Stuck between Canon 24-70 2.8 Mark 1 vs Mark 2

teKno

teKno

Messages
230
Name
Ali
Edit My Images
No
There is a huge price difference and I just wanted to get a consumer based opinion on whether I should invest in the mark 2.

DX says that the mark 2 is much sharper, but is that really a big deal for the average Joe who does not have a tendency to pixel peep?

What are your thoughts on this?

I am on the lookout for a used 24-70mm right now but am tempted to go all in for the Mark 2 if I can be convinced.

Many thanks.
 
Plenty of used Mk1's around.. I'd save the money and go for a recent used model.. It's a great lens, and I'm sure the Mk2 is better, but for your everyday photographer, you'd probably not spot the difference enough to justify almost twice the price for a new mk2.
 
I have had a mk1 that I'm very happy with for almost 2yrs now but would say that if you can afford it go for the mk2. If you get the mk1 you'll just wonder whether the mk2 would have performed better. :)
 
The mkI is a very good lens, but the mkII is by all accounts a very special lens. I was considering the same question, but ended up getting the Tamron 24-70 F/2.8 VC USD. It sits between Canon's two lenses optically but adds very efficient VC (IS). It is not built quite as tough as the Canon's (although it is still very well built), and it does not focus as fast as the mkI's I have used (only slightly slower), but for my non-Pro usage it offers all I need at a much more attractive price. Purchased new from OSD for £650.

If you can stretch to the mkII, grab one because it is the best in class. If you cannot, maybe consider the Tamron.
 
teKno said:
There is a huge price difference and I just wanted to get a consumer based opinion on whether I should invest in the mark 2.

DX says that the mark 2 is much sharper, but is that really a big deal for the average Joe who does not have a tendency to pixel peep?

What are your thoughts on this?

I am on the lookout for a used 24-70mm right now but am tempted to go all in for the Mark 2 if I can be convinced.

Many thanks.
Click to expand...

What are your reasons for wanting the 24-70? If the MKI ticks all the right boxes, and you dont go pixel peeping much then i dont see the MKII offering you anything over the MKI, certainly not in a value for money way.

Saying that, the MKII is a very nice lens, and if you can afford it now id say get it. Its not a lens you will be thinking of upgrading any time soon, as there is no upgrade from it. It might save you money in the long run.
Thats how i look at it anyway.

Ive also had the above mentioned Tamron, and id say other than it not being built quite as robustly, the Tamron would be the one i'd go for over the MKI.
 
I would have never considered the Tamron if it werent for you guys pointing me to it. I am reading up the reviews on this on DPreview.

Are there any other Tamron owners with first hand experience of this lens?

So far, the only gripe I have read is that it is slower to autofocus than the canon equivalents. Is that really a deal breaker? How slow is slow?

Also, where can I source one for £650?
 
Also, is there really a benefit for VC / IS on this? It is already quite a fast lens, I was wondering if this would really help or just a gimmick
 
Haha, well actually my experience was not good, thats why i ended up with the Canon.

The Tamron really is a fine lens, its just that my two copies had malfunctioning VC systems, the second even locked my 5DMKIII up several times.
I felt as i had gone for the Tamron because it had VC it wasn't a feature i could ignore when it wasnt working. A mate also had the to send his in to get the zoom ring repaired as he had managed to break it, but using just a little extra force on it by accident.
In all other respects its a very fine lens and worth looking in to. I found AF to be good most of the time, although there were a few types of shots that it just couldn't nail (and shots all my other lenses could) but its definitely a lens to consider.
 
teKno said:
Also, is there really a benefit for VC / IS on this? It is already quite a fast lens, I was wondering if this would really help or just a gimmick
Click to expand...

Definitely not a gimmick, it works as advertised (see my post above though :), but having owned the Canon since Feb id say i really dont need it for 99% of my shots. I thought i would at first though.
 
Happy to give it a go. If not happy I can always return it for a full refund (I hope).

Where can I get one for £650 with a good returns policy?
 
teKno said:
Happy to give it a go. If not happy I can always return it for a full refund (I hope).

Where can I get one for £650 with a good returns policy?
Click to expand...
You can pickup the Tamron for £656 from OneStop-Digital.com here. OSD are Hong Kong based, but are cheap and very reliable. They also guarantee that you will not be charged Import Duty.

My experience with the Tamron has been very very positive. Focus is fast and accurate, but the speed is not quite up to Canon USM standards. It is something you will only really notice if more directly from a good L lens, but for me I do not require lightening AF on a wide zoom. My lens is not used for sports, so waiting an extra 10th or 20th /sec makes no odds.

I posted a mini review of the lens here. I have since compared it directly with a Canon 24-70 mkI, and honnestly prefer the Tamron. The VC is superb, easily matching all but the very best Canon IS implementations. I rate the VC as good as my 24-105L, but not quite up to my 70-300L. I reckon it gives a good 3-stops benefit.

I may have been lucky and got a good copy, but I have also been lucky with all of my other non-Canon lenses. All of my Canon's have also been good.

edit: You need to consider whether you value Canon's AF speed and reputation over Tamron's VC. New vs used may also swing it, the Tamron having a warranty whereas a used Canon may or may not.
 
Last edited:
Orville, top man. Thanks.

I have bought my 5D Mk3 from HK from a reseller. The only issue that I would have with this is that if I bought from HK, it would not come with a UK warranty and it was be back to base to HK for any repairs. I have read a bit too many stories of third party lenses that have problems with AF, VC etc including the ones mentioned in this thread.
 
teKno said:
Orville, top man. Thanks.

I have bought my 5D Mk3 from HK from a reseller. The only issue that I would have with this is that if I bought from HK, it would not come with a UK warranty and it was be back to base to HK for any repairs. I have read a bit too many stories of third party lenses that have problems with AF, VC etc including the ones mentioned in this thread.
Click to expand...
Understood, we all have different levels of risk aversion. The warranty bit is very important, but you must also apply this to buying a used lens. The safest option will be to buy a new UK sourced Canon mkII, followed by a new UK sourced Tamron, Unfortunately you pay a premium for this added safety net. Failing the purchase of a new UK lens, my opinion is that any warranty (HK based or otherwise) is better than no warranty.

Perhaps a used mkI with remaining warranty will be the best compromise?
 
Last edited:
The Mk2 is sharper than the Mk1 but this is only going to matter if you're cropping heavily really.

Whilst I may well upgrade to the Mk2 at some point myself, I'm hardly disappointed with the Mk1! In addition, I don't like the design of the Mk2 and much prefer the reverse zoom and fixed hood design of the Mk1.
 
For what its worth, my first Tamron came from Panamoz, and luckily they had a London based address that i could send it back to. I got a full refund and decided i wasnt going to risk it again and paid £150 more to get one from Amazon, as the UK stock comes with an extended 5 year warranty. Im glad i did as their returns policy is second to none.

I did get my 24-70 MKII from Digital Rev though (as my 5DMKIII and a few other bits), i really couldn't afford to pay UK price back then. They do offer a 1 year local warranty, you pay for the service and they reimburse you, but with the Tamron id rather get it in the UK.
 
Vertigo1 said:
The Mk2 is sharper than the Mk1 but this is only going to matter if you're cropping heavily really.

Whilst I may well upgrade to the Mk2 at some point myself, I'm hardly disappointed with the Mk1! In addition, I don't like the design of the Mk2 and much prefer the reverse zoom and fixed hood design of the Mk1.
Click to expand...

I think the AF is more reliable as well on the MKII, although ive never used a MKI.

I too wish the MKII was like the MKI. I tend to find myself at 70mm most of the time, so to save wear and tear on the zoom, and time, it would be nice to have it at 70mm by default, as i tend to always wind my zooms back in when walking around.
I am happy that the lens seems overall smaller, due to the smaller hood. Ive yet to see any flare on any of my images.

One other thing, i really like the feel of the MKII on my 5D. There is just something that feel "right" with this combo. even though its very close in size to the Tamron they feel very different to my hands.
 
It's not just the convenience of 70mm when retracted but that the old design meant that the hood was providing much better coverage at all focal lengths plus the hood protected the extending barrel from any untoward impacts. A far superior design IMO.

That said I've no doubt I'll upgrade at some point but the 70-200 mk2 was first on the list :)
 
There are plenty of review for all three lenses on Amazon.com. To summarise user satsifaction, results below.

Rating, Canon mkI, Canon mkII, Tamron VC
5* 76% 74% 67%
4* 12% 18% 18%
3* 4% 8% 6%
2* 3% 0% 6%
1* 5% 0% 3%

Assuming 4 & 5 star results make for happy customers, The Canon mkII wins with 92%, followed by the mkI AT 88%, and lastly the Tamron at 85%. The odds of getting a good one are in your favor whichever lens you buy:).
 
Last edited:
Customer satisfaction surveys are useless though as they're relative to a customer's original expectations and there's no way to know what those were. One customer could buy a 24-70 II and be expecting miracles and thus not be totally satisfied whereas another customer might purchase a much cheaper and inferior lens but be expecting far less and thus be totally satisfied.

It's what made all the JD Power car survey stuff such utter rubbish. They made such a big deal about how the "inferior" brands were at the top whilst the "premium" marques were lower down, yet the expectations are different. People who buy a BMW, Mercedes or Audi are going to expect more than those who buy a Skoda and will be far less tolerant of any issues that arise.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Customer satisfaction surveys are useless though as they're relative to a customer's original expectations and there's no way to know what those were. One customer could buy a 24-70 II and be expecting miracles and thus not be totally satisfied whereas another customer might purchase a much cheaper and inferior lens but be expecting far less and thus be totally satisfied.

It's what made all the JD Power car survey stuff such utter rubbish. They made such a big deal about how the "inferior" brands were at the top whilst the "premium" marques were lower down, yet the expectations are different. People who buy a BMW, Mercedes or Audi are going to expect more than those who buy a Skoda and will be far less tolerant of any issues that arise.
Click to expand...
I agree that expectations, brand loyalty and many other factors (including actual performance) all contribute towards to how people rate a product. However, I still prefer to buy a product with >90% positive ratings than one with <50%. I also prefer private recommendations to those of commercial review sites who often advertise goods from manufacturers of products they review. I think the trick is to do as much research as possible and try the equipment yourself wherever possible.

My opinion of the Tamron is based upon owning lots of nice L's. It exceeds my expectations, but maybe others are unrealistic or unlucky and obtain a bad copy.
 
Vertigo1 said:
It's not just the convenience of 70mm when retracted but that the old design meant that the hood was providing much better coverage at all focal lengths plus the hood protected the extending barrel from any untoward impacts. A far superior design IMO.
Click to expand...
Aha! I knew I couldn't be the only one who held this opinion. To me, the old design concept was excellent and extremely practical.

I've always wondered what the drawbacks were as Canon have now dropped it, and no one else appears to use this kind of design (I think, but I could very easily be wrong!)?

Cheers,
Tony
 
I appreciate all your responses. I seem to have started a debate on these 2 lenses, however, I am now warming up to the Tamron. Just weighing the options as best as possible.

I usually don't do any post processing, but it seems like I will have to set up LR with some automation for all new imported pics for distortion, vignetting and CA Lens correction etc.

Ideally something I would have liked to miss.
 
Can we do a comparison between the Tamron and the MK1 please?

What is the vignetting like on the MK1? Similar? Less?
 
If you do go for the Tarmon you might find LR identifies it as a Sigma in the lens correcting tool. easy enough to do the one time only change though.

Im not sure i follow your post though. Are you saying you dont use LR already with what you have? Are you not already shooting raw and using the lens correction tool?
If you are using lens correction in camera with JPG's, then you cant do this with 3rd party lenses.
 
I dont use LR at all, most of my shots are all JPEGs. It seems like I will have to introduce LR into the mix now.
 
teKno said:
I dont use LR at all, most of my shots are all JPEGs. It seems like I will have to introduce LR into the mix now.
Click to expand...

Or DPP.
If PP does matter then the Canon's might be better as you can load the lens data in camera.

I dont mean to offend here, but can i ask why you dont shoot raw?
 
I used to, but then found that I wasnt much of a pixel peeper to justify any PP, the images looked good without any PP so just went to Jpegs instead. The camera does most of the work for me automatically.

I can revert to RAW but finding any time to do any PP is also an issue. I am a comfort photographer if that means anything.
 
Thanks, i understand. I do find LR to be pretty hassle free and very quick to do basic stuff in. If you use Lr to import from your camera or memory card then the lens correction process is seamless anyway. The only extra thing to do would be to output the files to JPG if you need them in that format.
 
I am looking at some tutorials for automating all the LR stuff so I can atleast get all the images corrected automatically in the first instance and then go back to editing specific ones when I want to.
 
If you import one raw file, turn on lens correction and make sure its using the correct profile if you are using the Tamron, you can then set this as the default import for your camera. Thats it.
Any new files that come from your camera will automatically have the relevant lens correction applied. LR will detect the different lenses and apply the correct one, its just the Tamron/Sigma issue you need to set up first.
 
Have decided to go for the Canon 24-70 Mark 1 as I dont want to introduce LR in to the process just yet. I do not have the time. I would rather the camera take care of the lens correction for me.

Anyone know where I can buy one for £700-750 in mint condition?
 
Cheers Dave, just cant bring myself to accept anything less.

Any pointers on where I can buy one?
 
I know what you mean. As nice as The Tamron was i felt immediately happier once i got the Canon in my hands. Nothing to back that up other than 3rd time lucky, and it was a Canon.
Ive seen a few MKI's recently and they were either on AVForums or Talkphotography. Nothing under £800 though. Ive not use eBay for large purchases but i expect that might be the quickest route.
 
Yeah you'll be lucky to find a mint one for under £800 unless it's quite old, not that that's a problem if it's been well looked after :)
 
Lets hope you find a GOOD one soon ;-)
Ive never used one but it wasnt until i started reading reviews of the MKII that i noticed all the complaints about the MKI. Im sure its not universal but there do seem to be some lemons out here.
It was the same with the 5DMKIII and MKII as well.
 
Not sure that I could go back to a general purpose lens without IS/VC. Lack of IS was the one major drawback of Canon's 24-70 mkI, and the one thing they forgot to improve on the mkII. Perhaps it is my shaky hands or aversion to using a tripod, but I find IS/VC to be much more helpful than faster AF speeds (both Canon's), or slightly better IQ (mkII).
 
I felt the same until i had to, now i dont notice its not there.
Maybe i just dont take the sort of shots i could if i had IS, i do have many past shots with IS lenses that i couldn't get with my 24-70, but having the slightly better higher ISO has helped off set this.
Although ive always had a IS lens as my main lens, maybe it was the fact that my Tamrons were faulty, and so VC was off when i thought it was on, that was the start of not needing it as much as i thought i did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top