Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Standard Zoom Lens

I am a huge fan of primes: If I had infinite resources, I'd buy every L-grade prime between 35mm and 200mm! So, I do not recommend zooms just for the convenience of it.Before I decided on this lens, I have tried Sigma's 35mm and 50mm and Canon's 35mm L and 50mm L - so as you can see, I gave primes a fair chance to find a place in my photo bag.Canon's 50mm 1.2 and this lens (24-70) ended up being the front runners simply because I decided that 35mm was not a good fit for my style of photography, and Sigma's 50mm was underwhelming (although I hear rave reviews about good copies of it, but my copy was just all over the place in terms of focus and sharpness).At 2.8mm, I could see NO difference in image quality between 50mm 1.2 and 24-70 2.8. Neither could my photographer friends, some of whom are also huge prime lovers. This really took me by surprise, given my penchant for primes and the fact that I usually buy into the theory that primes are always better than comparable zooms. The 50mm seemed to render the skin of a doll that I used as my model slightly better (warmer), but the difference was very very subtle. In every other way (bokeh, sharpness, contrast), the pictures looked identical.So, it came down to extra stops of light vs. extra focal lengths. I really struggled with that choice, because frankly, I encounter the situations where I'd like more light than 2.8 or wider angle than 50mm about equally often, so either way, it'd be a loss for me.I almost went with 50mm because I figured, I was going to use 24mm and 35mm very rarely (again, just because of my style), I already have 70mm in another lens, so I was really buying just the 50mm, and then I might as well splurge on 50mm 1.2.What decided me in favor of 24-70 were 2 things:1. I find f/1.2 and f/1.4 very unforgiving, and I avoid them as much as possible: I have 2 cheaper primes and never use 1.4, I always start with 1.8 in low-light situations, because I know I can get a fair amount of keepers with that. So, really, by going with 50mm 1.2, I was only gaining about 1 workable stop (for me), but losing multiple focal lengths.2. I did a photoshoot where I purposefully took ONLY 50mm 1.2 with me, to see if I can pull it off. I did. But at one point, I found myself shooting in the shade that was quite close to the street, so I couldn't step further back without being hit by a car. While I still got good shots, it deprived me of a chance to do full-body shots in that location, and I think they would have looked really good. I really missed having 24-70 in that moment.I also love how (comparatively) light the 24-70mm is. Very manageable (but my other big lens is 70-200 f/4, so I'm used to a little heft around my neck).So, overall, a fantastic lens: very sharp, beautiful bokeh, very nice contrast, light for a zoom. The most popular negative review of this lens made much a-do about IS, so far, I don't miss it at all. I get many many keepers without IS, and if IS means heavier, than I don't want it anyway (not to mention that the IS version will surely be priced accordingly, and this lens is already way above my original budget).

I shoot with a 1DX Mark II and an EOS R and have for that last 5 years. I've always had the EF 16-35 and EF 70-200 and had always longed for the mid range, but found myself able to manage with cropping in on images or shooting in 4K for video (since both of my cameras crop in) to get some extra focal range. I'd be tormented as to whether to get the new RF 24-70 F2.8 or RF28-70 F2, but I really didn't want to get rid of the 1DX because it has worked so well across photo and video for me and I just don't need more than it can do right now. I wanted to invest in the newest lens tech, but was considering getting this EF24-70 just to retain the ability to use it on the 1DX even though I figured the upcoming R1 is on my radar. But then, alas, the price dropped to $1649 and it made it an easier decision. I was surprised that the build-quality of this actually seems superior to even the newest EF 16-35. I don't know why this went on sale, as it's not on sale anywhere else that I can tell. It's a great value at $1649 and I'm happy I pulled the trigger. I was very unconvinced of a huge step up between the EF and RF lenses regarding image quality, so I think this all worked out wonderfully. Excited to put it to daily use in my travels (which are about 6 months out of the year!).

I purchased this lens in 2013 and have waited to get some really good use out of it before posting this review. I use this lens on my Canon 7D and my Canon Mark 5D Mark lll.This is the greatest lens I've ever used... challenged only by the Canon 70-200mm L IS II. It is unbelievably sharp throughout the zoom range. I've taken shots that would rival the most expensive primes. Focusing is almost instantaneous. You target it, and it focuses... . The build is solid and strong. It is not nearly as heavy though as the previous model.This EF lens features a zoom lock which prevents the barrel from zooming out while hanging from the neckstrap and also has full-time manual focusing (like most Canon lenses).The lens diameter is 82mm which is the same as my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM so IF I wanted to use a filter, it would interchange between these two lenses.This is my workhorse lens in my Fashion businesses. I shoot mostly indoors with a Canon 5D Mark lll. This lens works perfectly on this camera. I use the f/2.8 more than any other f/stop on the lens and it gives me great indoor shots that my business requires. Coupled with the Speedlite 600EX-RT they are a team that works well together.The lens has been redesigned and the main result is improved sharpness throughout.The lens is very fast to focus and works well in all lighting circumstances.It is now more water and dust proof.It is built to last.The hood is a short wing designPROS:- Build quality - feels solid but not as heavy as it's predecessor. Zoom and focus rings are a bit snug but they both rotate smoothly.- AF performance - on the 5D Mk III it locks focus quickly. It SEEMS like it's faster than the original which I have only used one time.- Image quality - Sharp and beyond belief. This lens produces super sharp images of high resolution and produces photos as good as any prime lens.Cons:The only con to this lens is no IS. I was hoping that they were going to release an IS version of this lens but in speaking to Canon at the last Professional Photography Imaging Convention, they have no plans at that time to release this lens with IS, mainly because it would add quite a bit of weight to the lens.I won't say cost is a con. You get what you pay for and if you have chosen this lens you are now enjoying the sharpness and quality build of one of the best if not the best lens Canon offers so no conplaint on the price since anyone using this chose to purchase it at that price.I have shot people, landscape, waterscape, fashion, sunsets and sunrises and birds with this lens in RAW and JPEG. It is definitely over the top for quality photos especially on my Canon 5D Mark lll.