24-70 2.8 L II - any images/first impressions online?

[ruuneos]

You missed the most important change, namely the assumed increased sharpness and contrast. For now all we have to go on are MTF charts, but it's a bit silly not mentioning this expected change at all. It's pretty much the only reason why anyone would want this lens (and many people do).

Well, I just didn't add those because it's kind of obvious they changed too.

[Bosman]

There aren't big difference between old and new versions:

- MK2 9 blade diaphragm, MK1 have 8
- MK2 18 elements in 13 gropus, MK1 16 in 13.
- MK2 82mm filter, MK1 77mm
- MK2 Inner focusing with USM, MK1 front focusing method
- MK2 805g, MK1 950g

So is $1000 worth to cover those changes

After having five of the old version, I gave up on them.  They were ok, but not so good that I'd keep one.  They also look better on full frame, which tends to be more forgiving of lens flaws.
 
Lens reviewers have had much the same experience, some having had to test multiple lenses in order to find one that was even close to the Canon mtf curves.  Even then, the design itself  results in excessive curvature of field, which means that, at wide apertures, a flat wall will only be in focus at the edges or the center, but not both.  They are better at f/8, but did you pay all that money to get a lens that you had to use at f/8 to hide the curvature of field in depth of field? 
 
The new one better solve those issues, considering the price.

Yeah that is what has held me back from buying a 24-70mkI coz you get some people saying that it's a 'perfect' walk-about lens and has great focal length, etc but then i hear stories from those like you who dislike the lens coz they cannot find a good copy. With back focussing issues and what have you. I would like to own a 24-70 2.8 lens but cant justify the almost not almost, it is a rip off price point, especially considering it doesnt have IS. if it had IS I would def consider pre-ordering one. If not buying it a few months after its released. Is it worth that extra $1000? canon think so and believe it doesnt need IS even when a lot of photogs in the community wanted IS in the mkii.


EDIT: dunno how or why but this post was posted before i finished :S

Haha, ok, been using the 24-70 2.8l for 5 yrs and its is an incredible lens most all Canon Explorers have this lens, Most wedding photogs have this lens. We never needed IS. Especially when isos are sick these days...The lens of the last 2yrs has been flogged thousands of times in my sports photog company too and it just is friggen fast! It prob focusses faster than my 70-200 2.8l II, no kidding. bad copies are prob out there but many times its a bad sensor alignment in which case many probs exist. Ideally you send your gear to canon and get both calibrated to each other. I had a photog friend have a prob with the lens on his 40 d and after trying a couple sent it in and it was the sensor alignment that was the prob. It goes both ways though im sure some lenses are out of their spec when bought new.

[scottsdaleriots]

Haha, ok, been using the 24-70 2.8l for 5 yrs and its is an incredible lens most all Canon Explorers have this lens, Most wedding photogs have this lens. We never needed IS. Especially when isos are sick these days...The lens of the last 2yrs has been flogged thousands of times in my sports photog company too and it just is friggen fast! It prob focusses faster than my 70-200 2.8l II, no kidding. bad copies are prob out there but many times its a bad sensor alignment in which case many probs exist. Ideally you send your gear to canon and get both calibrated to each other. I had a photog friend have a prob with the lens on his 40 d and after trying a couple sent it in and it was the sensor alignment that was the prob. It goes both ways though im sure some lenses are out of their spec when bought new.

whatever suits your needs may not suit another photog's needs. I know that the 24-70 2.8 lens is generally used as a portrait/wedding lens (or a walk about lens) however there are those, like me, who would like to shoot handheld video with it. All about perferences.

[squarebox]

little late to the party, but i'm seeing April 30th as a street date here in Japan.

[Bosman]

Haha, ok, been using the 24-70 2.8l for 5 yrs and its is an incredible lens most all Canon Explorers have this lens, Most wedding photogs have this lens. We never needed IS. Especially when isos are sick these days...The lens of the last 2yrs has been flogged thousands of times in my sports photog company too and it just is friggen fast! It prob focusses faster than my 70-200 2.8l II, no kidding. bad copies are prob out there but many times its a bad sensor alignment in which case many probs exist. Ideally you send your gear to canon and get both calibrated to each other. I had a photog friend have a prob with the lens on his 40 d and after trying a couple sent it in and it was the sensor alignment that was the prob. It goes both ways though im sure some lenses are out of their spec when bought new.

whatever suits your needs may not suit another photog's needs. I know that the 24-70 2.8 lens is generally used as a portrait/wedding lens (or a walk about lens) however there are those, like me, who would like to shoot handheld video with it. All about perferences.

I have a friend that bought a 24-70 after renting mine to use to shoot a film for a car. Id say that says something.

[squarebox]

Just out of curiosity, how long do you think one might have to wait till we would see a price drop in the new 24-70mkii?

It is not a big difference money wise, but psychologically speaking $1900 and $2200 is huge.  I'm just thinking that earlier adopters also lose out more when they decide to sell the lens and trying to hedge my bets just in case.

[Bosman]

I came up with this one question:
-Buy old version of 24-70 f2.8 or wait until II comes out?
Both of them got amazing image quality so any thoughts about this, get older for $1299 or get newer for $2299?

Save your dough and get the older version why? Its pretty much a perfect lens, it focusses as fast as my 70-200, no lie i shoot sports with both those lenses and cant see the speed difference. It might be there but i cant discern it.

The new one will be kick butt but IMO not $1000 kick butt. When I get what i do with what i have i dont need it, and i am the beta tester type who has to always have the best and latest. The other thing is i always shoot with a hood on my lens and the old version zooms in and out but you dont notice it on the old 24-70. The new one has the hood locked on to the end of the barrel and the whole hood moves out when you zoom. It looks gay to me and doesn't offer the protection that a hood fixed on the lens protecting the barrel does.
Those are some of my experiences with it. Hopefully new or older version you get exactly the results you are looking for!

[LetTheRightLensIn]

There aren't big difference between old and new versions:

- MK2 9 blade diaphragm, MK1 have 8
- MK2 18 elements in 13 gropus, MK1 16 in 13.
- MK2 82mm filter, MK1 77mm
- MK2 Inner focusing with USM, MK1 front focusing method
- MK2 805g, MK1 950g

So is $1000 worth to cover those changes

Umm and what about the fact that the MTF charts for the Mk2 totally, utterly blow the Mk1 out of the water? The MTF charts look even better than the Canon 24 1.4 II prime! Of course the real test will be in the real world but it appears as if it may be the sharpest non-esoteric zoom ever made.

This looks to be the standard zoom that may finally deliver on high-density sensor FF like the 5D2/1Ds3/5D3. Pricey, but the MTF charts look so insanely good, it's probably worth it. A few people tried them at shows and said that f/2.8 there was no hint of purple-fringing on specular highlights and it look crazy sharp.