24 - 70mm f/2.8 L I or II

[JR]

get the mark II if you have the budget...it will last a long time...I am waiting to try it myself and maybe replace a couple of prime by it!

[vuilang]

V 1 taken today.

dario.

WAAAWWWW..... Cant believe you post such a poorly processed photo as an example and be proud of it.. the photo itself is not bad, just the Post.

[Kamera Obscura]

Well, we all look at art differently. I like it on my screen.

Am I proud of it? as you say I am?

dario.

[7enderbender]

I am an advance hobby photographer, mostly I shoot landscapes, family portraits and some macro

currently I own 16 - 35 f/2.8 II L, 70 - 200 f/2.8 II L and 100 mm f/2.8 L macro and a 5D Mark II

I have been thinking of adding 24 - 70 to my list for shooting both, family portraits and landscapes when I travel,

My dilemma is should I get version I or II ?

I wonder if version II is worth the price $2300, also version I is a proven lens and is already perfect

Please help me understand why one should pay extra $1000 more for version II

Thank you

Good question. Looks as if Canon tried to make an excellent lens even better optically. Given that it is lighter I'd be concerned that the new version doesn't have the build quality any longer like the version I. Yes, I know even that one had issues on occasion. Making things more plasticky seems to be the way these days.

The lenses are good optically but I'm still underwhelmed with the feel and some details of my EF lenses - including L lenses. The original 24-70 seems to be on the better side with this.

[psycho5]

I sold both a 28-135 IS/USM and 70-200 F4L IS/USM to help fund the new lens. I used to have v1 and sold it a year ago since the 28-135 seemed to have the equivalent sharpness, but missed f/2.8.

that being said, the MTF charts look amazing and i'm sure the price justifies it. the focus lock is welcomed. Something I hated with the 28-135 is the lens creep is downright disgusting. it wasn't that bad with the old 24-70, but still happened.

if you compare the MTF charts between the old version and the new from canon's website, there is a strong contrast between the two and IMHO, the new one is silly sharp. The MTF even outshines the MTF of the new 70-200 2.8 is II.

I'm confident once people start using the new version once its out, any other lenses they have between 24 and 70mm will end up on ebay.

[psycho5]

compare MTF:

if you don't know anything about MTF, read it here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml

[papa-razzi]

Neither.

version 1 doesn't have IS, is heavy, has a narrow focal length range, and is overly expensive.
version 2 doesn't have IS, has a narrow focal length range, and is ridiculously expensive.

24-105 f/4L IS is a much better value for money.  Lighter, less expensive, better range, just as sharp.
If you need to shoot low light, use a prime lens.  You could probably buy an "L" prime and the 24-105 for close to what the 24-70 v2 costs.

As you can tell, I am not a fan of these lenses, especially how Canon has priced them.  If the version 2 had IS and was priced the same as version 1, I would would say it was a good lens for full frame.  (I would still go for EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS for crop)

Some people love the current version of this lens, and can't wait for the new one to ship.  I just think they are a terrible value for money.

[NutsAndBolts]

Neither.
...

24-105 f/4L IS is a much better value for money.  Lighter, less expensive, better range, just as sharp.
If you need to shoot low light, use a prime lens.  You could probably buy an "L" prime and the 24-105 for close to what the 24-70 v2 costs.

...

I vote for 24-105 also.  Look at the MTF for 24-105:

[pwp]

I have been thinking of adding 24 - 70 to my list for shooting both family portraits and landscapes when I travel.
My dilemma is should I get version I or II ?

The 24-70 f/2.8 MkI is one of those highly divisive lenses. Plenty of lucky photographers have lucked out and got a good one. The later builds may be better. But anecdotally among serious photographers I've been in communication with over many years report experiences in line with my own re the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI...most of them are disappointed in the extreme. I've recently bought my third 24-70 f/2.8 and while it's a little better than my last two I'm far from impressed. Lots of photographers who have this lens leave them in the studio gathering dust. That's why there was such excitement and  when the MkII was announced after what has been a very long wait.

Just to get me by until the MkII was released, in desperation I bought a pre-owned 24-105 f/4is. To my surprise it is superior in every way to any of my 24-70 lenses except for being a stop slower. It's inherent vignetting and distortion is fully corrected automatically on Import into Lightroom. It has IS. It has just that little bit more reach. In short, I trust it.

Early reports suggest the MkII lens is a cracker. Wait a little while for meaningful independent reviews to come through, but it already looks like it will be worth the $1000 premium if you require A1 quality.

Paul Wright

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Neither.

version 1 doesn't have IS, is heavy, has a narrow focal length range, and is overly expensive.
version 2 doesn't have IS, has a narrow focal length range, and is ridiculously expensive.

24-105 f/4L IS is a much better value for money.  Lighter, less expensive, better range, just as sharp.
If you need to shoot low light, use a prime lens.  You could probably buy an "L" prime and the 24-105 for close to what the 24-70 v2 costs.

As you can tell, I am not a fan of these lenses, especially how Canon has priced them.  If the version 2 had IS and was priced the same as version 1, I would would say it was a good lens for full frame.  (I would still go for EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS for crop)

Some people love the current version of this lens, and can't wait for the new one to ship.  I just think they are a terrible value for money.

Pictures Ive seen of the II definitely show a IS button.  Besides, I always follow the principle for shooting speed close to equivalent focal length with or without IS if the shot really matters especially with a heavy lens.  With the 1.4 50 the lens is so light you can get sharp shots easier

[pwp]

Pictures I've seen of the II definitely show a IS button.  Besides, I always follow the principle for shooting speed close to equivalent focal length with or without IS if the shot really matters especially with a heavy lens.  With the 1.4 50 the lens is so light you can get sharp shots easier

There's no IS on the new lens. It would have been nice but would have ramped up price & weight even more. If there was a tradeoff to keep the price somewhat reasonable, I'm glad that image IQ was not compromised just to include IS.

Look here for comparo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_24%E2%80%9370mm_lens

Paul Wright

[Aperture]

Thank you guys, that was really helpful..

I ordered the Version I as it seems to be fine for what I shoot, also I don't want to be part of beta testing of Version II, which might take at least about a year after the release to fix any issues and to stabilize

In that year I think I have lots of photos to shoot

May be I'll replace the V-I with V-II after a year or two

thank you all for your reply, really appreciate it

[Bosman]

Bosman, You got it.  Would like some frensh fries with that too 

How about I send you a picture of the cash with my new 5D3 in stupid high ISO.

Please SEND! LOL PLEASE! That would be awesome!

[Bosman]

V1 taken today 2.

dario.

colorful images but they dont show what the lens can do since you blurred her skin.

[avangardphoto]

I would hot with the 24-70. It's a great lens.

Mario
avangardphoto.com