Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L users advice

E

Eddie1

Messages
734
Name
Ed
Edit My Images
No
Can anyone using the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L lens advise me on how big an improvement the version 2 is over the version 1 ?
I know there are online reviews but would appreciate a user from this forums advice.
Currently I'm using an older 28-70 L and thinking about upgrading but won't of the difference is not big enough to make the investment worthwhile.

Thanks
 
In what terms would you define "improvement"?

I mean, if you can say what it is about your lens that you don't like and is causing you to consider an upgrade, then we can talk at how well the two 24-70s perform in that dimension. But if, for example, what you really want is a lens which focuses faster, then it's not much help to tell you that the Mk II is sharper.
 
I personally like the Mk I because of the way the zoom works "backwards" (i.e. front element goes out for wide angle and in for telephoto) which means you can have a useful lens hood. The Mk II doesn't do that. As for sharpness, I can't imagine a Mk II being any sharper than the particular copy of the Mk I that I have :)
 
I own the 24-70 mark 1 and I've used the mark 2. Biggest difference is the corner and edge sharpness.

For what it's worth I still have my mark 1. Although the mark 2 gives better IQ I didn't feel the extra cost was worth it for my use.
 
Personally I feel that the mk ii is a good deal better than the mk i. It is noticeably faster to focus, and is sharper across the board. I sold my mk I to fund the mk ii so I have never shot one after the other, but from years of using the mk I and never really being blown away with it (like i was with the 70-200 mk ii is from day one) the mk ii is fantastic. But at twice the price, and several years of improvement in design, I suppose that it should be.
 
I don't think that the difference is as obvious as the 70-200/2.8 IS update but there's probably something in it. Are my shots noticeably better because of it....probably not.

Bob
 
The difference may depend on how well the mk1 and mk2 are calibrated. A good mk1 will hold its own until we get down to extreme corners, but there are plenty that are out pretty spectacularly. They tend to go out with time for no apparent reason, well other than heavy lens elements in plastic collar. mk2 obviously has lower distortion, less CA, produces much nicer starbursts and bokeh. However the new lens itself has pretty cheap semi-pro appearance and is clearly less durable should the worst happen (I heard they can split into two parts - I'm keeping mine well guarded).
If I had to buy another used mk1 I'd inspect it very carefully in person with my camera and laptop. Actually it should apply to all expensive used glass...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top