Kit Lens to New 24-70

[libertyranger]

Hello CR Followers,

I currently own a Canon T3i and have the kit lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS II) that it came with. I've considered upgrading to a higher quality lens and the 24-70 has come to mind. With the recent announcement of the Mark II version, I'm not too sure where to go. I know production samples are not out to the general public so performance wise, we are simply left to look at the MTF charts.

So, money not really being an option and based upon what we know thus far, is pre-ordering the new 24-70 worth it? If it doesn't perform much better than the old, I"ll pocket the difference and buy a new monitor. 2300 seems steep for a lens, but if it performs similar to the 70-200 f/2.8 II lens, then I'm all for it. I've borrowed that lens before and was amazed at it's IQ and performance.

I know that the lens is not out yet so this is all speculative. Just would like to know people's opinions and their thoughts concerning the purchase if they are in the same or similar boat as I.

 

[Michael_pfh]

The 24-70 Mk1 has been a reliable work horse for many photographers for years and will be for many years to come. The Mk2 is supposed to be better, lighter etc but does also cost about twice as much.
Upgrading from a kit lens to L glass is a giant leap in terms of image quality so I am convinced that the 24-70 Mk1 will be a good choice, you can always upgrade to the Mk2 in the future.

As always I am recommending to rent/borrow the lens you are planning to get in order to test it thoroughly.

 

[kalmiya]

I got a used mk1 two weeks ago fr my 550d ( I think that's the same as the t3i) (in the knowledge it was likely there would be an mk2 announced within a few weeks) and I haven't regretted it. It's btw a much more difficult lens to use then my 70-200 - heavier and more difficult to hold still / avoid blurry images.

If your a pro, you probably shouldn't have any doubts getting a mk2 - if your an amateur/hobbyist (like me)- just get a mk1 now and have fun with it (and get your monitor). It's more then good enough for anything you can come up with. Just my 2 ct. The mk1 will keep it's price anyway ( and I wouldn't be surprised if it will go up a bit, due to the price of the mk2) - so you can always sell later.

Alternatively, if you are looking for the highest possible IQ - just wait a few weeks until the first reviews/images are coming online - Patience is a virtue ^^

 

[Z]

Also bear in mind that the 24-70 isn't really a comparable focal length to your 18-55. I would recommend the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-70 for a crop body; the image quality of the 17-55 matches or surpasses the 24-70 at all focal lengths and it has image stabilization for a cheaper price. I am speaking both from reviews and the fact that I own both of these lenses - the 17-55 is THE standard lens for a crop camera.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 17-55mm EF-s is the best choice for a crop body, its better than the old 24-70 on a crop, and has IS.

I had 5 different 24-70 L lenses, none were all that good, and all were less than stellar on a crop. Its a roulette game, if you get a good one, it is pretty sharp, but even then, they all have curvature of field, so when the center is sharp at wide apertures, the edges will be out of focus. Its a property of the lens, not a manufacturing variable. At smaller apertures, the effect is hidden in the depth of field.

We are hearing that this has been fixed in the new lens. You will like the IS of the 17-55, and it is the correct focal length range for your camera. Borrow or rent one and try it.

 

[libertyranger]

Excellent Advice so far!

One reason I was considering the EF 24-70 is because I know one of these days I will go full frame. I could see it happening by the end of the year once the new 5D sales cool down (assuming the new 5D comes out soon). The 17-55 is also a good choice for now, for I could always sell it when I am ready to upgrade (I"m sure it will hold it's value).

I did borrow the 24-70 Mk. I lens once from a friend and honestly thought my kit lens was a tad sharper. It was right when I was getting into photography about 8 months ago, so it could have been user error. However, she could have had a bad copy as I have heard others have had. That experience itself causes me to want to invest into the Mark ii version, for supposedly those problems have been solved.

Patience is a virtue and I do have no problem waiting. It's a very excited time for photography right now. Nikon and Canon are unveiling some great products. Competition is great!

 

[libertyranger]

The 17-55mm EF-s is the best choice for a crop body, its better than the old 24-70 on a crop, and has IS.

I had 5 different 24-70 L lenses, none were all that good, and all were less than stellar on a crop. Its a roulette game, if you get a good one, it is pretty sharp, but even then, they all have curvature of field, so when the center is sharp at wide apertures, the edges will be out of focus. Its a property of the lens, not a manufacturing variable. At smaller apertures, the effect is hidden in the depth of field.

We are hearing that this has been fixed in the new lens. You will like the IS of the 17-55, and it is the correct focal length range for your camera. Borrow or rent one and try it.

Could you tell me what it was about the 5 that made them not so stellar? Sharpness? If so, that was my experience with the lens I borrowed. If the Mk. II version is better than this, then I'd like to go for that

 

[Michael_pfh]

An alternative could as well be the 24-105 f/4L in case you do not necessarily need the f/2.8. The IS compensates somewhat for the additional f-stop of the 24-70. On the long end the additional 35mm give you some more flexibility and it will also work on full frame should you upgrade one day.

I sold my copy some months ago in anticipation of the 24-70 Mk2 and did regret that decision more than once...