Anyone upgraded from their 24-70L to 24-70L MKII?

[StepBack]

I don't know which is "better" aesthetically or under a microscope. But if you perennially return any brand lens maybe there's another problem.

 

[stringfellow1946]

I have & its a NO BRAINER, the Mk2 is light years better.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I currently have a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and I'm very happy with it. But the mkII sure does look tempting...but it's not on my priority list at the moment. It's a big cost for a little improvement.

 

[Zlatko]

A lot of people who bought the 24-70 mark ii are trying to convince themselves as well as others that they made a good(perhaps "worth it") purchase. Wake up people don't lie. The fact is, this argument whether the mark ii is worth the upgrade from mark 1 is the same thing as the argument of having more pixels. When you only view the image 100% crop then you will notice those things. Other than that, you will barely notice(if you will notice) the better sharpness. For the record, i owned both but end up selling the mark ii after 2 months of extensive use.

Version I was good when properly adjusted. But when put to heavy use, version I had a tendency to go out of whack and need service. When it went out of whack, you did not need to view the image at 100% to see the problem. You could see the problem very easily. Version II seems to be more durable. It is more reliable and also handles better.

 

[shutterwideshut]

I currently have a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and I'm very happy with it. But the mkII sure does look tempting...but it's not on my priority list at the moment. It's a big cost for a little improvement.

So was I. I had both copies of the 24-70L. I had a stellar copy of the Mk. I but decided to let go of it as the Mk II is lighter & the lens hood is more discreet compared to Mark I. Most of all, I am impressed with the sharpness and contrast of the Mark II and it is indeed worth the investment.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I currently have a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and I'm very happy with it. But the mkII sure does look tempting...but it's not on my priority list at the moment. It's a big cost for a little improvement.

So was I. I had both copies of the 24-70L. I had a stellar copy of the Mk. I but decided to let go of it as the Mk II is lighter & the lens hood is more discreet compared to Mark I. Most of all, I am impressed with the sharpness and contrast of the Mark II and it is indeed worth the investment.

Ah cool, good for you bud! It sure looks like a nice lens. I'm more of a prime lens user, so my 24-70L isn't as heavily used as some. So I'm not too fussed about changing it up. But if a new ef 35mm f1.4 II L comes out....I'll be all over one of those!

 

[Dylan777]

I currently have a stellar copy of the mkI 24-70L and I'm very happy with it. But the mkII sure does look tempting...but it's not on my priority list at the moment. It's a big cost for a little improvement.

So was I. I had both copies of the 24-70L. I had a stellar copy of the Mk. I but decided to let go of it as the Mk II is lighter & the lens hood is more discreet compared to Mark I. Most of all, I am impressed with the sharpness and contrast of the Mark II and it is indeed worth the investment.

Ah cool, good for you bud! It sure looks like a nice lens. I'm more of a prime lens user, so my 24-70L isn't as heavily used as some. So I'm not too fussed about changing it up. But if a new ef 35mm f1.4 II L comes out....I'll be all over one of those!

One thing for sure that 24-70 II can't beat prime is shallow DOF. 50L is the only L prime I use. I love the bokeh of this lens.

 

[dswatson83]

Switched to the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. Cheaper than the 240-70L V1 and I really wanted IS for the video. I was looking at the Canon 24-70 f/4 IS to get stabilization but I did not want to give up f/2.8 and the Tamron still looks better:
Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!