krypto

Thinking of buying this lens for an all around lens and wondering if any has it and there options on it. I have a canon 80D.
Thanks in advance

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Do you mean the older discontinued model, or the industry-defining Canon flagship current series II - EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM ?

The older / original lens was / is a fine lens. It's just that the newer / current model defines the best of what Canon has to offer in a general purpose zoom lens, as sharp at f/2.8 and any aperture, and as sharp as the several L-series primes that fall within the 24-70mm zoom range.

Don't get too excited about the 'macro' designation that existed for the older 24-70L, but wasn't included in the series II. The original has a minimum focus distance (MFD) of about 15-inches, but not 1:1 magnification.

Consider too the f/4 version that is also IS-enabled. For your needs, is the narrow f/2.8 depth of field more important than the IS-support for low-light and slower shutter speeds? The IS-version is extremely sharp, just not as artistic at an f/4 aperture.

Finally, none of these full-frame lenses deliver the 'wide' 24mm in a 1.6x cropped sensor. Any of the 24-70L models is a lot of money to spend for a lens that is an effective 38mm lens on your EOS 80D. You'd be better served with a wider EF-S lenses or maybe the 16-35 f/4L IS (or the f/2.8 versions).

The 17-40 f/4L is a great value in L-series lenses for a full-frame lens for a cropped sensor, where you don't miss the IS support in good light for a relatively lightweight zoom. The 17-40 provides more focal length than the otherwise excellent and IS-enabled EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS.

krypto

Thank you very much. Looking for a very good lens mainly for a little of everything. But also a lot of our new grandson

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'd look at the EFS 18-135 as an EOS 80D 'everything' lens. The 50 f/1.8 is a good everything lens too for an effective 75mm ish reach. Canon also has IS-enabled primes at 24 / 28 / 35mm.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I have the original 24-70 and I think it’s a great lens. Don’t even think about it as a macro lens. After reading CHG-CANON’S review I might buy the upgrade.
I also have the 17-40 and it is a heck of a sharp lens. If I chose one of them to go with a crop sensor I would go with the 17-40.

ELNikkor

You don't need that big, heavy, expensive 24-70 FF lens for photos your new grandson. The afore-mentioned 17-40 L is made for your 80D, costs half as much, weighs only a pound, and focuses down to less than a foot. Put the $1K you will save by buying the 17-40 into an investment for your grandson's college. The 18-135 also weighs a pound, costs half as much as the 17-40, focuses to 1.5 feet, and has more than 3x the reach of the 17-40.

krypto

Thank you for the info. Appreciate the response

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First of all, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L lenses are superb. There have been two versions of it and both are excellent. They're a premium, uncompromising "standard zoom". Built for durability and with extra sealing for weather resistance. Both use fast USM focus drive. It was common for the first version of the lens to need occasional re-calibration. It seemed to get out of adjustment over time, probably due to wear on some of the moving parts. The II version seemed to be beefed up a bit and more resistant to losing calibration. The original version uses 77mm filters, while the "II" uses 82mm (which cost a lot more). As Canon L-series lenses, they typically come with a lens hood.

Both are fairly big, rather heavy and pretty expensive.

Neither has image stabilization (IS).

And neither are "macro" or anywhere close to it. The best the II can do is about 0.21X magnification... approx. 1/5 life size.

Frankly, for use on a crop sensor camera like your 80D, there are better choices...

#1. Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. If you absolutely need an f/2.8 aperture, this is the best choice for your camera. While this lens doesn't have the build or sealing of an L-series, it's not bad (call it Canon "mid grade" build) and, most importantly, it rivals the L-series lenses for image quality. It also is a little smaller and slightly lighter... has equally quick and quiet USM autofocus... and it has the IS those L-series lenses lack! Not to mention it costs $1000 LESS than the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II! $880 for the 17-55mm versus $1900 for the 24-70mm II! Since it's not an L, the EF-S 17-55mm doesn't come with a lens hood... figure on spending up to $35 for an EW-83J (there are cheaper 3rd party clones). 77mm filter threads.

#2. Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is the more premium "kit" lens that's fitted to Canon's better APS-C cameras (EF-S 18-55mm lenses are the cheaper kit lenses). This "USM" version is the latest and greatest of the three EF-S 18-135s. Image quality is quite good. It's actually optically the same as the earlier STM version, but has USM focus drive that Canon claims is 2X to 4X faster focusing. If shooting video, note that this lens is uniquely able to use a Canon PZ-E1 Power Zoom module. When bought in kit with a camera, this lens costs $400... but it costs $600 when bought separately. It also doesn't come with the matched EW-73D hood, so figure another $35 or less for that. 67mm filter threads.

#3. Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.5 IS USM is another excellent alternative. If you don't need f/2.8 and don't plan to buy and carry an ultrawide (like the 10-18mm or 10-22mm), this lens can be a very good choice. Yes, there is a noticeable difference between 15mm and 17 or 18mm! The image quality is quite good, though probably somewhere in between the 18-135mm and 17-55mm. But we're splitting hairs here... between very good (18-135mm), very very good (15-85mm) and very very very good (17-55mm and 24-70mm). This lens sells for $800 and the separate EW-78E hood adds another $35. 72mm filter threads.

If you really have your heart set on a 24-70mm, you might want to check out the Sigma "Art" and Tamron "G2"... both of which get good reviews and both of which offer in-lens image stabilization. These 3rd party lenses are considerably less expensive than the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. The Tamron weighs a little more than the Canon lens.... while the Sigma is the heftiest of the bunch (not unusual for Sigma).
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Canon_EF_24-70mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Lens_vs_Sigma_24-70mm_f_2.8_DG_OS_HSM_Art_Lens_for_Canon_EF_vs_Tamron_SP_24-70mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_G2_Lens_for_Canon_EF_vs_Canon_EF-S_17-55mm_f_2.8_IS_USM_Lens/BHitems/843008-USA_1321309-REG_1345957-REG_425812-USA

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/ has very detailed reviews of all these lenses, as well as means of comparing lens image quality and other factors.

EDIT: Some have recommended the old design EF 17-40mm f/4L lens. I don't agree. In my opinion, that would be a poor choice. On full frame it has a little bit lower image quality than any of the above, lacks image stabilization, and is a full stop slower than the f/2.8 lenses. It's a "budget" L-series. Even so, when bought new it costs almost the same as the EF-S 17-55mm or the EF-S 15-85mm, either of which are superior lenses in many ways. Using the full frame capable EF 17-40mm on an APS-C camera, you "crop away" the weaker parts of the lens' image area (see: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2)... But you still end up spending just as much for a lens that has less focal length range, is up to a stop slower and lacks image stabilization.

For a lot of reasons the 17-40mm doesn't make sense for your camera and purposes! The same or similar problems make all the EF 16-35mm L lenses unlikely candidates, too. Yes, they certainly can be used on an 80D.... but there are better choices at the same or lower cost among the EF-S lenses.

MJPerini

I own most of the lenses mentioned here and both FF & APS-c Canons.
I originally bought the 17-40 f/4 for my 40D because I planned to move to FF.
The one I have is a spectacular lens, and I highly recommend it. A true Bargain in an L lens.
My Wife uses the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S lens on a 7D and it is also very good.
When I moved to a 1Ds mk III I added the 24-70 f/2.8 L which was not as sharp as the 17-40. I sent it back to Canon and they made it substantially better. When I added 2 5D IV's I added the new 24-70 II and the 16 -35 f/2.8 III. Those two lenses are the sharpest, best rendering Zoom lenses I have ever owned. Beautifully rectilinear and dead sharp. They are shockingly good.
For your 80D I would try the 17-40. (a very useable 28-64 on an 80D)

flathead27ford Loc: Colorado, North of Greeley

All great comments in this post. That's what I love about this community.

pdsilen Loc: Roswell, New Mexico

Also consider the EFS 18-200. For an all purpose walk around lens its great. It takes sharp clear photos and its versitile.