Canon 24-70 f2.8 Lenses: I’ve been told by a number of photographers that one indispensable lens is the Canon 24-70mm f2.8. I’ve been shopping around and no one is selling these for...

mrchunko

I’ve been told by a number of photographers that one indispensable lens is the Canon 24-70mm f2.8. I’ve been shopping around and no one is selling these for very much under $1699.00 which to me is a considerable investment. How necessary and versatile is this particular lens? I’m up for any investment that betters my finished images. Thoughts, anyone?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You need the v II, just to clarify.

The lens is unique, but 'need' depends on your shooting style. The lens is head and shoulders superior to the 24-105L II, but the longer zoom is both IS-enabled and a longer focal length. Still, put the images side by side, and you'll always take those from the 24-70.

Lots of people have great L primes at 24, 35, and 50mm. The 24-70L II is everywhere as good, saving you $1200+ for each of these primes all in just one lens. Now, does it seem like a bargain?

Farm Boy Loc: Mendota Illinois

I bought used from KEH for around $800 excellent shape.

Farm Boy Loc: Mendota Illinois

I bought used from KEH for around $800 excellent shape. mine is prime but not LII

MountainDave

I presume you are asking about version II. I've had mine for 2.5 years and it is like a trusted friend. The AF is fast and extremely accurate. Color rendition is tops. It just makes beautiful images. Often overlooked is the fact it is built like a tank. I've taken mine on countless hikes, climbs, backpacks, treks and foreign trips. Mountains, seashores, deserts, rain forests, snow or rain, it just keeps working. Lack of IS is not really a factor in this focal length range. It is expensive but I expect to have it many more years. I used to own the 24-105 II and agree with CHG CANON. It's not in the same league and unless you need a bigger aperture, there's not much reason to buy primes in this range.

Cookie223 Loc: New Jersey

Check Roberts Camera (Used Photo Pro) they also have an excellent reputation, and you might find a bargain.
Good luck

JimRPhoto Loc: Raleigh NC

This was the lens I bought when I upgraded to the Canon 5Dii five or so years ago, and both were used but almost new from my local camera store. This lens does not come off the body often, and it really is a very versatile lens. Mine does not have the IS, so I can’t comment on the newer model. But in any event, you can probably find a used one in good condition for far less that the amount you mentioned. Good luck with your decision. JimR

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

mrchunko wrote:

I’ve been told by a number of photographers that one indispensable lens is the Canon 24-70mm f2.8. I’ve been shopping around and no one is selling these for very much under $1699.00 which to me is a considerable investment. How necessary and versatile is this particular lens? I’m up for any investment that betters my finished images. Thoughts, anyone?

Bite the bullet and buy it. You may be able to save a few bucks if you get a refurb from Canon. If I remember correctly that's where I got mine. I have the holy trinity of lenses and whenever I go shooting I make sure that lens is in my bag. It's my go-to lens. Of course it's great to have the others, but sometimes I don't know what to bring and I don't want to carry a lot of stuff or leave the others in my car where it might get broken into. So I will almost always choose the 24-70.....

bleirer

mrchunko wrote:

I’ve been told by a number of photographers that one indispensable lens is the Canon 24-70mm f2.8. I’ve been shopping around and no one is selling these for very much under $1699.00 which to me is a considerable investment. How necessary and versatile is this particular lens? I’m up for any investment that betters my finished images. Thoughts, anyone?

I've learned to trust this reviewer over the years, and he compares it to the competition here. I've not used it so no personal experience to share. Looks like the lack of IS is the only drawback. If that is a must, then the 24-70 f4 IS looks good as well as the 24-105, but on the test images both seem less sharp.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=823&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

mrchunko wrote:

I’ve been told by a number of photographers that one indispensable lens is the Canon 24-70mm f2.8. I’ve been shopping around and no one is selling these for very much under $1699.00 which to me is a considerable investment. How necessary and versatile is this particular lens? I’m up for any investment that betters my finished images. Thoughts, anyone?

You're paying for the F/2.8. Just how much use with your style of photography demands the 2.8.

ELNikkor

How long before sales of your photos from the moderately improved images pays for the extra f-stop?

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

So people don't like them but consider Tamron. I have both the 24-70 2.8 G2 and 70-200 2.8 G2 and they're both great. I have at times taken advantage of the 2.8 on the 24-70.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I have had the lens for 4 years and it is worth the money if you shoot a lot at f/2.8 and in that focal length. For my shooting my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II gets much more use however...plus I can use it with the Canon Extenders too.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

I am not comparing the Canon to my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ART but you might want to. It is now my primary lens and love the sharpness and rapid focus. Even if the Canon is sharper on bench tests, that extra sharpness might not justify the extra dollars and be noticeable in regular shooting. You have to decide for yourself. Get both lenses and test them side-by-side. As for f/2.8, I do use it and would not buy a lens without the extra speed. As with any new lens, make sure to check the microfocus adjustment with something like the Reikan FoCal or send it back to the manufacturer with the body.

As starlifter writes, you might also want to consider Tamron. But Sigma and Tamron rival Canon and Nikon.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

I bought mine thru Greentoe. I got my canon 2.8L 24-70 ll for 1500.00. can't hurt to try. unless that too is high for you as well.

mrchunko wrote:

I’ve been told by a number of photographers that one indispensable lens is the Canon 24-70mm f2.8. I’ve been shopping around and no one is selling these for very much under $1699.00 which to me is a considerable investment. How necessary and versatile is this particular lens? I’m up for any investment that betters my finished images. Thoughts, anyone?