EF 24-70 F2.8 Mk I

[ahsanford]

The lens went for $865, so no lens for me this round. Thanks to all for your feedback!

Not surprised. I sold mine for about $950 two years ago.

I think some types of lenses get refreshed possibly a shade too often as they are perceived as absolute professional staples. The UWA and standard f/2.8L zooms immediately come to mind. I think the 24-70 f/2.8L I is a fine, fine lens that didn't *need* to be replaced so quickly.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

The lens went for $865, so no lens for me this round. Thanks to all for your feedback!

Not surprised. I sold mine for about $950 two years ago.

I think some types of lenses get refreshed possibly a shade too often as they are perceived as absolute professional staples. The UWA and standard f/2.8L zooms immediately come to mind. I think the 24-70 f/2.8L I is a fine, fine lens that didn't *need* to be replaced so quickly.

- A

I think the real reason is they offer different characteristics, just like the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI and MkII do, personally I prefer both the MkI's over the MkII's, to me 'sharpness' is an entirely over rated characteristic for the majority of shooting situations.

I paid $1,250 for my 24-70 f2.8 in 2004, I could get close to $900 for it now, there is a very good reason for that, people like the images they take.

 

[pwp]

This question seems to come up every couple of months and Mt Spokane and I always seem to post an almost identical reply. Over the years I had five MkI 24-70 f/2.8 lenses and none of them were up to full professional requirements. Just about every other pro photographer I know had a negative experience with the MkI.

It's undeniable that there are a good copies of this lens around, but the owners of the bad ones may be more likely to sell. Thankfully the MkII is so good I've sold primes in the focal length range 24, 35 & 50. The MkII has been almost universally received with rave reviews and user feedback.

OP, you might get lucky and pick up one of the rare good MkI's but be clear that it's a gamble.

-pw

 

[wsmith96]

This question seems to come up every couple of months and Mt Spokane and I always seem to post an almost identical reply. Over the years I had five MkI 24-70 f/2.8 lenses and none of them were up to full professional requirements. Just about every other pro photographer I know had a negative experience with the MkI.

It's undeniable that there are a good copies of this lens around, but the owners of the bad ones may be more likely to sell. Thankfully the MkII is so good I've sold primes in the focal length range 24, 35 & 50. The MkII has been almost universally received with rave reviews and user feedback.

OP, you might get lucky and pick up one of the rare good MkI's but be clear that it's a gamble.

-pw

Thank you for the heads up!

 

[J.R.]

I think the real reason is they offer different characteristics, just like the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI and MkII do, personally I prefer both the MkI's over the MkII's, to me 'sharpness' is an entirely over rated characteristic for the majority of shooting situations.

Yep. I sold the 70-200 f/2.8 IS I and got the mark II. somehow I didn't like it. The rendering of the OOF areas was not as pleasing with the mark II. Probably Canon focused excessively on sharpness in the mark II. It was sold last year.

Eventually, I've ended up with the 200 f/2.8L II, a lens I've appreciated more and more over the past year - useful little lens, low profile, excellent IQ and ... Dirt cheap.