Canon's Excellent Zoom

A zoom to die for. Yes, I just said "zoom."

On sale just for today (I think): one of the best zoom lenses I've ever used, the outstanding Canon EF 24–70mm ƒ/2.8L II USM.

$300 off.

I've only tried it, never owned it, and have looked at thousands (several!) of images shot with it. Optically it's luscious and seems to have no flaws, a highly pleasing zoom. It matches the distinctive "look" of Canon's famous full-frame CMOS sensors magnificently. Even, dare I say, magically.

Of course it's not exactly an ideal lens—70mm isn't quite long enough, it doesn't have IS (which is a problem because neither do Canon's bodies), and it's heavy. But hey, that's the price you often pay for optical near-perfection; and at this nice discount it's a lot cheaper than lenses that aren't visually as good.

If you've been thinking of moving up, today could be the day.

Several other of Canon's best lenses are on sale today for substantial savings, including the 16–35mm ƒ/2.8L III, the 70–200mm ƒ/2.8L II, and the 100–400mm ƒ/4.5–5.6L II. Just passing the news along.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

A. Dias: "The EF 24–70mm ƒ/2.8L II is indeed as good as any other lens I have seen. A keeper!"

Jeff Buttel: "I normally shoot with a 35mm lens on a full frame body, because that's the way I see. But I've used the 24–70mm for video, and it just looks better, by a wide margin, than any other lens I use for video. My point being that even with a low resolution sensor it really shines. It's also very sharp when shooting high resolution stills."

Geoff Wittig: "Canon's 24–70mm ƒ/2.8L II is indeed a fabulous lens. The previous model had some field curvature issues that limited perceived sharpness, at least the example I owned. Version II is optically flawless; I have yet to find a weakness. Mine is basically welded to an EOS-5DS R body, and when used with careful technique on a solid tripod at low ISO the resolution seems bottomless. Mostly I'm shooting at ƒ/8 to ƒ/16 for the depth of field, but that bright ƒ/2.8 is very kind to my aging vision. I'm not really much of a wide-angle shooter, but Canon's 16–35mm ƒ/2.8L III is also wonderful optically. I could find no soft areas in a 24x36" print from a single frame capture. (The same could not be said of versions I and II, which were pretty mediocre in the corners)."

Comments

[Eolake]

Indeed, not long enough. I like a 28-100mm, but I’ve tried lenses ending at 70mm, and they frustrate the heck out of me. (This sadly includes some versions of the otherwise excellent Sony RX100.)

[Kalli]

70mm isn't long enough and 24mm is too wide :)

But I'm not a zoom buyer, so why should Canon care or even listen to what I say :)

[Tom Burke]

There’s no doubt that when mounted on a tripod and taking pictures of resolution charts, the EF 24-70 may be king of the heap. But several reviewers (e.g. Dustin Abbott) have said that other 24-70 lenses equipped with stabilisation - e.g. the Tamron - can produce better results in real world situations.

Me, I don’t know. I’m still happy with my 24-105 f4 IS.

[Michael Perini]

Re The Canon 24-70 f/2.8. I own the previous version which after a tune-up by Canon is quite good. I recently bought the new one and it is every bit as good as Roger Cicala says it is.
I also bought the new 16-35 and it is just as good.
Canon really makes the 24-70 for event shooters where it is perfect for crowded spaces.
As a general lens 70 mm IS a bit shorter than Ideal. As for IS ,if you need it there is the 24-105 which many people love, or the 24-70 IS, both f/4 lenses
And one of the reasons the 24-70 is s good as it is may be because it doesn't have the extra moveable elements that I.S. requires.

The 16-35 III is new to me, I still have the 17-40 ['f/4 which I really liked. I especially liked having 17mm to 40 which is essentially 'normal' I miss that extra 5 mm but the new lens is a better lens.

No lens is perfect for every situation or every photographer which is why Canon offers so many choices.
But these two new ones are superb.

[Richard Tugwell]

Another point to note is that the lens extends when zooming, and gets considerably longer. The lenshood is attached to the non extending part and hence is enormous.

Great for covering events etc, especially in combination with it's 70-200 sibling. (Now that is a lens you would want if your life depended on iit)

Big bulky heavy kit though. Thats why Im a Fuji shooter now

[Richard Tugwell]

A revision to my previous comment - MkII lenshood attaches to the extending part of the zoom. the zoom construction was revised from the MkI. Makes it less bulky when retracted

[Matt]

Is there a mid range zoom that does not extend?

Seems like the only fixed length zooms are wide and tele.

[Dogman]

Canon has made some pretty nice zooms. Even their lowly digital 18-55mm APS-C kit lenses were sharp and totally useable although I would politely call them "light duty".

Back when my joints were younger, I used their 70-200 f/2.8L and found it superb and reliable through several incidents of rough treatment. That lens came with me from film to digital and performed wonderfully. I used the 17-40 f/4L as my standard lens on several APS-C cameras. The edges of the frame were always a little soft but the overall look was really nice. I sold it when I got the 15-85mm EFS. I liked the IS feature of that lens and it proved to be sharper at the edge of the frame than the 17-40 but it lacked a little in the character department. It's also heavy. I still have it although I don't use my 7D much since getting into Fujis. Fuji turned me into a prime lens user again.

[Bruce Appelbaum]

I have a Canon 24-105 l f/4 IS. For a couple of months I've been thinking of going with a 24-70 -- either the f/4 or f/2.8 version. But then I think:

24-105 already covers the range of the 24-70 and is only a teensy bit heavier

24-70 f/2.8 needs larger filters than I have and will add to the cost

I can put the money for either into rebuilding the deck (already started)

I am doing my best to resist GAS. Really.

[Steve Justad]

Interestingly, Canon makes a series of F4 lenses to match their F2.8 zooms. The 24-70/4 L IS is optically ever bit as good as the 2.8 Mark II lens. I own it and use it on a 5DS. It is the equal of that 50 MP sensor.

I recently bought the 16-35/4 L IS lens. It also is the equal of the 5DS sensor.

Both lenses are enough more compact and lighter to be appreciated if one is carrying them in the mountains or similar rough ground.

[Olly]

I have one, and feel quite ambivalent about it. If I didn't need it for my professional work, I wouldn't own it.

I also wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wasn't shooting events or reportage on a regular basis. It's heavy, bulky, and a single point of failure. I envy folks who can do their work with a nice set of primes.

The pictures are beautiful, though. I use it for *everything*.