# Should i buy/trade for the 24-70 or wait for the version ii?



## martinelliminimo (Jan 15, 2012)

Should i buy for the 24-70? I have the 24L ii, 35L, & 50L, but I am starting to get annoyed of changing my primes all the time. Does anyone have an idea of how much the 24-70 may depreciate by if the version ii is announced?


----------



## axismundi (Jan 15, 2012)

martinelliminimo said:


> Should i buy for the 24-70? I have the 24L ii, 35L, & 50L, but I am starting to get annoyed of changing my primes all the time. Does anyone have an idea of how much the 24-70 may depreciate by if the version ii is announced?



I bought mine one day before the january 3 announcement and then returned it. 
I expect the new II to be significantly improved.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 15, 2012)

Never, ever, ever make a buying decision based on rumors. The 24-70 II has been 'imminent' for a long time. Keep in mind, this is a CR2 rumor. 



axismundi said:


> I bought mine one day before the january 3 announcement and then returned it.
> I expect the new II to be significantly improved.



There was a CR2 rumor about a 24-70 release in early 2010. So...what if you had done that based on the previous CR2 rumor. You'd have been waiting nearly two years, and still not have the lens...

Say this rumor is correct, this time, and they announce a new 24-70mm next week. They announced a bunch of L lenses in August, 2010. The first of those to become available (not counting the extenders) was the 8-15mm Fisheye...and that was released *11 months* after it was formally announced. The last two lenses announced at that time (500/4 II and 600/4 II) still haven't been released...a 17 month delay, and we're still waiting.

The bottom line is that if you need/want a lens now, get it now. If you don't need/want it, wait.

As for price and resale value, when the 70-200 II came out, it was so much more expensive than the MkI version that retailers with stock of the MkI remaining immediately raised the price to full MSRP ($200-300 increase) and prices on the used market followed suit. So, a 24-70mm bought today might actually appreciate instead of depreciating.

Of course, you could always wait. If 24-70mm is not announced soon, you can always buy the current version...after the rebates end and the prices go up. Heck, in the middle of December, B&H was selling it for $1100, then it went up to $1200, now it's $1250. When the rebates end in about 3 weeks, it'll likely go back over $1300.


----------



## photogaz (Jan 15, 2012)

axismundi said:


> martinelliminimo said:
> 
> 
> > Should i buy for the 24-70? I have the 24L ii, 35L, & 50L, but I am starting to get annoyed of changing my primes all the time. Does anyone have an idea of how much the 24-70 may depreciate by if the version ii is announced?
> ...



Why did you return it?


----------



## dld542004 (Jan 15, 2012)

Yes by all means wait. Just look at the crap people have been putting out with that crappy old one!


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 15, 2012)

dld542004 said:


> Yes by all means wait. Just look at the crap people have been putting out with that crappy old one!



I've heard this before and I just don't get it. Mine has been amazing and anyone I know who has one feels the same way I do. Maybe there was a bad batch at some point? Buy one and test it right away. If you're not happy with the quality, then exchange for another or just return it. 

I imagine the 24-70 ver I - ver II will be similar to the 70-200 upgrade. They added and extra stop for IS (doubt we'll see IS), an extra group, new coatings, very slight decrease in weight and a better minimum focus distance. The big question is, will these (speculative) changes be worth the significant increase in price?


----------



## cezargalang (Jan 15, 2012)

If you need it now, why not? I think waiting for it will make you miss the shots you want when you're changing your lens. ;D Dont worry about depreciation, if the version 2 comes out and you like it, it'll just be depreciated by a few when you'll sell it or what neuroanatomist said


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 15, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> dld542004 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes by all means wait. Just look at the crap people have been putting out with that crappy old one!
> ...



I think dld542004 just forgot to add the obvious <sarcasm> tags...


----------



## m3tek44 (Jan 15, 2012)

If you need one buy it now,,,, Currently own 24-70 and I love it,,,, Sure there will be 24-70 II with IS or without IS but how much more are you willing to wait or spend?? As current owner I am happy and if 24-70 II does comes will "think" about getting one.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > dld542004 said:
> ...



Fair enough... I have heard complaints about quality though and have yet to be disappointed myself.


----------



## jasonsim (Jan 15, 2012)

With your collection of fast primes covering this range of focal lengths, I'd consider the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. It is actually sharper than the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and has IS. One of the best general purpose lens. I find if I'm in really low light situations, the f/2.8 is not going to be wide enough anyways. Just depends on what your uses of the 24-70mm will be. If it is a general purpose walk-about lens, then I'd probably go with the 24-105mm as the former is much much heavier.


----------



## martinelliminimo (Jan 15, 2012)

alright, so i'm on the edge of calling the guy and trading my 50 1.2... wish me luck guys! hopefully sometime in the future i can get the 85 1.2.


----------



## karminator (Jan 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Never, ever, ever make a buying decision based on rumors. The 24-70 II has been 'imminent' for a long time. Keep in mind, this is a CR2 rumor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## pwp (Jan 16, 2012)

Based on today's CR news item on the 24-70 MkII ("Here we go again" - 15 Jan 2012) I reckon if you need this lens just go straight out and get one. It seems like it's been "a matter of weeks away" for over a year now. _ ... right!_

Early build 24-70 f/2.8 lenses did have IQ issues. Plenty of fortunate shooters got excellent copies but there have been endless posts on CR and other places from photographers who had two or three or more copies and never got a good one. Myself included.

However the later builds have proved to have a much improved IQ consistency. L glass holds its value very well. If you buy now you'll get a new lens for a much lower price than a MkII when it eventually ships. If you do decide to upgrade, at worst you'll only drop a couple of hundred dollars on the changeover, and you'll have had the use of this great lens in the meantime. If you have valid creative or commercial reasons to add a 24-70 f/2.8 to your lens set, just do it. 

Paul Wright


----------



## willrobb (Jan 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Never, ever, ever make a buying decision based on rumors.



Very well said, I think this should be printed in bold at the start of each rumour ;-)

The 24-70 f2.8L is awesome, chances are the newer version will be better, but you'll get great pictures with the current version....just think of all the photos you'll miss waiting for years for the next version to be released!


----------



## photophreek (Jan 16, 2012)

Personally, I wouldn't be trading a 50L for a 24-70! Both are different lenses for different purposes. I think the 50L is sharper than the 24-70 at 50mm.


----------



## willrobb (Jan 16, 2012)

martinelliminimo said:


> alright, so i'm on the edge of calling the guy and trading my 50 1.2... wish me luck guys! hopefully sometime in the future i can get the 85 1.2.



Everyone likes different things, I douse my 24-70 more than my 50L, but without my 50L my camera bag wouldn't be the same....I do love it for portraits.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 16, 2012)

jasonsim said:


> With your collection of fast primes covering this range of focal lengths, I'd consider the Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. It is actually sharper than the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and has IS. One of the best general purpose lens. I find if I'm in really low light situations, the f/2.8 is not going to be wide enough anyways. Just depends on what your uses of the 24-70mm will be. If it is a general purpose walk-about lens, then I'd probably go with the 24-105mm as the former is much much heavier.



I agree with this. The best reason to choose the 24-70 over the 24-105 is the faster 2.8, but you can switch to a fast prime when you need that.


----------

