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

[PhilDrinkwater]

With the 24-70 II on the horizon, will you be upgrading your 24-70 I, given the *rumoured* significant increase in optical quality?

Personally I'm going to. I've never been completely happy with the version I of this lens. It's fine at f5.6, but at 2.8 I've never loved the quality. Also, I like to use the outside of a lens and I find the quality is questionable.

I'm really hoping this will give me the extra quality that I'd like

 

[Tcapp]

With the 24-70 II on the horizon, will you be upgrading your 24-70 I, given the *rumoured* significant increase in optical quality?

Personally I'm going to. I've never been completely happy with the version I of this lens. It's fine at f5.6, but at 2.8 I've never loved the quality. Also, I like to use the outside of a lens and I find the quality is questionable.

I'm really hoping this will give me the extra quality that I'd like

I sold my 24-70 cause i wasn't super excited about the quality. It's (almost) all primes for me now!! Plus, im a sucker for super wide apertures. It doesn't matter how sharp the new lens is, I doubt it will be as good as a good prime.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

I sold my 24-70 cause i wasn't super excited about the quality. It's (almost) all primes for me now!! Plus, im a sucker for super wide apertures. It doesn't matter how sharp the new lens is, I doubt it will be as good as a good prime.

I have a lot of primes too.. I use them for large parts of a wedding day. However, in the ceremony I just need something that will get the job done and allow me to be wide or long as needed.

 

[Tcapp]

I sold my 24-70 cause i wasn't super excited about the quality. It's (almost) all primes for me now!! Plus, im a sucker for super wide apertures. It doesn't matter how sharp the new lens is, I doubt it will be as good as a good prime.

I have a lot of primes too.. I use them for large parts of a wedding day. However, in the ceremony I just need something that will get the job done and allow me to be wide or long as needed.

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.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

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

Sorry I should have included that

 

[squarebox]

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

I'm in the same boat here. Don't own the MK1, but will pick up the mk2.

I really wanted to get the 24-70 for awhile, but all the problems i heard about the mk1 made me hestitant to pick it up.

This lens is going to be totally more lens than my 550D can handle... but I wanted a midrange zoom as my 35L is too wide sometimes and not long enough others.

 

[winoheel]

I for one think the Mark I is terrific! The II will really have to show me something with the significant increase in price. $$ might be better spent adding primes. I suspect that the secondary market for the I will be hot.

 

[Dylan777]

I bought 3 different copies of v1(1 used, 2 new), none of them gave the sharpness I'm looking for.

I have v2 on pre-order. The MTF looks very amazing, so will see.

 

[rj79in]

With the 24-70 II on the horizon, will you be upgrading your 24-70 I, given the *rumoured* significant increase in optical quality?

Personally I'm going to. I've never been completely happy with the version I of this lens. It's fine at f5.6, but at 2.8 I've never loved the quality. Also, I like to use the outside of a lens and I find the quality is questionable.

I'm really hoping this will give me the extra quality that I'd like

No ... but I'm planning to ditch my V1 for the 24-105

 

[kwwalla]

The mark II will have to be a technically significant upgrade for me to replace my mark I. I will certainly give it consideration once the technical reviews have been released, but my guess is I will use the $$ for other gear. I use the mark I for 90% of my wedding (event) work, and I'm very happy with the results.

 

[PhilDrinkwater]

The mark II will have to be a technically significant upgrade for me to replace my mark I. I will certainly give it consideration once the technical reviews have been released, but my guess is I will use the $$ for other gear. I use the mark I for 90% of my wedding (event) work, and I'm very happy with the results.

Interestingly I think there are good copies and bad copies of that V1 lens. I don't feel mine is one of the good ones.. and maybe that's one of the problems. It seems to be one of those lenses like the 50mm 1.2 - if you're lucky, you're lucky. If not ... I think I'm hoping, as much as sharpness, that the lens will be more consistent.

 

[Razor2012]

No Mk I here either. I probably would of bought one if the II wasn't in the horizon If it lives up to the specs, it will be a perfect match for the 70-200 2.8II. Now if we can just get that 14-24...

 

[picturesbyme]

My V1 is pretty sharp but since the Tamron (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data) came out I really would like to see and compare the two...
At the price of the V2 I'd rather buy a good prime for about 1G + the Tamron if it's at least as good as my V1..

 

[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).