Buy a used 24-70 now or wait for new version?

[Jettatore]

I like that shot of the lady in red, especially when my eye goes back and forth between the left background and then back to her. It's a really cool effect, quality is superb.

 

[shermanstank]

Do you really need this lens? --- I have also thought of purchasing this lens but the deciding factor for me was that @ f/2.8, it would fall short in LOW LIGHT situations (IS or not) . IMHO if you are just waiting to buy an IS version which would definitely cost more, the fact of the matter is that it is STILL a f/2.8. You would need a very high ISO to freeze the action.---- This is the reason why I didn't buy it and decided to go with very fast primes (f/1.4, f/1.2). Primes though they are limited in their focal range, they are certainly more capable/flexible than zooms when it comes to poor lighting situations.---- the f/2.8 zooms are fine with sufficient lighting but then they would have to be put down when it gets dark. My 2 cents...

Cheers!
Sherwin

 

[handsomerob]

I like that shot of the lady in red, especially when my eye goes back and forth between the left background and then back to her. It's a really cool effect, quality is superb.

+1, nice shot.

It's a great lens btw, if you need it now, don't hesitate

 

[Pixyl]

IMHO if you are just waiting to buy an IS version which would definitely cost more, the fact of the matter is that it is STILL a f/2.8. You would need a very high ISO to freeze the action.

IS would be useful for shooting static scenes hand-held while being dimly lit.
I'm not particularly concerned about the lens having IS or not, but rather expecting improvements in general over the previous version. A new version of something usually means improvements along with previous issues adressed and hopefully fixed.

I wasn't aware this lens had so many issues and that a good copy is hard to find (particularly older issues). In photography forums such as this one I frequently read about people exchanging "bad copies" of a particular lens until they finally receive a "good copy" they're happy with. I wish we could do that here in Norway, however it's up to the service center which checks out a returned lens to determine if it's faulty or not. If they find it not to be faulty the customer still has to pay for their time used to examine it and you get the same lens back
Naturally, if the lens actually has a problem you're entitled to a free replacement or repair, but my understanding is that "a bad copy" is sometimes hard to prove, and having various threads and articles (among them, "Variation Facts and Fallacies" by Roger at lensrentals.com) there seems to be a lot of different views on the subject of "good" vs. "bad" copies.

I guess the only way I could sure I'd be getting a "good copy" here is to check it out in the store before parting with my money, but I assume we're talking about extensive, complicated and time-consuming testing methods way beyond what most photographers (including myself) has the knowledge of performing or can actually be done while hanging around in a camera store. Hopefully I'm wrong about this and someone can set me straight about the details.

While the Canon 24-70 is US$ 1200 in the U.S. that's what a used copy costs here!
A new one costs around US$ 1670

 

[Jettatore]

Do you really need this lens? --- I have also thought of purchasing this lens but the deciding factor for me was that @ f/2.8, it would fall short in LOW LIGHT situations (IS or not) . IMHO if you are just waiting to buy an IS version which would definitely cost more, the fact of the matter is that it is STILL a f/2.8. You would need a very high ISO to freeze the action.---- This is the reason why I didn't buy it and decided to go with very fast primes (f/1.4, f/1.2). Primes though they are limited in their focal range, they are certainly more capable/flexible than zooms when it comes to poor lighting situations.---- the f/2.8 zooms are fine with sufficient lighting but then they would have to be put down when it gets dark. My 2 cents...

Cheers!
Sherwin

Go Points, and that would be more important thing to consider than what a MKII might bring. But there is more to the trade-off. The DOF gets really shallow/narrow as you step to the max aperture of the awesome prime lenses. I would rather have it then not, and the effect is often welcome, but it can be limiting to a lot of compositions, and at times when you wouldn't use that effect or could get around low-light issues in other ways effectively, well then you might as well have a handful of lenses in one to capture moving action effectively. I think if you are capturing event photography where you can't effectively run around like a mad man with a prime lens, that you at least have two cameras at the ready to make up for the loss of zoom, one of those cameras might even have a zoom attached, and if it doesn't you probably also have a bag with more primes in it. So you really have to also ask how important that shallow DOF effect is, because if it's not going to be that useful, the ability to switch focal length by turning a wheel and figuring out the low-light problem with other solutions is worth considering. Obviously the ultimate solution is having access to everything and knowing ahead of time what you want and then bring just what you need.

 

[wickidwombat]

Do you really need this lens? --- I have also thought of purchasing this lens but the deciding factor for me was that @ f/2.8, it would fall short in LOW LIGHT situations (IS or not) . IMHO if you are just waiting to buy an IS version which would definitely cost more, the fact of the matter is that it is STILL a f/2.8. You would need a very high ISO to freeze the action.---- This is the reason why I didn't buy it and decided to go with very fast primes (f/1.4, f/1.2). Primes though they are limited in their focal range, they are certainly more capable/flexible than zooms when it comes to poor lighting situations.---- the f/2.8 zooms are fine with sufficient lighting but then they would have to be put down when it gets dark. My 2 cents...

Cheers!
Sherwin

I'm of the same opinion here, the 50mm prime covers a significant chunk of the range of theis zoom if you move around a bit. the wider end i prefer the 16-35 anyway, I have been considering a wide prime but the choices are so hard i've just decided to wait and keep looking at what is around

 

[pwp]

24-70 as it is, is a really nice lens. Maybe my copy is just good, but I like the pictures that come out of it.
My guess is that the same people who take crappy pictures with the 24-70 L lens that is available today, are the same exact people that will take awful photo's with the version II lens whenever it comes out.

That's great that you have scored one of the many great copies of the 24-70 f/2.8. Brilliant.

With respect, most photographers who have rejected multiple copies of this lens are more likely to be extremely practical professionals who need to deliver image files to clients at a very high commercial standard.

When the 24-70 f/2.8 works well there is no doubting this is a cracker of a lens, but the reality is that there are a highly disproportionate percentage of these lenses that simply don't cut it. There is also plenty of evidence that the later builds of the 24-70 f/2.8 may have dealt successfully with the problems.

This is probably a great time to buy a NEW 24-70 f/2.8 for run-out pricing.

Paul Wright

 

[JR]

Like others who commented here I had issues with two copies of the current version of the 24-70L. I know good copies are out there but bad ones too! In my case I ended up going prime all the way (for other reasons as well not related to your question)...

Sooo, if you need it now and can try the used copy before buying, then go for it, however if you can wait, I hope the new version will be worth the wait and price difference - especially for this one...

 

[Jettatore]

Yeah but JR, there are also folks out there complaining (both legitimately and inanely) about their copies of the prime lenses that the 24-70 range covers as well. And PWP, if it's at all useful, my copy is definitely from a newer production run.

 

[Meh]

im the only one that is stressed out by such question?

should i buy xy or wait for new version? .. blah blah

a billion questions like this. :

i mean what do they expect.. did i know the topic starter, do i know his needs? NO!

best is you wait.. there will always be something new, more shiny and maybe even better.
so the longer you wait the better. wait 4 more years... :

The standard answer "if you need it, buy it" is even more predictable. That answer is probably correct but only because it's just stating the obvious. Better to say "if you think you want it just buy it and charge it to your wife's credit card".

edit: or husband's credit card

 

[JR]

Yeah but JR, there are also folks out there complaining (both legitimately and inanely) about their copies of the prime lenses that the 24-70 range covers as well. And PWP, if it's at all useful, my copy is definitely from a newer production run.

Good point, however I would think the % of bad prime copies within the 24-70mm range in the L series at least is less then the % of bad copies for the 24-70L zoom!?! Of course I have no data to support my intuition here! With the exception of the 50mm f1.2L which some folks find challenging (I have no problem with mine) I think the other primes in the L series like the 24, 35 or even the 85 are fantastic no?

But in any case trying before buying when we can (especially used) is always a plus if we can.