see also:

• Canon EF lenses
• Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lenses

• the pro standard zoom lens

• lighter, shorter, more plasticky than version I but much better optically, much nicer sunstars, better weathersealing, and much more expensive

• 24-105mm f/2.8
• 16 elements in 13 groups incl. 2 ASPH and 1 Super-UD and 2 UD
• Optimized Super Spectra Coating
• fluorine coatings on front and rear elements to help repel fingerprints
• 82mm plastic filter thread
• internal focus
• moisture seal at mount ?weathersealing
• close focus to 0.38m giving 1:4.76 (0.21x) macro
• NOT compatible with TC's
• 9 rounded blades
• 88.5mm x 113mm long
• 805g (28.4 oz)
• $US1899

• http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-70mm-ii.htm
• https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm
  • Unpleasant vignetting in the 50-70mm region at F2.8
  • Noticeably lower image quality at close focus distances
• http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/canon/ef-24-70mm-f2.8l-ii-usm/review/
• http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff
  • 2.8% barrel distortion at 24mm, zero at 40mm, 1.3% pincushion at 70mm
  • 1.8EV vignetting at 24mm f/2.8
  • sharpest at f/5.6
  • “busy” bokeh and foreground bokeh is not harmonious
  • the Tamron AF SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di USD VC is better value and you get IS

• produced 2002-2012 and replaces the earlier EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L that was introduced in 1993

• 24-105mm f/2.8
• 16 elements in 13 groups incl. 2 ASPH and 1 UD
• 77mm filter
• internal focus
• moisture seal at mount
• close focus to 0.38m giving 1:3.45 macro
• NOT compatible with TC's
• 8 rounded blades
• 83.2mm x 123.3mm long
• 950g (33.5 oz)
• $US1400

• http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-70mm.htm
  • great optically, ergonomically and mechanically BUT big, heavy and expensive
  • much less distortion than the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lenses
  • nice bokeh
  • some focus breathing at 70mm
  • mild CA at 24mm minimal at longer focal lengths
• http://lenstests.com/reviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f2.8l-usm
• Photozone.de:
  • a bit of a nightmare for us here at photozone. We experienced centering defects in several tested samples and up to a degree where we almost considered it to be enough