This was posted 8 years 1 month 17 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Ted's Cameras on eBay - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM II - $2000 +$9 postage

220
Ted's Cameras on eBay - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM II - $2000 +$9 postage
Go to Deal
Cashback
tm001 on 05/10/2016 - 02:26 ebay.com.au (327 clicks)
Last edited 05/10/2016 - 10:00 by 1 other user
C20TEC

Original 20% off Selected Tech Stores on eBay Deal Post

One of the best lenses you can get for Canon EF mount (EOS/Rebel).
It is not for everyone - but for $2000 it is an excellent price for local stock.

Similar deal for the EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM for $2240
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f2-8-L-IS-II-/1…

I own both of those lenses and they are just beautiful.

Reviews:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/24-70mm-ii.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/70-200mm-f28-is-ii.h…

But - if you are looking at those lenses you have already read many of the reviews :-)

Electrical & Electronics Camera Lens Canon

Related Stores

eBay Australia
eBay Australia
Marketplace
Ted's Cameras
Ted's Cameras

closed Comments

  • Jamesx on 05/10/2016 - 08:43

    for 7D and alike this is great, but for other lower end EOS, ???
    anyone bother to recommend an equivalent camera kit for around $2000 with similar IQ etc?

    • atlas on 05/10/2016 - 08:47

      Tamron 24-70mm is a great alternative

    • jjcf on 05/10/2016 - 08:53
      +5

      This is a terrible option for the 7D, and any crop. Unless you like lugging around a ton of glass you won't use with an awkward focal length and no IS.

      But hey, red ring = totes pro!

      Tammy 24-70 on a FF is a no brainer.

      On a crop, Canon 17-55/Tamron 17-50/Canon 15-85/Canon 18-135, in that order. Or a Sigma 18-35 f1.8 if you know why you want it and know what those numbers mean.

      • Sarge2401 on 05/10/2016 - 09:17

        See I would say get it on a crop. I have D7x00 Nikons and have a tam 24-70 and while they are heavy they are better IQ than all the crop lenses. Nice open f stop, not a bad range - 50-110mm. I used to have an 18-200 till I got this one and even the wife loves it because she can take photos without a flash.
        2 crop sensor cameras and I have mostly FF lenses - 70-200 2.8 24-70 2.8 and 50 1.8.

        Better glass always helps and when you get the itch to go FF you already have the glass.

        • jjcf on 05/10/2016 - 10:05

          they are better IQ than all the crop lenses

          Except that's not even true (especially in the 17-55 case), and you lose IS, and even if there were some kind of actual IQ benefit it would be absolutely marginal and 999/1000 people couldn't tell without pixel peeping 100% corner crops.

          not a bad range - 50-110mm

          I'd probably be hesitant about recommending people spending a thousand bucks on a standard lens with no wide end.

          FWIW, the Tamron 24-70 is what I use on my 6d and it's a lovely lens. And, given my other main camera is a Contax 645, I'm not averse to carrying heavy glass for stupid reasons :) It's just not the right tool for the job for the majority of people.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/10/2016 - 09:50

        Agreed. 24-70/2.8 on a crop body is of limited use. Awkward focal length and unnecessarily large and heavy. Buy a lens to suit your needs now, not for the future (when you have money to invest in FF, money shouldn't be a problem for glass as well).

      • Jamesx on 05/10/2016 - 10:25

        Where does Sigma 17-50 2.8 sits in, the last?

        • jjcf on 05/10/2016 - 10:30

          Almost identical to the Tamron 17-50. Wide open, one is a tiny bit sharper at the long end, and the other one is a tiny bit sharper at the wide end. I forget which is which, and it's probably nothing anyone would ever notice anyways.

        • Jamesx on 05/10/2016 - 10:32

          @jjcf:
          thanks, so considering the price, Sigma/Tamron are better value, Sigma is EX, so slightly better build as said in reviews

        • CVonC on 05/10/2016 - 14:40

          @Jamesx:

          Waaay better value. The sigma is almost a third of the price of the canon and it's cheaper and better IQ than the tamron too. I have it for my 700D and also an 18-35 f1.8 for my D5500.

          Watch Chris Frost's comparison of all 4 :)

  • HozBargains on 05/10/2016 - 08:55
    +2

    Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is the best alternative on crop (non full frame) Canon bodies.

    • CVonC on 05/10/2016 - 14:26

      Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for almost a third of the price!

  • ash2000 on 05/10/2016 - 09:22
    -6

    You do garner a lot of respect from other photographers when you carry an L lens. I don't personally, as I can't afford them!…… but I always notice when others have one mounted.

    • tm001 on 05/10/2016 - 09:49

      I think L lenses are much more affordable nowadays (or maybe it just seem to me). I certainly see them more often.
      I am definitely not just a show-off with L lenses and have only the two I mentioned in my post - And they are really sharp with minimal distortion.

      • ash2000 on 05/10/2016 - 10:00

        Yes, I can attest to the sharpness…. about 10+ years ago I owned a Canon Pro1, essentially a mirrorless camera without a detachable lens, but that lens was "L" lens…..The only time Canon has used an L glass on a fixed body lens. Even looking back on those images on an a tiny 2/3" 8MP CCD, they are amazing sharp images.

    • jjcf on 05/10/2016 - 09:57
      +6

      You do garner a lot of respect from other photographers when you carry an L lens

      No you don't. You just look like every other midlevel accountant snapping photos of another boring sunset or their fat kid on a 5D3. No one cares what lens or camera you use, outside of Whirlpool circlejerks.

      • ash2000 on 05/10/2016 - 10:06
        +1

        midlevel accountant snapping photos of another boring sunset or their fat kid on a 5D3

        OK, no more respect for L users. As an e-mount user, I thought it was the least I could do …. but I stand corrected.

  • imnotarobot on 05/10/2016 - 10:18
    +1

    Just a heads up, I have this lens. It replaced my old series 1.
    Optically it is great but build quality is poor. I suggest you baby this more than you would your other lenses. It doesn't deal with bumps and hits well. Mine has a habit of getting the hood jammed on somehow and can't pull it off without forcing it to the back of the lens. It feels cheap.

    I've used L glass every day for the past 7 years, have gone through dozens of lenses. This is not built to the standards I expect.

  • Jamesx on 05/10/2016 - 10:46

    a bit off topic, I'd prefer some recommendations for a Canon 700D.
    I dont like the twin kit lens much, got a Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX, then a Sigma 50 EX 1.4 (not the Art but really cheap), then came a Sigma 30 f1.4 as a gift! not used yet.
    I used the former two, great for the spring day in a garden.

    Questions:
    1. I like take landscape type photos when travel (like an accountant although I'm not), I'm leaning to have a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens for 700d. Recommendations?
    2. Which one do I keep? 30 or 50 f1.4? I'd like to use it/them for portraits or flowers or smaller art objects. I really like the 50 f1.4 (fast enough, good bokeh). but 30mm is more like a "proper" nifty fifty portrait lense.
    3. I might consider a longer lense for general use (not for birds) to complement the set but really NOT sure what to do. a prime or a zoom? I really like the 50 f1.4, so 85 f1.8 sounds good and relatively cheaper, or 100 f2 or 200 f2? The kit Canon 55-250 IS probably ok for now.

    • tm001 on 05/10/2016 - 17:40

      The EF-S 10-22 is surprisingly good for the price. Definitely a keeper.
      For portraits your 50mm seems to be a better choice giving you on a crop sensor 80mm, almost ideal (70-80mm) for portrait.
      While primes are generally better, I would say stay with a zoom for now until you know what you use the most. Unless you have multiple bodies you may find the constant swapping of the lenses bothering you in general photography. Unless you know what you are into just wait and in a year time you will know what you need.

  • mickeyjuiceman on 05/10/2016 - 17:39

    Terrific lens, but seriously, linking to Ken Rockwell "reviews"? How about ones from a non-idiot?

    • tm001 on 05/10/2016 - 17:49

      OK OK, you got me there. But - First of the google search. Tried to be first one with the deal posted and too late at night, want to go to bed :-)
      But seriously, people who are after those lenses are well aware of their qualities. I don't think there will be many impulse purchases :-)

  • takigama on 05/10/2016 - 17:58
    +1

    I have both this lens and its older 28-70mm variant (stretching back to film days, though its a replacement of its original version so its from 2002 i think). This is one of my go-to lenses and is almost always hanging off the camera in my hand. They are quite an exceptional lens and account for some of my best shots. Cant say i notice much of a diff between the 28-70 and the 24-70 other then the newer one is a little lighter.

    On a side note, using full frame lenses on a cropped camera (which is what i do) has some benefits (see google) and its rare that the 24mm isnt wide enough for me…

    Having said all that, one of my other go-to lenses is a much cheaper Tamron, 90mm macro f/2.8 lens and the good 'ol 50mm ii f/1.8 (very cheap) and the price of the 24-70mm lens is very considerable… The point being is most people arent going to appreciate the diff between the canon lens and a decent similar version in the form of tamron and co.. But given i've hat that original 28-70mm lens for more than 15 years without any issues (so far) theres something to be said for it!

  • Anders on 05/10/2016 - 21:00

    Good deal for AU stock. Would have jumped at this if I didn't already get this lens from Dick "Kogan" Smith for $1940 a few weeks ago on Ebay. That one was import, this one isn't — well worth the extra $70 IMO.

  • UFO on 07/10/2016 - 17:28
    +1

    I've had the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS lens for about 10 years now.
    One of my favourite lenses ever… but damn its a heavy beast.

    I've always wondered why Canon have left this glaring whole in their line up. Been waiting years and years, and have heard rumours… but still no 24-70 F2.8 IS!!!!!!

    That's all you'd need (not really but you know what I mean). Interchangeable filters and a usable range of 24 to 200 with IS in low light. Perfect.

    But alas, I still wait.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join