Are you going to "upgrade" your 24-70 2.8 I

[photophreek]

I have a very sharp and relatively new v1(UZ), so I haven't made up my mind.  If v2 had IS, there would be no deciding.  I'm going to wait and see the reviews and real world results before deciding.   

[cliffwang]

Honestly, I am very interested in the MK2.  However, I have to wait for the review before I make the decision because of the bad experience of my MK1.  Hopefully the 24-70 MK2 version will be as good as 70-200 MK2.

[VanWeddings]

i have to say that i'm very happy with the tamron vc 24-70 i recently picked up. wide open, it is as sharp as my 70-200 2.8 which should say it all. it's the first time i've bought tamron and i can't see canon 24-70 mkii being that much better, especially without IS (great for video).

[cliffwang]

i have to say that i'm very happy with the tamron vc 24-70 i recently picked up. wide open, it is as sharp as my 70-200 2.8 which should say it all. it's the first time i've bought tamron and i can't see canon 24-70 mkii being that much better, especially without IS (great for video).

I am considering the Tamron 24-70 VC.  I know it's overall better than Canon 24-70 MK1.  However, I still want to see few things before I make a decision.

- Canon 24-70 MK2 vs Tamron 24-70 VC reviews
- Finial price for Canon 24-70 MK2
- If Tamron will drop its price when MK2 out
- Improved QC from Tamron(about 20% of bad copies from many reviews)

[Chris Burch]

I couldn't put my pre-order in fast enough.  The promise of having quality as high as has been reported across that zoom range will be truly invaluable.  As an event and wedding shooter, I use the 24-70 far more than any other lens and it's not even close to the sharpness of any of my other lenses (zooms and primes).  Every time I end up shooting portraits with it, I am terribly disappointed -- wedding portraits can get rather wide and negate the use of my 70-200.  The only prime I really use is the 85 f/12.L (also not wide enough) and I was thinking about getting either a 35 or 24mm L prime but am now hoping the new version of the 24-70 is good enough that I won't need them.  I may still get the 24mm TS, but that' more for the TS function and not as a portrait lens (yes, I know it's the sharpest of the 24mm's, so it will likely get double duty). 

[stochasticmotions]

I probably would have seriously considered spending new money on a replacement if it had IS.  The price for the enhancements this one has is just not enough for me (I really like the v1 lens, it was very good quality and I thought a reasonable price).

I will probably be spending my money short term on the new "equivalent" panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 for my GX1.  Hopefully I will be as happy with that as I am with the canon

[crasher8]

My Mk1 is great no lens envy here.

[Beautor]

Personally I'm not in the market for the vII. The Upgraded price puts it way out of our league at the moment. I bought my wife a 24-70 vI in January at the end of the rebates for just under $1200. Its our 2nd "L" lens after our 70-200 F4L. The 24-70 was a huge step up from all our previous lenses, but it also was a significant chunk of change for a pair of casual photographers. If I could ever convince my wife to continue with portrait photography (and earn a little income with it) we might have the money to invest in more/better lenses, but for the moment the original 24-70 works fantastic for us.

Personally I'm certain that I would be a fast prime addict if I could afford anything more than my 50 F1.8. I love low light and shallow DOF, but that little plastic 50 just looks so funny on my old 40D.

[JEAraman]

Sold my MK1 in March and discovered that the April launch was postponed.!!!

[Mencho(22)]

YES!  I preordered mine on Feb/20th hoping I will have it on April... well... July is just around the corner :S

[Tayvin]

I found that if you shoot with the 24-105L and THEN shoot with 24-70L it looks much better to you

[wickidwombat]

No original 24-70mm to upgrade, but I'll be getting the MkII.

same but i want to see the quality first if its as good as the mtf suggests then i would probably be pretty keen if at 50mm and 2.8 and narrower its sharper than the 50 f1.4 i might grab the 50 f1.2L too

[bdunbar79]

I won't be buying the 24-70L II at all.  I already have the 16-35L II, 35L, and 50 primes, plus the 24-105L, so really it is not necessary for me.  I think instead I'll save $670 ($1629 vs. $2299) and pick up a 24L prime.

[Tcapp]

I do agree with that. I use my 70-200 2.8 is for most of the wedding, with my 24 1.4 L on my second body for the wides.

Have you a 135f2? I'm finding it's very much like a 70-200 but without the horrendous WEIGHT! lol! Have to watch the shutter speed though - you need 1/125th at the VERY least to get a sharp shot. In low light I'll use the 70-200 because of IS.

I don't have the 135, but I would love to own it some day! Sounds like an amazing portrait lens when you want a little more compression than the 85 can give you.

[Tcapp]

I won't be buying the 24-70L II at all.  I already have the 16-35L II, 35L, and 50 primes, plus the 24-105L, so really it is not necessary for me.  I think instead I'll save $670 ($1629 vs. $2299) and pick up a 24L prime.

you will love it. the 24L is nice. It's almost weird being able to get such a shallow DoF with such a wide lens.