Dynamics5

I believe there’s about $1000 difference between the II lens and the older one (not a II). Any idea what the big difference is in picture quality and if it is worth the price difference?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I didn't shoot the original 24-70 f/2.8L, rather jumping from the still older 28-70 f/2.8L. The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM is the real deal. It has a distinctly sharper look to the other zoom options in this range, that is any of the 24-105 zooms and the f/4L version. Many people will tell you it's as sharp as the various L-series primes in the range. I wouldn't go that far, but it is considered Canon's sharpest zoom.

The 82mm filter size is a pain as I can't share filters with other lenses. They're more expensive too.

Consider a used copy is one thought. Consider the f/4 and IS enabled version if f/2.8 isn't a required need. All the other lenses are all excellent and in no way lacking, it's just that the v II version can be distinguished from the rest of the EF zoom lens portfolio.

MountainDave

I was never happy with the 24-105 II that came with my 5D IV so I spent a lot of time researching all the alternatives. There was nothing but superlatives from the pros about the 24-70 vII. Despite reservations about the lack of IS, I ordered one. Right from the first few shots, the difference was dramatic vs the 24-105. Besides being much sharper, it also renders beautiful colors and the AF performance is among the best. It's been my workhorse for a few years now. Often overlooked is the fact it is built like a tank. I take mine climbing, hiking, backpacking and on several international trips. It's been banged around some and just keeps working.

philo Loc: philo, ca

the 24-70 is my go to lens. i don't use the 24-105 very much.

JimRPhoto Loc: Raleigh NC

Hello Everyone. Regarding the 24-70 F2F.8L lens, my local camera store owner a few years back steered me to this as opposed to the L lens with longer reach. He was impressed by image quality. The thing he alerted me to, however, is that this one does hot have image stabilization as does the II version. But the price he offered me for this L lens, used, made it an easy choice and one I am very satisfied with. Good luck with your decision! JimR

al lehman Loc: San jose, ca.

I use my canon 24-70 f/2.8 often. It's an awesome lens and well worth the added cost. I also use it on my Canon c200b Video camera and the resolution is through the roof. You won't regret having it in your bag.

Dynamics5

How would the 24-70 f2.8 stack up against the 50mm f1.4 lens?

al lehman Loc: San jose, ca.

I like the idea of having 50mm of flexibility vs a fixed focal range. That's because I shoot lots of wildlife that move and flexibility works in my favor. I'm sure the 1.4 works great in low light situations.

williejoha

I am shooting the 24-70 f2.8 vII. It’s as good as it gets. I love that lens as my walk around.
WJH

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I don't have the 50 f/1.4, but would comment with the following comparisons I do have experience. The wider apertures of the primes can make a difference. I shoot a lot with all these primes at f/2 where the background blur and sharpness at 1-stop wider (or more) makes a difference to the prime's favor for the comparison.

EF 24 f/1.4L II - sharper at 24 with less distortion then the 24-70 zoom
EF 35 f/1.4L - no noticeable difference, just the 1-stop and wider options with this original 35L prime
EF 50 f/1.2L - I find this lens a bit hard to work with wider than f/2, but it's a dream at all apertures, the lenses are a toss up at common apertures
EF 50 f/1.8 - I have the original 1987 version of this lens I still shoot a lot. The 24-70 is sharper, but you still have the f/1.8 - f/2.4 benefits of this low cost prime.