both weather sealed, and both are fixed f2.8 "Pro" lenses. Would the biggest difference be better depth of field and bokeh given the sensor size difference and length from sensor? Is that why full frame lenses provide better bokeh than m43 counterparts?
UKingdom Tough question to answer. Mainly because the sensor attached to the 12-40 is so much smaller and as result you'll have more depth of field and are much more likely to nail focus - even if someone moves slightly. The 12-40 is an awesome lens and worthy of it's "PRO" designation, but the 24-70 Mark ii is in a league of it's own, and boy do you pay for it :-)
Darren Miles Oh, and yes, generally speaking, the smaller the sensor, the less depth of field.
What would be the best alternative to this lens today?
what do you think a bout EF 24-70mm F/4?
Hello,
I think there's an issue with my 24-70 II lens - the focus on it is terrible when the subject/talent is a few metres away from the camera. I expected the quality to be a lot better considering it cost me over £1200 to buy.
It feels like the lens goes into a weird soft focus when the subject is a distance away, and it looks really blurry and bad in quality. I have made sure the focus ring is completely focused on the subject, but it still has a terrible image quality.
This is a huge pain to me, especially when filming conferences (when I am a few metres away from the speakers).
Anybody else having a similar issue with this lens?
Nice lens and great review! Random question, how do you deal with humidity fogging up your lenses? I live in the south , as you do, and we always have the AC cranked up , but once I step outside with my camera it immediately fogs up the lens.
Let the room temperature warm up closely to the outside temperature before taking out the lens, or use a large ziplock bag and put the lens in it (ziplocked, of course) before you step out of the room. This will keep the condensation on the bag instead of the lens. Once the lens has acclimated to the outside temperature, you can take it out of the bag. In both of the schemes suggested, we really can't use the camera within the first few minutes we get out of an air conditioned room without the lens fogging up.
Thank you for this video, what camera and lens are you using on 13:00 ?Thank you very much.
nice review! subscribed :)
Hi would it be worth getting this lens for a canon 7d?
Hiya Darren,
I'm deciding between the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm (both Canon) not sure which one can provide the versatility that I need (I shoot mainly landscape but also do some portraiture work as well.)
What's your thoughts?
Thanks, Samantha
Tough choice, they're kind of apples and oranges for portraits, hands down the 70-200, but if I were mainly shooting landscapes, I'd go for the 24-70...
The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 is a much better version of the Canon EF-S 17-55 mm f / 2,8 IS USM ?Please help ?!
+Susan Fiorella Apples and oranges again. One is a FF lens, the other is for APS-C. You can use the 24-70 on APS-C, but lose a lot of wide-angle.
So this lens use to cost $2300 wow, it cost $1600 now and still think it's expensive lol. I want to get one though
Tech1Tv me too!
I have a canon 70D, and am debating if i should get this lens or the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 for $799.
I want to become a videographer as a hobbyist not a professional.
The 18-35 is the best zoom lens on crop sensors so if you are not upgrading to full frame go for that.
Hey everyone! I'm looking to shoot a short film for my film making class in high school. Is the 24-70 lens what I want for video? or the tamaron? Im looking to rent. Thanks so much!!
Great Review after i get the 70-200 mark 2 the 24-70 mark 2 ia next on my list . i was wondering why dont you ever review Zeiss Cp2 lenses or any Zeiss lens there great
That 70-200MM is so on my list. I must have watch the review on this channel 20 times about that lens.
Kelvin Noble me 2
@GamerGirlBarbieDoll friend of mines has that f4 model, man I didn't want to give it back. Soon as I get one I'll be shooting with that thing all day long. I hope it worth the 2400.00 ugh.
i use to have the 1.4 version but sold it i loved it but i need is lens was shacky so I'm going to get the mark 2 version
I've reviewed the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Plannar - problem for me with Zeiss lenses is they're manual focus, as great as their optics are (and they ARE) - they can be a bit challenging to use if you're working with moving subjects...
I have a 24-105 mm f / 4. I want to buy this. Do you think you'll feel much difference the lack of IS? The pictures will be blurry?
TIRONEX The lack of IS can be clear for those who make videos. If not, doesn't matter too much if you're not afraid to crank up your ISO. Also, F2.8 lets significantly more light than F4. You do lose that focal range but you're gaining in image quality. I've used both, ended up with the F2.8 as I take photos and never take videos.
good video, Darren. a bit more comparison would have made it excellent. Current owner of the version 1, i'm really trying to find comparisons btwn the two... not found yet (other than 'the-digital-picture .com). Any thoughts on the "design"? (that is the 24mm end is found when retracted - opposite the mk 1. ( personally i prefer the Mk 1 design - keeps the extended barrel inside the lens hood. " thanks for the overall fine review.
Fair enough, if only I had the time to do more comparisons between similar lenses. The mark ii is better than the Mark i, but it's the kind of difference professionals will hem and haw over, not the kind of stuff the average client would ever notice, nor care about...
Should I switch from 24-70 F4 to the F2.8? Still hyped to upgrade… but I often read, that sharpness ist not improved. Can someone share experiences in this regard?
Only really benefits you in lower light situations - the extra stop of light gathering capability is where the difference lies - image sharpness shouldn't be the deciding factor - IMHO...
Thanks Darren! Unfortunately I already bought a 2nd hand lens… but I’m quite surprised. I had two great occasions to try out the gear. Wedding of my brother and a pro cycling race. Pro cycling race got me 24h of Instagram fame (through an Instagram repost of a pro cyclist) and many happy people in my family for images of yesterdays wedding 🥰
Seems the sharpness ist not improved. But the bokeh at f/2.8 is utterly improved compared to the results of my previous f/4.
Maybe it’s a psychological thing. That the results are tending to feel a lot more professional 🤤
Thank you for your feedback. 🙂
l love the quality of this lens, but it is quite expensive and honestly unless your getting paid to take photos you should consider a cheaper brand.
Hi Darren I loved your video and as a relatively newbie on the dslr camera circuit and as a very keen amateur i currently own the canon rebel t3i 600d and upgraded from the provided 18-55 lens to the 18-200 and have thoroughly enjoyed using it for just over two years. I would however now like to move up to another level and as i cant afford both a new camera and a new lens i just wanted to know if this lens would give me the same great results using the same camera i currently own. My futues plans are for the 6d but that may be a couple of years down the road. Was also a bit concerned about IS but understand this is usually only an issue when using on very slow shutter speeds. Appreciate your input.
+angela Bertz On a T3i, you equivalent field of view would be 38.4mm - 112mm - meaning the field of view wouldn't be as wide - I might suggest for a crop sensor camera that you consider Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 - it's a stellar lens (optically), with mediocre build, but it has IS and the optics are top notch. If you can swing it, then a 6D and a 24-70 would be a great combo.
+Darren Miles Darren thanks a lot for your input. I suspected there might have been an issue. I did look at the 17-55 and as you say its not a bad lens but my funds are limited so i would prefer to hold out for the 6d and24-70 which are expensive enough. The ecamera is quite a bit cheaper than the lens and if the costl is much cheaper in Duty free when i travel at the end of the year i might get the camera and then 6mths later the lens. There isnt a flash so what would you recommend and i dont need top of the range as i dont do so much indoor photography. thanks again for your assistance.
For a flash, I'd get the cheetah stand V860c. If you hold off for a 6D, then wait and save up for the 24-70 mark ii.
say Darren? which one you like better? That 24-70 or the 70-200? great reviews on both
Kelvin Noble Thanks Kelvin - Apples and oranges. Let me put it this way, the 70-200 is my go to lens, it's on my camera 70% of the time... Draw your own conclusions from that :-)
Sweet, Man I'm working on getting one as we speak. Keep them review coming chief.
Pleease can you please review the 100mm L f2.8. I am trying to decide whether to buy this or the 135. Thank you
Julian Pujols Quall They are on my list, I did a review of the 135 awhile ago - just pictures with a written review below - it's an amazing - albeit limiting - lens!
Darren Miles Great,Thanks! I think after watching other reviews I have chosen to get the 100mm f2.8L because of the amazing sharpness, IS, Macro, Weather sealing and a great focal length for portraits on my 60d. But Im not quite sure. By the way I really admire your reviews! Thanks
Dear Darren how about 24-70 f4l is worth it to buy it ?? is this len perform like 24-70 f2.8
Sadly, the 24-70 f4 isn't close to optical performance of the 2.8.
WILL YOU HAVE THE FULL benefit of the wide lens on a 7d mark ii? thx so much .
It will not prove the same results. The 7d is a crop sensor, and if you want my suggestion sell the 7d and go for a 6d ! The image quality is amazing. Low light also. That's where this lens really shines
what is lens you recording in your video for that smooth bokeh?
This lens is for Canon 7D mark ii ?