100% agree! In the past 10 years, I have changed several camera systems- Canon, Olympus, Sony and now back to Canon R. Regardless of brand, the first 2 lenses I must have are the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. They are jacks of all trades and masters of every focal length I need! I will not travel without these 2 bad boys. Thank you for the review which is great as always.
Lol- I describe myself as an enthusiast rather than a pro- I watched a few reviews of this lens- so I took delivery of a pre loved one today- it's way sharper than my 24-105 f4 L- I also have a habit of of watching reviews post-purchase, and you have just made me feel REALLY GOOD about my choice- thanks!
Used to avoid zoom and telephoto lenses because "real photographer uses only prime" until I used 70-200 2.8 for the first time. Now it's my No1 lens. And for travel 24-70 2.8 is a must. Beautiful images in the video.
Yes indeed Sale, prime lenses are totally amazing! Now, if only I had a Sherpa Robot to carry an entire Pelican case of primes wherever I went, we'd be in business! In fact, new idea! Every time someone shells out big bucks for an 85mm F1.2, they get a free travel robot!
@@premiumlightacademy LOL .. heck, if you are hiring a Sherpa .. you are rich! So you might as well have multiple camera bodies loaded with prime lenses ready to go .. just like a professional golfer with his caddy! hahaha!
I am still blown away by the image quality this lens offers on my 5D IV. This is the lens you take on adventures. Build quality is top notch, still looks new, no scratch on after heavy use.
I used to rent this lens, now, I own it. It is for lack of better words the Holy Trinity of lenses. I originally used it on the 5D MK1, now it lives on a R6MK2. My go-to every day 1.5 lb baby. If I had 1 lens to be stuck with, this is it.
totaly agreed... I love shooting my primes like 24 or 35mm or 100mm L-glasses but it's so annoying to exchange them a lot... it's so fun to be able to shot widely and in few seconds shot details to tell nice story...
Hi Lewis. It is 2024 and I brought this lens. Now I can use this lense on my DSLRs 7D Mark II and 700D and on my R cameras RP and R7 with the mount adapters. First test photos with my RP... razor sharp and great quality. I'm impressed of this masterpiece of L glas. Great build quality. I don't regret to buy this "old" lense new in 2024. In combination with my 70-200 IS L USM III f/2.8 a great lense team on every of my cameras.
I also still use this lens. I'm using Canon mirrorless cameras for a couple of years now. But I still kept all my EF lenses. Actually the only RF lenses I have are some cheaper primes: 16, 35 and 50 - those make up my lightweight street kit. For all other purposes I still use EF L lenses. For multiple reasons: - The EF L Lenses that came out since 2010 were really really good. The image quality of the RF lenses is better but the differences are usually so small that you barely notice it. Even when pixel peeping. - The new RF counterpart cost usually 2x to 3x as much as you get when selling the EF version - The RF lenses have an inconsistant placement of the control ring. Using EF lenses with the control ring adapter I have the control ring for every lens at the same place. - With a few exceptions RF lenses are not significatly smaller or lighter than the EF version. Some are even bigger and heavier. My oldest lens is the EF135 f2L - the new RF version costs 4x of what the EF version sells now. It's alsmost 50% heavier and notably larger. Yes, it's sharper, is weather sealed and has IS. But is it worth 4x times the price? - Used RF lenses are hardly cheaper than new ones. EF L Lenses you can usually get for not much more than half the price it was new. - I can use the EF lenses with my DSLR and even shot film with my EOS 3 and EOS 5. For a while I wanted to replace the EF 24-70 with the RF version because the IS is nice. But then Canon finally startet to build IBIS into the cameras. Now that IS is not that important anymore. p.s. "Zoom with the feet" - is just wrong. Zoom in and out changes only the focal length and thus the framing. It does NOT change the perspective. Changing the cameras position ALWAYS changes perspective. Sometimes little, sometimes much more. To get the composition I want I look for the right perspektive and then I frame the image. This is usually not possible with a prime. I like primes. They helps you get more creative and they have you explore perspectives but I never use them for landscape. EVER.
I have owned this lens for about seven years. It delivers excellent photos every time. Just recently I did a small project capturing portraits of organization leaders in candid situations using this lens, and the results turned out great. I have many lenses but I chose this lens because I knew I could count on it to deliver. I have also adapted this lens to other camera mounts with great results. It is a forever keeper.
At the moment I am willing to invest in lens. I do not have the Canon 5D MK iv (YET), but I have been eyeballing it for a long time. I do have a Canon 90D with a 32.5 megapixel crop sensor. I am going to mount the 24-70mm f/2.8 on that, and see what happens.😬
I have this for travelling and really excelent option. I also enjoying the macro capability... I prefer 24-70/4 for lightweight trips instead of 35/1.4 and 100/2.8 macro combo
Didn’t know Drew McIntyre was into photography. Thanks man. It makes me happy that I haven’t fully mastered my lens seeing how amazing the shots you are getting with yours.
Great video. My cousin and I had a conversation this past week about the Canon 24-70 mm II. WE feel that this lens has not received the accolades that it should. I have used it on my DSLR and mirrowless cameras, and the results has been great. Thank you, & job well done.
Agreed. It’s the most balanced 24-70 out there with regards to weight and handling, and is faultless IQ wise. Only recently it’s been surpassed by the Sony 24-70 GM II with all of those in mind. Canon’s RF 24-70 has IS but is quite a bit heavier and physically bigger.
Of all my lenses the 24-70 is the workhorse but for portraits alone the 70-200 is the best. If could only have 2 lines it would be these 2. I use an adapter for R5 as I have a 5D Mark 4 secondary body.
Your photos are beautiful, so stunning. I’m thinking I need to get this lens too. I’m one of those people who have to zoom in and out with their feet when using a prime 50mm lens 😂
Great video, may thanks. Just a note, it is the perfect lens for FULL FRAME. M4/3 cameras need something much wider at the low end. For full frame you are right, this lens covers most situations really well, it is a classic. I also always carry a 50mm "f1.8" for anything really low light.
just got myself a fullframe camera to complement the APS-C cameras I had been using so far, and I've been debating if I should get this lens since my amazing Sigma 17-50 F/2.8 is an APS-C lens... love my 70-200 f/4, I think I will end up selling my sigma, get fhe 24-70 and be set for a while (since I don't enjoy using anything wider than effective 24mm)
It is good to know you mainly use the 24-70 for your landscapes. I initially used the 16-35 for one shot photos, but with time, I have gravitated to doing 2-3 photo composites with my 24-70 LII. There is something about doing panoramas, which I cannot describe, except that it is as close as possible as being there. Thank you for showing people DSLR cameras are still alive!
Great lens. Sharpness isn't the thing. It is when you need F1.2 - thats when that 50mm prime comes in. But otherwise, this zoom is magic. F2.8 is plenty most of the time. I am working towards getting one for my R7 - it works like a 35mm to 110mm F2.8 (with a DOF that looks like F4), or with the speedbooster a 27mm to 77mm F2 (with a DOF that looks like F2.8) equivalent FF respectively. Used I can get them for under $600 now if I am patient
Difference stroke for difference folks. There is no such thing call one lens do it all. It is all boiled down to which type of photography your are after. Zoom lens is good for run and gun, that’s it. Where prime lens will make a photographer visualize and frame every shot carefully in their mind before they execute the shot. That’s what we called art/skill.
I shoot people almost exclusively; and for me the "Holy Trinity" of lenses is the 24-105 F/4L IS -- 24-70 F2.8L-- and the 70-200 F2.8L IS. I used to shoot weddings for many years and those three lenses were, pretty much, all I ever used at a wedding. I now shoot a lot of graduating seniors, models, headshots and portraits. In the studio I typically use the 24-105 and on location the 70-200. I don't do that much with wide angle so instead of the 16-35 (rounding out the "holy trinity") I have the 17-40mm F4. I used it to shoot establishment shots, the church, or place where the wedding was occurring, etc., now I use it to shoot establishment shots at large venues at events. The 24-105 comes in really handy on location executive portraits or headshots because of its focusing versatility. You did an excellent job and I, like you, believe that a person would need an electron microscope to discern any difference between a prime or zoom lens--at least with Canon lenses. You do excellent work, I'm certainly not a landscape photographer but I recognize good work when I see it.
Great video. I actually love my L series 24-105mm lens for travelling. I agree with your comments regarding the 70-200 mm lens. If only weight wasn't an issue when travelling.👍
I agree with everything you said. I recently got into astrophotography and those primes are way more important at f1.4 verses the zoom and f2.8. That is the only problem I have trying to pull the trigger on the 24-70. So I remain with none of them. Thx
Just got mine for 550 at a pawn shop! I run a m50 mkii so it's definitely not the best for that but I still get some mean images with it. I love it already and I couldn't be happier to have found that deal!
Changing composition with your feet changes the background. How am I a rookie and i know this. Taking a portrait with 300mm looks WAY better than one with a 50 or even 85mm
I've got the Rf24-105mm f/4 which I find even more versatile than 24-70 and I rarely have a need for wider aperture. I'm looking forward to many years of use.
Hi, I've both the EF-s 24-70mm LII and the EF-s 17-55mm f2.8. The 24-70mm goes on a EOS RP while the 17-55mm goes on the 200D II. From my experience the 24-70mm + RP combination is miles better than utthe 17-55mm on 200D II. I am still not fully clear if its the weak apsc sensor issue (of the 200D II) or the 17-55 is just not sharp enough. But it is what it is. In conclusion, I completely agree with u about the 24-70mm. Its a legendary.
@@christianmbabazi9722 Hi the image will be cropped (zoomed in) by 1.6 times. And the background blur will be lesser. Actually APSC bodies have greater pixel densities than full-frame (usually), so it is more demanding on the lens. But if u use the 24-70mm LII then it should be very little difference in terms of sharpness.
So u reply for your views ... That what I want .... So let me tell you my story .... I m Pramod and i m from India i brought this 5dsr canon camera from usa 6 month back to learn photography. Now I want to buy alot of stuff for camera . Basically I want list of most important thing (items) for camera (only 5dsr) as landscape photographer will you plz make video for that
Great overview video. And I would largely agree. Maybe it would have helped adding some information around: * the quality of the Mark 1 versus the Mark 2 version of the Canon L lens * how the Sigma and Tamron options compare * for all but portrait applications you walked through, f2.8 is irrelevant as you'd stop down to somewhere between f5.6 to f11, why not the 24-105mm L? The Mark 2 L version of the 24-70 f2.8 is incredibly difficult to find at a good used price, given its popularity.
Hi TW and thanks for your comment. I used the Mark 1 version of the 24-105 many years ago. I loved the range it offered, but found it to be a little slow in the autofocus and the sharpness was questionable. I've always enjoyed the 24-70 because it just offers such solid sharpness and quality. Just one of those lenses which always lives in the bag. Never leave home without it!
@@premiumlightacademy I checked DXOMark for their test data, comparing the 24-105 Mark 1 versus the 24-7- Mark 2. At f8 (let's be honest, where sharpness matters, landscapes etc., this is the aperture we will use mostly), the sharpness differences should be negligible throughout the zoom range. The 24-105 is sharper in the center of the frame for a lot of the zoom range as well. The big disadvantage the 24-70mm has with the 24-105 is not only the smaller zoom range, but also lack of image stabilization. The 24-105 has good stabilization, even with the Mark 1 version. And then there's the Tamron 24-70 alternative which does have image stabilization and according to DXOMark, is sharper than the Canon at f8 throughout the zoom range. And half the price at the same amazing build quality. As for landscape/architecture and even product photography work, you will always want to have a tilt-shift-lens. So it's never just going to be the 24-something zoom lens.
wild question ... can you update the firmware on this lens? I'm adapting it to sony and the AF isn't working, I'm thinking it might be a firmware issue however can't find ANYTHING about it... any help? thanks!
Hello Sir, I've a question... Let's say I get a 24-70 f2.8 as my first lens for portraits and as an overall lens, do I need to get 70-200 f2.8 primarily for portrait alongside 24-70? second question... Am I going to miss anything if I don't get 70-200, when it comes to portraits?(other than the more background blur and zoom range)
Does anyone think this would be good for middle/high school basketball? I know people suggest 70-200 for sports but I don’t care for it. Plus I do other styles of photography. Lastly, I use the canon 90d, so I think the 1.6 crop factor on the 70-200 would be a bit much.. Sorry it’s lengthy. I wanted to make sure I provide some details around my question. Thank you all, N. Shaheed Photography
The best thing about this is that it costs only 300-400€ used. And if you don't want to pay quite as much, the 28-70 and f4 versions are cheaper once again.
If only the 24-105 came anywhere close to this lens at the edges ... it was my favourite lens on my 5D MkII, and did weddings beautifully (the centre is great), but now with an R5 I am continually shocked at the poor quality at the edges - they are too poor to ignore now, it's so blatent. I suppose I have to go get one of these now!
Are you referring to sharpness or vignetting? My primary draw for the 24-70 is the 2.8 vs. F4... but now you have me thinking the 24-105 is lesser image quality.
@K. H. yes, I'm told the 24-70 f/2.8 II is way sharper than the 24-105, especially at the corners ... that's why I'll have to bite the bullet. And my 24-105 can live out its life on the old 5D mk II ;)
Thank you for an excellent review. I've EOS R6. Should I get the RF version because it's has IS or buy EF version with the adopter? RF version costs more and is it worth it? Thanks.
Very good question George. I'm thinking, if you have already jumped over to Canon mirrorless, I'd say just go with the new RF version. That new RF glass is impossibly sharp. It's like it was made by aliens. The old 24-70 is more for dinosaurs like me who just can't let go of our ancient gear. Happy shooting!
Aren’t prime lenses more for portrait photography anyway? So there’s more reason to use the 24-70mm than a prime for sure in thus case. Also question, doesn’t the shorter focal lengths make images distorted? I have a aps-c camera so I don’t know if having a full frame makes distortion less obvious or not just need some clarification.
Distortion can occur at shorter focal lengths, yes indeed. Anything shorter than 50mm will make your image bulge a little bit. At 70mm, this starts to become a more flattering focal length for shooting portraits. However, for people, the best lens of all time is the 70-200mm F2.8L.
I guess if you are using a shorter focal length for portraits then keeping the subject to the centre could avoid distortion. Include some amount of background in these cases.
I like these videos that actually tell you this is the lens to get. Or this is my favorite and why. You videos are very well Done! I use Canon, but have to admit on a recent vacation I ended up using my IPhone 13 Pro more than I planned to and the pics and videos were great and super convenient.
Buy good Glas. If you can afford a L lense, buy it. Depends on what you are shooting, go on the Canon web page and look for purposes of an 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 L IS USM with f/2.8 or f/4. What lense match with your purpose you want to shoot and price... go for it and buying this Llense.
The better lens is the Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 Di VC. Hands down IMO. Yes, the Canon is technically sharper; but only on a tripod. Pixel peep and be happy I guess. It’s not going to give you as sharp of images handheld, especially if you’re shooting longer focal lengths in low lighting. It’s a must have focal length and aperture; however, unless you’re mounting this to a body with IBIS, save your money and get the Tamron. And not the Sogma either; it’s IS is lame and barely works. Just my 2c. It’s all about shooting in the real world, and this is definitely a hand held run and gun lens; so the lack of IS takes it out of the game right quick.
@alezsorokin1896 no. The Tamron model you spec'ed is not better. I own it both and no question the Canon is overall better. I originally sold my first canon lens for mowing and eventually bought the Tamron thinking it was comparable. It made me miss my canon lens and I finally had the money to buy another one.
@@cl-7832 I get what you're saying. That's why I stated that the Canon is technically sharper; however, in real world scenario's, not mounted on a tripod for pixel peeping a/b'ing, the Tamron's vibration control/IS adds an increase in sharpness and light when shooting in super low light, which can't be overlooked IMO. Especially if you're not wanting to shoot everything wide open. Trust me, I looked into this for months, tried both. NOT buying L glass was not my style, but the Tamron just kept delivering. I will add that I did need to calibrate the lens in-camera, but thats something we should do with all lenses. (and I'm speaking from the perspective of an SLR shooter. Mirrorless and IBIS change all of this).
Hola... Execelente video... Quisiera consultarle si sabe sobre el fallo de cable flex de diafragma de este lente... Yo tengo uno ef 24-70mm 2.8 ii igual y apenas tiene 3 años y ya me dio problemas que en un evento se quedó atorado el diafragma y me dijeron que en estos lentes el flex de diafragma da muchos problemas... A otros colegas les pasó lo mismo... Y quisiera saber que saben al respecto... Me ayudarían mucho con su opinión al respecto...me costó muy caro este lente y ha sido una decepción que en tan poco tiempo de ese problema... En cuanto a calidad de imagen es muy bueno pero en el mecanismo de diafragma me dicen que de fabrica tiene esa dificultad...... Saludos gracias.. Espero su opinión...
I disagree I shoot with a canon 6D mark II I shoot at ISO 800 more than half of my shots are still just unusable just blurry. I would not recommend this Lens I normally shoot with the canon 85, 1.4 image stabilizer for stops much much better lens
It's not stabilised. That's frankly ridiculous at the price, and stops me upgrading from my 24-105 f4 IS. My 50mp 5Dsr deserves stabilised glass at this price, for a "general purpose" zoom.
the problem with this lens is that is makes ugly things look decent. i think as photographers and society we are losing touch with reality because we have the ability to prettying it up so easily with this lens.
Saw some reviews and it has some onion ring bokeh. And based on Chris Frost review, it soft on the corner wide open @f2.8. Anyways considering it's price, have IS or VC and can be updated by Tamron tap-in, it's a good buy.
