24-70mm 2.8L Mk.I vs 24-70mm 2.8L Mk.II
- Thread starter Jasz
- Start date
Sporgon said:
I think that the review by Photozone addresses that, they tried five lenses, and I seem to recall that at least some went in for service. I believe they found one that was close to the Canon MTF specs. The basic design of the lens insures curvature of field, nothing can reduce that. You might also look at Roger's test results on many lenses at Lens Rentals, the entire group of MK I's falls below the worst of the MK II's.
That does not mean it was a horrible lens, but after having five of them, I gave up.
Upvote
0
P
Pookie
Guest
I own both mark I and mark II versions... I loved the mark I and never had any "issues" with it, 2011 to now and it still performs flawlessly. That said. I'll take the mark II every time if given the choice. It is the only lens that made the 24L and 35L completely neglected, so much so that I sold them within a year of getting the mark II. That was never the case with the mark I.
Upvote
0
Both are nice lenses, but the Mk II is superior. Whether it's worth the upgrade depends on what you're shooting and whether the cost differential might be invested in another lens, like a fast prime like an 85mm II, a backup body, etc. to round out the kit.
Upvote
0
I replaced mine with the mk II version as soon as it was available in Europe and sold the mk I when I saw that the sharpness and contrast were drastically different in a direct comparison.
With that said, I really liked the hood/zoom design and the solid feel of the mk I
One thing that nobody mentions is the wide open bokeh. At 70mm the mk I was clearly the superior lens in that regard, with a prime like quality to it. It was creamy and beautiful. Something the Mk II version lacks but compensates with extreme sharpness and contrast.
With that said, I really liked the hood/zoom design and the solid feel of the mk I
One thing that nobody mentions is the wide open bokeh. At 70mm the mk I was clearly the superior lens in that regard, with a prime like quality to it. It was creamy and beautiful. Something the Mk II version lacks but compensates with extreme sharpness and contrast.
Upvote
0
I don't have side-by-side comparisons since I sold the MKI before getting the MKII, but I have used the MKII for lots of landscape and family photos, and the difference in IQ is very noticeable. Also, my landscape combo is often the 70-200II + a 24-70 and the MKI always stood out as a weak link when I was working up photos as compared to the 70-200II. Now that I'm shooting the 24-70II and the 70-200II together, the IQ's are comparable and I'm happy with either one for a 70mm shot.
Agree with others that the hood/zoom design in the MKI was brilliant, but I don't think you'd compromise IQ for the 'reverse zoom' design of the MKI, just to have a more efficient hood.
Agree with others that the hood/zoom design in the MKI was brilliant, but I don't think you'd compromise IQ for the 'reverse zoom' design of the MKI, just to have a more efficient hood.
Upvote
0
The Mk I is an excellent lens and I have many excellent photos from it. I had a love/hate relationship with the hood in that I hated the bulk but loved the protection. It also came off my lens a lot with minor bumps, whereas the new hood has a lock. In terms of IQ, I was always impressed with the Mk I, but it didn't have the pop of other lenses, particularly the primes. I had similar feelings about the 16-35 f/2.8 II as well. It might not show up on test charts, but the Mk II has that quality, and IMHO is similar to the difference between the 16-35 f/2.8 and f/4 IS.
I also find the Mk II's ergonomics to be an improvement. It's smaller, lighter, and the new hood protects from flare just as well in my use. I have now sold my 24 f/1.4 II, 35 f/1.4, and 50 f/1.2 lenses as I find the Mk II equals their IQ in all ways but distortion and aperture. I also find f/2.8 fast enough for the work I do these days, particularly with the 5DIII and 1D X high ISO quality.
I would try to borrow one from a friend, get a loaner from CPS, or rent one if you're on the fence. I think you'll find it a significant improvement over the Mk I and worth the investment.
I also find the Mk II's ergonomics to be an improvement. It's smaller, lighter, and the new hood protects from flare just as well in my use. I have now sold my 24 f/1.4 II, 35 f/1.4, and 50 f/1.2 lenses as I find the Mk II equals their IQ in all ways but distortion and aperture. I also find f/2.8 fast enough for the work I do these days, particularly with the 5DIII and 1D X high ISO quality.
I would try to borrow one from a friend, get a loaner from CPS, or rent one if you're on the fence. I think you'll find it a significant improvement over the Mk I and worth the investment.
Upvote
0
BeenThere said:
Cool! Nice to find a fellow 28-70 f/2.8 holdover. Mine is still my go-to, walk-around lens, and the one I use most when I shoot the odd wedding.
I'm glad for this thread because I've been wondering the same thing about the Mark I versus II. Originally I was thinking of getting the 5DS as my big purchase this year, but I was a little unimpressed and figured maybe it's time to upgrade my lens instead. Honestly, I haven't felt the limitations of the 28-70 which is why I've been really slow to look into the 24-70 Mark II. But from anecdotes I hear around the net, it seems like it will be a significant jump compared to what I currently have.
Really, I'm still looking for galleries or images from the Mark II to kind of give me the sense "I can't do that with what I have," but so far haven't really come across anything like that. Not saying I'm so good I can do anything they can do better, just saying, the limitation is in me more than my equipment at the moment.
I've looked around on flickr and seen some nice shots here and there. I think I'm about 70% convinced that I'm going to get this lens sometime this summer, but would still love to see more galleries. If anyone has any good links, please share. Thanks.
Upvote
0
When I moved from 28-70mm 2.8 to 24-70 Mk I, I actually noticed a drop in quality in my pictures. I was never really happy with the image from Mk I. I have upgraded to Mk II, the pictures are constrasty, good dimension, and sharp. No need to sit on the fence....
Upvote
0
shunsai said:
Makes three of us. Never been disappointed in mine. Only issue is occasionally camera comes on and does not recognize the lens (dirty contacts maybe). Came close to replacing it with the kII with the recent rebate, but just missing the nagging need to do so.
Upvote
0
I was very hesitant because of the price difference and I actually had a good & sharp copy of the Mark 1. However, one day a person approached me to purchase my copy and then I decided that it was time to upgrade. NO REGRETS, Mark 2 is way better and damn sharp.Viggo said:
Pull the trigger.... and get it.
Upvote
0
I had the mkI for about 10 years, a good copy apparently because I never felt the need to upgrade or swap it out. A friend of mine had the mkII (traded up from mkI) and convinced me it was a worthwhile upgrade. I was also feeling like my mkI was getting long in the tooth, and I'd rather upgrade before it needed any kind of repair, and while I could still sell it a full market value. So when there was a sale on the mkII with rebates, I picked up one.
I tested the two side by side a bit before selling the mkI. My test indicate at f/2.8 in particular, the mkII is significantly sharper, which is what my friend told me to expect. From f/4 and higher, not as much of a difference, but the mkII is slightly sharper. As for the lens hood issue, the mkII has better contrast and flare resistance without any hood than the mkI does with a hood, so the 'superior' hood design of the mkI is completely invalid when comparing the two. The build quality is good in both, but knowing the inherent issues that many have had over time with the mkI (where it easily goes out of 'tune' from heavy handling or even normal usage), there is at least a psychological feeling of confidence in the sturdiness of the mkII that I had lingering doubts about in the mkI, even though my personal experience never validated the concerns for the mkI. One other noticeable improvement with the mkII was the autofocus performance, especially with current camera bodies like the 5DmkIII. Simply put, I get more keepers with the mkII, it seems to get good focus closer to 100% of the time, much more than the mkI ever seemed to. I'm also comfortable shooting at f/2.8 with mkII, while with the mkI I always felt the need to stop down at least 2/3rd stop whenever I could. What good is a 2.8 lens if you never feel comfortable with results at 2.8?
Bottom line, the mkI was a good lens for me, and I was happy with it until I got the mkII. I wasn't happy about spending the money, which is why it took me so long to switch. But after the discounted pricing which I was able to get the mkII for on sale at the time, and what I was able to sell the mkI for--pretty close to full market value since it was an excellent copy of the lens--my cost to upgrade was about $800. I feel that it was worth $800 to upgrade, might have even been worth more, but glad that was all I had to pay.
I tested the two side by side a bit before selling the mkI. My test indicate at f/2.8 in particular, the mkII is significantly sharper, which is what my friend told me to expect. From f/4 and higher, not as much of a difference, but the mkII is slightly sharper. As for the lens hood issue, the mkII has better contrast and flare resistance without any hood than the mkI does with a hood, so the 'superior' hood design of the mkI is completely invalid when comparing the two. The build quality is good in both, but knowing the inherent issues that many have had over time with the mkI (where it easily goes out of 'tune' from heavy handling or even normal usage), there is at least a psychological feeling of confidence in the sturdiness of the mkII that I had lingering doubts about in the mkI, even though my personal experience never validated the concerns for the mkI. One other noticeable improvement with the mkII was the autofocus performance, especially with current camera bodies like the 5DmkIII. Simply put, I get more keepers with the mkII, it seems to get good focus closer to 100% of the time, much more than the mkI ever seemed to. I'm also comfortable shooting at f/2.8 with mkII, while with the mkI I always felt the need to stop down at least 2/3rd stop whenever I could. What good is a 2.8 lens if you never feel comfortable with results at 2.8?
Bottom line, the mkI was a good lens for me, and I was happy with it until I got the mkII. I wasn't happy about spending the money, which is why it took me so long to switch. But after the discounted pricing which I was able to get the mkII for on sale at the time, and what I was able to sell the mkI for--pretty close to full market value since it was an excellent copy of the lens--my cost to upgrade was about $800. I feel that it was worth $800 to upgrade, might have even been worth more, but glad that was all I had to pay.
Upvote
0
If you make money from your photography upgrade, if you dont, i dont think its worth the £££'s for an upgrade and wont dramatically change your photography . I would just invest in another lens.. 100mm 2.8L IS Macro maybe, a different perspective when needed???? :-\
Upvote
0
Regarding 24-70s, I own the Mk I, and have not tried the Mk. II - yet. The reason? I'm happy with my Mark I. My decision to stay was also based on the better specs of Mark I. 
How you ask? I can get closer with Mark I, which tends to suit the majority of situations I use the objective. The out-of-focus rendering seems to be better too, I tend to think Canon intentionally made the objective behave this way to smoothen the background. I do occasionally use flare as a compositional element, so it has not been bugging me.
Then there is the subjective read-my-mind type property of Mark I. I don't know how, but with Sigma's 50A, these objectives not only seem to fulfill the vision I had, but can even up it a bit (or occasionally a lot!)
I have never had problems with field curvature of Mark I, that is probably again because of how I use the objective: I don't typically use it for landscapes, but for situationals.
But then again, I'm a hobbyist, and not a professional.
How you ask? I can get closer with Mark I, which tends to suit the majority of situations I use the objective. The out-of-focus rendering seems to be better too, I tend to think Canon intentionally made the objective behave this way to smoothen the background. I do occasionally use flare as a compositional element, so it has not been bugging me.
Then there is the subjective read-my-mind type property of Mark I. I don't know how, but with Sigma's 50A, these objectives not only seem to fulfill the vision I had, but can even up it a bit (or occasionally a lot!)
I have never had problems with field curvature of Mark I, that is probably again because of how I use the objective: I don't typically use it for landscapes, but for situationals.
But then again, I'm a hobbyist, and not a professional.
Upvote
0
