24-70mm 2.8L Mk.I vs 24-70mm 2.8L Mk.II
- Thread starter Jasz
- Start date
TeT said:
I am on the fence about doing the same thing, but I really like my MkI (especially the hood design), that comparison certainly doesn't make the case for the change.
Certainly not like the 16-35 f2.8 to 16-35 f4IS comparison that I recently did make the upgrade for. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=114&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Upvote
0
slclick said:
I keep seeing people say that but I have never seen comparison images to support it, and I keep looking! Like I say, I am in the process of a measured upgrade path myself, and the 16-35 f2.8 to 16-35 f4 really was a night and day change, but I just don't see it on the 24-70 f2.8 MkI to MkII.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
on the charts the difference is notable to the naked eye. difference between the 16 35 2.8 & 16 35 4 L is greater.
real world would need direct comparisons... I myself have the 24 70 4 L and with the exception of fast 2.8, I like the performance better than the 24 70 2.8 that I used to own...
I got rid of the 24 70 2.8 MKI because I could not stand the backwards zoom (70mm retracted, extend out for 24)
Upvote
0
I upgraded without being too scientific about it. I was fairly happy with MkI and if the MkII had not come, I´d probably be a happy user of MkI still. I cannot provide side by side comparisons, because I never made any. But to me the upgrade was worth it. I am willing to bet the MkII would beat the MkI in side by side comparisons, in most (all) areas. But, like you, I have never seen true side by side comparisons.privatebydesign said:
Upvote
0
Viggo said:
+1...had three copies of mrk I in the past, none of them came close to mrk II.
@ OP - I saw your other post 70-200. If I have to choose to upgrade between 24-70 Vs 70-200, I would upgrade the 24-70 before 70-200. If money is not an issue, both mrk II are SUPER.
Upvote
0
surapon
80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
Jasz said:Hi everybody
I am thinking of changing my old 24-70mm 2.8L Mk. 1 out with the new Mk. 2... is that a waste of money ?
Has anybody seen some decent tests on the internet where the mk.2 is compared to the Mk. 2
Looking forward for your replies
Dear Friend Jasz.
I have the original MK I Long , Long Time ago Since 2002 , That time = The Best of the Best of the Every day usage of the Professional Photographers around the world, Because of the Best Glass and High cost = More than $ 2000 US Dollars ( in 2002), Yes, Mark II are here as the Best Lens in this time 2015----In my Idea, Just my Idea , I never print the Hard copy of Photo bigger than 24 X 36 Inches and I am happy about MK I , Similar to If I have 97 US Dollar in my Pocket since 2002, And my friend ask If I will more happy If I have 3 more dollars = $ 100 US Dollar in my pocket in next 13 more year . I will say No, I not have more Happy feeling than this time. I love my $ 97 money in my pocket now.
Sorry, I am not have " GAS." If I spend more $$$ and I do not get the Big Profit from Them.
Good Luck.
Upvote
0
There were a very few MK I's that seemed to meet the Canon specifications. If you have one of those, keep it. Even the best ones had to live with the curvature of field, so the lens had to be stopped down to get reasonably sharp edges, that was baked into the design. The lenses were also fragile with some plastic focus guides that frequently break resulting in focus issues.
I had five of the MK I's and none were worth keeping. I love my MK II.
I had five of the MK I's and none were worth keeping. I love my MK II.
Upvote
0
I have the MK II and am very, very happy with it. I can't speak on the MK I. The only disappointment in it might be that, surprisingly, the MK I appears to be sharper at the long end(70mm). Other than that, the MK II will have better IQ, is lighter, more compact and doesn't have that ridiculously large hood.
Some will complain at the more plasticky build, but hey, that's how it's lighter.
I didn't have a MK I and, at the time I bought my MK II, a used MK I in good condition still cost about $1200. So it just made more sense to get the new version. If you already have a good copy of the MK I, then I suppose it's a tougher decision to make.
Some will complain at the more plasticky build, but hey, that's how it's lighter.
I didn't have a MK I and, at the time I bought my MK II, a used MK I in good condition still cost about $1200. So it just made more sense to get the new version. If you already have a good copy of the MK I, then I suppose it's a tougher decision to make.
Upvote
0
That's funny, I really like the hood design and the 'reverse' zoom on the MkI, it means the hood does it's job at the appropriate focal length as opposed the ineffectual MkII hood at anything over min focal length.
Upvote
0
Absolutely no contest. While decent copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI do exist, and you may have one of the rare ones, most copies are expensive disappointments. In the years they were available, I had five copies, each one was could be described as mediocre at best. But I wanted/required a 24-70 zoom!
By contrast, the MkII seems to be universally regarded as stunning. In my case, so much so that it comfortably outperforms primes in the 24-70 range. My 24, 35 and 50mm primes quickly went off to eBay. If you read up on threads on this subject you'll see this story repeated over and over.
You won't be disappointed. If you use protective UV filters and CPL's, be aware that you'll have an extra spend on filters as the MkII is 82mm filter size, not the previously almost ubiquitous 77mm.
-pw
By contrast, the MkII seems to be universally regarded as stunning. In my case, so much so that it comfortably outperforms primes in the 24-70 range. My 24, 35 and 50mm primes quickly went off to eBay. If you read up on threads on this subject you'll see this story repeated over and over.
You won't be disappointed. If you use protective UV filters and CPL's, be aware that you'll have an extra spend on filters as the MkII is 82mm filter size, not the previously almost ubiquitous 77mm.
-pw
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Why does a 70mm/2.8 lens need a deeper hood than a 24mm/2.8 lens?
I've always wondered if the deeper hoods of telephoto lenses is there because you can design them without vignetting or because there is a greater need for the additional depth. I'd be very interested in a scientific explanation if the latter is the case.
Upvote
0
In spite of five IQ disappointing MkI 24-70's, the one thing I did prefer was that hood design. Brilliant.Viggo said:
FWIW I've lost two hoods from my MkII at highly crowded events, it bumps off too easily when pushing through crowds. I now use cheapie eBay hoods in expectation of losing more.
-pw
Upvote
0
I wonder how much difference there would be on a mk1 that has been serviced and optically tuned by a decent, conscientious Canon service center. My understanding is that the mk1 really suffers from being knocked out of tune. Looking at the design I would imagine that the mk2 is cheaper to produce; the way in which the mk1 was at its physical longest at its shortest focal length is real neat. Firstly, as has been pointed out, the hood actually works at all focal lengths. Would you put a 24mm hood on your 85mm prime ? ( OK, don't answer that, there seem to be a load of people that don't use hoods at all !). But real reason this question interests me is that on the mki the nodal point is further back on the shorter focal lengths making pano stitching much easier at those focal lengths unlike all other standard zooms, including the mk2, where the nodal point is a long way forward at the shorter lengths, giving rise to more parallax issues.
So I quite fancy the ideal of a well tuned mk1, but I'd have too be careful how I handled it.
So I quite fancy the ideal of a well tuned mk1, but I'd have too be careful how I handled it.
Upvote
0
Well yes, if only MkI's were fix-up-able. I would have saved myself time and money visiting CPS having a succession of MkI lenses "fixed" over many years, and I'd still likely be using a MkI on a daily basis. Maybe I have been spectacularly unfortunate, but no CPS "fix" ever turned a sows ear into a silk purse.Sporgon said:
My only fix during the wait for the MkII was to spend a couple of years happily in the company of a 24-105 f/4is. Occasionally the lack of f/2.8 was aggravating, but it was a lens I could trust on commercial projects...something I couldn't ever rely on with the flawed MkI.
-pw
Upvote
0
Similar threads
