Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Version 1 vs Version 2

[LetTheRightLensIn]

i dont know if the said added sharpness around the corner is a huge must with only 2 more elements. i mean, V1 is $1300 and the new revised one is $2300. is it really worth it?! if it had an amazing improvement like the 70-200 then maybe, but with the lack of such jump.. i duno.

It not only has an improvement like 70-200 2.8 IS I to II but a much, MUCH larger one than that, judging by the MTF charts.

[CatfishSoupFTW]

i dont know if the said added sharpness around the corner is a huge must with only 2 more elements. i mean, V1 is $1300 and the new revised one is $2300. is it really worth it?! if it had an amazing improvement like the 70-200 then maybe, but with the lack of such jump.. i duno.

It not only has an improvement like 70-200 2.8 IS I to II but a much, MUCH larger one than that, judging by the MTF charts.

oh wow. did not notice that giant improvement. but i mean, i want to see sample images or try them out side by side before I would consider it. it doesnt fall apart like v1, actually on paper, it seems pretty amazing. but how noticeable will it be? and couldnt post correct it?

[ruffrider]

Wow, that looks huge! I own version 1, and it's fine, but it's not really as sharp as I'd like at 2.8. Looks like they bumped the sharpness a fair bit!

bumped the sharpness where?
just in the center of the frame as far as i can see,and that area aint even covering the crop sensor fine enough ,wide open it´s ok till 4mm (8mm on a 24mm sensor). and the F8  measurment done at 10Lpmm is a joke when they make sensors with resolution with 100Lpmm and above.
i bet it´s just the same old crap (unless u get a good copy), sharp in the middle and blur like hell all around.
i think i´ll just wait for the tamron, if it´s anything like the 17-50 then it´ll be the best choice for both canon and nikon shooters.

by the way, the bokeh seems not that good as the old one.

by the way anyone who dont know how to read `Canon´s ´ MTF . here it is.
Thick black is 10 lp/mm @ maximum aperture (wide open)
Thick blue is 10 lp/mm @ f/8
Thin black is 30 lp/mm @ maximum aperture
Thin blue is 30 lp/mm @ f/8

see, they dont even show you atleast a 50 Lpmm chart, why? it´ll show you how sharp it really is in real world shooting.

[ruffrider]

i dont know if the said added sharpness around the corner is a huge must with only 2 more elements. i mean, V1 is $1300 and the new revised one is $2300. is it really worth it?! if it had an amazing improvement like the 70-200 then maybe, but with the lack of such jump.. i duno.

It not only has an improvement like 70-200 2.8 IS I to II but a much, MUCH larger one than that, judging by the MTF charts.

oh wow. did not notice that giant improvement. but i mean, i want to see sample images or try them out side by side before I would consider it. it doesnt fall apart like v1, actually on paper, it seems pretty amazing. but how noticeable will it be? and couldnt post correct it?

the giant improvement you noticed is unfortunately only in the center of the frame which aint even enough to cover 70% of the crop sensor, let alone the FF.
the bad news is the sharpness fall off is too steep that it will be even more annoying to see a sharper center and mushy borders compared to the older version ,which i got one acceptably sharp after trying 3 of them.

incase you dont know how to interpret canons chart

Thick black is 10 lp/mm @ maximum aperture (wide open)
Thick blue is 10 lp/mm @ f/8
Thin black is 30 lp/mm @ maximum aperture
Thin blue is 30 lp/mm @ f/8

[CatfishSoupFTW]

So, between the two lenses, they are still a good set of lenses but not good enough for many? i mean, so many people have used V1 so many times and its such a well known lens with good images. I mean, its still a great lens. both of em. are we all just being too picky with JUST the charts?

[kubelik]

I've posted this elsewhere, but looking at the MTF charts, and knowing a ton of people will now be seeking used Mark I's out there, I may very well trade up for the Mark II.  I especially think that if this is your bread-and-butter lens, it's definitely worth having the newer version.  the old one is great but I wouldn't say prime-rivaling, but the new certainly looks like it could really negate the need for f/2.8 primes in that focal range, like ... ever.

[D_Rochat]

I've posted this elsewhere, but looking at the MTF charts, and knowing a ton of people will now be seeking used Mark I's out there, I may very well trade up for the Mark II.  I especially think that if this is your bread-and-butter lens, it's definitely worth having the newer version.  the old one is great but I wouldn't say prime-rivaling, but the new certainly looks like it could really negate the need for f/2.8 primes in that focal range, like ... ever.

Agreed. If the 24-70L is your main lens and it pays the bills, it's worth it to shell out $2300. I still think it's a tad high. I think they put it just out of reach for anyone who's not shooting weddings and events or even PJ's. $2000 would have been more reasonable and I don't think it will be long before you see it come down.

This could be a good thing though. For those of us who have the version I, it will be a matter of time for the used prices to go up and get you closer to an upgrade itf you feel it's necessary.

[kubelik]

I've posted this elsewhere, but looking at the MTF charts, and knowing a ton of people will now be seeking used Mark I's out there, I may very well trade up for the Mark II.  I especially think that if this is your bread-and-butter lens, it's definitely worth having the newer version.  the old one is great but I wouldn't say prime-rivaling, but the new certainly looks like it could really negate the need for f/2.8 primes in that focal range, like ... ever.

Agreed. If the 24-70L is your main lens and it pays the bills, it's worth it to shell out $2300. I still think it's a tad high. I think they put it just out of reach for anyone who's not shooting weddings and events or even PJ's. $200 would have been more reasonable and I don't think it will be long before you see it come down.

This could be a good thing though. For those of us who have the version I, it will be a matter of time for the used prices to go up and get you closer to an upgrade itf you feel it's necessary.

yep.  that, and that fact that it will probably carry rebates on it when Canon drops more bodies later this year, means it's actually not too far off the mark.

still can't tell you how much I hate the new IS prime pricing, though.

[CatfishSoupFTW]

you think the price will drop if they make it a kit set up? with maybe the 5DmrkIII/X ? the kit before was with the 16-35 wasnt it?

[Dianoda]

I've posted this elsewhere, but looking at the MTF charts, and knowing a ton of people will now be seeking used Mark I's out there, I may very well trade up for the Mark II.  I especially think that if this is your bread-and-butter lens, it's definitely worth having the newer version.  the old one is great but I wouldn't say prime-rivaling, but the new certainly looks like it could really negate the need for f/2.8 primes in that focal range, like ... ever.

Yeah, except there will probably still be plenty of distortion at either end of the zoom, and primes tend to have more appealing bokeh.  I expect the use of Canon's most recent coatings to minimize flare.

Probably the biggest unknown is something I haven't read anything about yet:  has there been any discussion regarding the II fixing the field curvature present in ver. 1?

[KyleSTL]

I have resized the four MTF graphs onto a single picture.  Much easier to read this way.  Looks like the new one is definitely sharper.

[CatfishSoupFTW]

I have resized the four MTF graphs onto a single picture.  Much easier to read this way.  Looks like the new one is definitely sharper.

but how noticeable would you say these would look like side by side? when it would come to sharpness? just by reading these charts? i guess we may just have to wait for hands on reviews.:S