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

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

List Price: $1,899.00
Price: $1,699.00 Details

Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com

52 new or used available from $1,430.00

Average customer review:
(4.5 stars, based on 230 reviews)

Product Details

  • Size: NA
  • Color: black
  • Brand: Canon
  • Model: 5175B002
  • Fabric type: NA
  • Dimensions: 3.50" h x 3.50" w x 4.45" l, 1.77 pounds
  • Display size: 1

Features

  • 24-70mm focal length, 38.4-112mm equivalent focal length on Canon APS-C cameras
  • F2.8 constant maximum aperture; F22 minimum, Ring-type ultrasonic-type AF motor with full-time manual focusing
  • 82mm filters, Closest Focusing Distance: 0.38m/1.25 ft.
  • Image Stabilization : No
  • Purchase this product between May 1, 2016 and July 30, 2016 and get 13 months of free damage protection from Canon. The product must be registered within 30 days of the purchase date to be eligible.

Ring USM, high-speed CPU, and image ptimized AF algorithms for fast auto focusing. Optimized lens coatings for exceptional color balance and minimal ghosting, florine coating on front and rear lens surfaces to reduce smears and fingerprints. New optical design utilizes 1 Super UD lens element and 2 UD lens elements to minimize chromatic aberration in the outer area at wide- angle; as well as eliminates color blurring around the edges of the subject, for images with high resolution and contrast. Combines 2 types of aspherical lenses to reduce spherical aberration, and achieve high image quality across the entire screen area and throughout the full zoom range. Zoom lock lever locks the zoom position at the wide end for safe transporting


Customer Reviews

Most helpful customer reviews

162 of 164 people found the following review helpful.
5A very special lens
By Arun H.
Review originally written in April 2014, updated March 2017.

This is just an incredible lens that, provided you can afford it, will deliver in spectacular fashion.

My first standard range zoom for full frame was the 24-105 f/4L IS. I found myself using it only when I absolutely had to. Generally, the photographs taken with it lacked sharpness, contrast and depth of color. For any situation that mattered, I ended up using primes - the 35L, 35 f/2 IS, 135L, or the 50/1.4.

All this changed when I rented this lens in December 2013 for a trip to Utah. Looking at the photographs after my trip, I was stunned by the sharpness and color rendition in the landscapes captured with this lens. I could not see any meaningful difference between the shots taken with this lens and those with the 135L or the 35 f/2 IS which I had also taken with me. Here at last was a standard range lens that offered the convenience of a zoom with little or no sacrifice in image quality compared to a prime. Very quickly, my 24-105 and a couple other lenses went on sale to finance the purchase of this lens.

Since my purchase, I have used this lens for portraits, low light events, and landscapes, and it has never failed to deliver. Focusing, even at f/2.8 and in AI Servo mode is quick, accurate, and decisive. Stopped down when used for landscape photography, it shows excellent corner to corner sharpness - for a recent project, I shot identical photographs with this and the 35mm f/2 IS and could not, even at 100% magnification, see any difference in sharpness, color, and contrast between the two. The lower weight compared to the old version, new hood design and center pinch cap are all very nice features which add to the pleasure of using this lens. I continue to use the 35mm when I need the extra stop or IS - such as for hand held late evening street shots - or just some thing small and light; and of course nothing I have shot with can approach the pure magic of portraits taken with the 135L. The bulk of the time though, this and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II are the lenses I reach for. Both are lenses that, apart from maximum aperture, can mix it up with the best primes I have shot with. Both focus faster and more accurately than primes I've used (but see addendum).

If, like me, you do not make money from photography, it is rational to ask whether a lens like this is worth it, and I will offer this perspective. This lens, much like its equally accomplished big brother, ranks among a select few that you can mount on your camera and walk into practically any situation with complete confidence that you will return with great pictures. If you love photography as I do, if getting the shot matters to you, that is worth the price of purchase.

Image Notes: The first photograph is of the core and spiral arm of the Milky Way taken from the Paradise visitor center at Mt. Rainier National Park in Washington. The second one is a pre-dawn shot of Mt Rainier from Reflection Lakes and the third approaching Seattle on the Bainbridge Ferry. The last one, of a fall morning was taken with a 5D Mark IV, all others with a Mark III. The excellent corner to corner sharpness and vibrant natural colors make this lens a great choice for landscape photography.

Addendum: The one lens in this range I've used recently that does out resolve this is the new 35mm f/1.4L II. That wonderfully sharp lens resolves visibly more detail in the landscape photos I've taken with my 5D Mark IV and focuses just as quickly and accurately as this zoom. If you're looking for absolute sharpness, and can make do with a 35mm focal length, that is the lens to use. For me, this 24-70 is plenty sharp, particularly at its wide end where I use it a lot, and I value the versatility more than the increase in sharpness and two stop advantage the new 35mm has. For specific applications such as astrophotography, this calculus will change, but for me, those needs are infrequent enough to where renting the 35mm when I need it makes more sense. Your needs could well lead you to a different choice.

If you have a question that I have not covered in the review, or if you notice something inaccurate in what I've written, please leave a comment. I will try and answer to the best of my ability. If you found this or any other review published here helpful, please take a moment to click "Yes". This encourages us to continue to contribute and also goes towards making the overall rating of this lens more representative. Thank you for reading!

22 of 22 people found the following review helpful.
4This thing is stupid heavy. After a weekend just shooting my family ...
By Noah Gallagher
Without question, without exception-freakishly sharp from wide open to stopped all the way down. I bought this out of frustration with the 24-105 f/4 IS (kit), which seems to change focal lengths at will and delivered inconsistent IQ. The 24-70 has significantly less barrel distortion at its widest and throughout. Other than the insane, but justifiable, price, there are two drawbacks:
1. The weight and size. This thing is stupid heavy. After a weekend just shooting my family and a friend's kid's birthday party, my hand and wrist were cramped and sore. Between that and the conspicuousness of this behemoth, I find myself reaching for my 50mm f/1.4. I go back to the 24-70 because the 50 is not quite as sharp at f.2.8 (enough to notice on the LCD).
2. I find myself banging into the 70mm, wishing I had a bit more reach.

95 of 102 people found the following review helpful.
5If I could only have 1 lens, this would be the one.
By Tim Z.
I Upgraded from the first version and have noticed a difference (slightly) in several areas. Faster, sharper and quieter. The first version was and is a great lens. And with most electronics these days, if the quality was good when it came out, it is still good today, there just is a product on the market that is better. So the big question that most ask is "is it worth the upgrade" (expense). Well for me it was. Considering I was able to sell my v1 and add a bit more money to that amount to get the v2. I also did have to buy a couple new 82 mm filters. I always keep a quality filter on my glass (this is something that some people just don't agree with). Their argument (and it is a good argument with valid considerations) goes something like this - why would you spend thousands of dollars on glass and then put a lesser or cheap plain of glass in front of it. I totally agree with that conceptually. However, I would rather have the protection (insurance) than be a purist trying to find less clarity in an image because it had a filter on the lens. In theory they are correct. In the real world, you'll never see the difference. So I spend more good money to buy the best filters I can get to go along with that expensive lens. I had to buy a UV filter and a Clear filter. Funny, I forget to change them out for different scenes and never see it in post. And in today's images, we use tons of Photoshop tricks and Plug-ins to create an entirely different image than the photo we started with, so in my opinion, putting a filter on the front is a moot issue.

If I could only have 1 lens, this would be the one. It is the lens I attach to my camera the most often.

If you are on a budget and don't own any version of this lens, then perhaps you should just get the version 1. Both are excellent lenses.

Also, I have seen reviews on the Tamron 24-70 VC, and they are really really close cousins with the Tamron adding a stabilizer and coming in significantly lower in price.

I write reviews because I want to help other people make decisions. I do not write reviews of items that I have personally not used.

[...]. Thank you. <><

See all 230 customer reviews...