# 24-70mm 2.8L Mk.I vs 24-70mm 2.8L Mk.II



## Jasz (Mar 28, 2015)

Hi everybody

I am thinking of changing my old 24-70mm 2.8L Mk. 1 out with the new Mk. 2... is that a waste of money ?

Has anybody seen some decent tests on the internet where the mk.2 is compared to the Mk. 2

Looking forward for your replies


----------



## TeT (Mar 28, 2015)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

see for yourself...


----------



## Viggo (Mar 28, 2015)

It's a world of difference in every way. AF, weight, IQ. Absolutely worth an upgrade !


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2015)

TeT said:


> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> see for yourself...



I am on the fence about doing the same thing, but I really like my MkI (especially the hood design), that comparison certainly doesn't make the case for the change. 

Certainly not like the 16-35 f2.8 to 16-35 f4IS comparison that I recently did make the upgrade for. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=114&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## slclick (Mar 28, 2015)

I've had both and the difference is night and day. A lens you'll keep forever (Mk2)


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2015)

slclick said:


> I've had both and the difference is night and day. A lens you'll keep forever (Mk2)



I keep seeing people say that but I have never seen comparison images to support it, and I keep looking! Like I say, I am in the process of a measured upgrade path myself, and the 16-35 f2.8 to 16-35 f4 really was a night and day change, but I just don't see it on the 24-70 f2.8 MkI to MkII.


----------



## TeT (Mar 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I've had both and the difference is night and day. A lens you'll keep forever (Mk2)
> ...



on the charts the difference is notable to the naked eye. difference between the 16 35 2.8 & 16 35 4 L is greater.

real world would need direct comparisons... I myself have the 24 70 4 L and with the exception of fast 2.8, I like the performance better than the 24 70 2.8 that I used to own...

I got rid of the 24 70 2.8 MKI because I could not stand the backwards zoom (70mm retracted, extend out for 24)


----------



## Eldar (Mar 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I've had both and the difference is night and day. A lens you'll keep forever (Mk2)
> ...


I upgraded without being too scientific about it. I was fairly happy with MkI and if the MkII had not come, I´d probably be a happy user of MkI still. I cannot provide side by side comparisons, because I never made any. But to me the upgrade was worth it. I am willing to bet the MkII would beat the MkI in side by side comparisons, in most (all) areas. But, like you, I have never seen true side by side comparisons.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 28, 2015)

Viggo said:


> It's a world of difference in every way. AF, weight, IQ. Absolutely worth an upgrade !



+1...had three copies of mrk I in the past, none of them came close to mrk II.

@ OP - I saw your other post 70-200. If I have to choose to upgrade between 24-70 Vs 70-200, I would upgrade the 24-70 before 70-200. If money is not an issue, both mrk II are SUPER.


----------



## surapon (Mar 28, 2015)

Jasz said:


> Hi everybody
> 
> I am thinking of changing my old 24-70mm 2.8L Mk. 1 out with the new Mk. 2... is that a waste of money ?
> 
> ...



Dear Friend Jasz.
I have the original MK I Long , Long Time ago Since 2002 , That time = The Best of the Best of the Every day usage of the Professional Photographers around the world, Because of the Best Glass and High cost = More than $ 2000 US Dollars ( in 2002), Yes, Mark II are here as the Best Lens in this time 2015----In my Idea, Just my Idea , I never print the Hard copy of Photo bigger than 24 X 36 Inches and I am happy about MK I , Similar to If I have 97 US Dollar in my Pocket since 2002, And my friend ask If I will more happy If I have 3 more dollars = $ 100 US Dollar in my pocket in next 13 more year . I will say No, I not have more Happy feeling than this time. I love my $ 97 money in my pocket now.
Sorry, I am not have " GAS." If I spend more $$$ and I do not get the Big Profit from Them.
Good Luck.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 28, 2015)

There were a very few MK I's that seemed to meet the Canon specifications. If you have one of those, keep it. Even the best ones had to live with the curvature of field, so the lens had to be stopped down to get reasonably sharp edges, that was baked into the design. The lenses were also fragile with some plastic focus guides that frequently break resulting in focus issues.

I had five of the MK I's and none were worth keeping. I love my MK II.


----------



## e_honda (Mar 30, 2015)

I have the MK II and am very, very happy with it. I can't speak on the MK I. The only disappointment in it might be that, surprisingly, the MK I appears to be sharper at the long end(70mm). Other than that, the MK II will have better IQ, is lighter, more compact and doesn't have that ridiculously large hood.

Some will complain at the more plasticky build, but hey, that's how it's lighter.

I didn't have a MK I and, at the time I bought my MK II, a used MK I in good condition still cost about $1200. So it just made more sense to get the new version. If you already have a good copy of the MK I, then I suppose it's a tougher decision to make.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 30, 2015)

That's funny, I really like the hood design and the 'reverse' zoom on the MkI, it means the hood does it's job at the appropriate focal length as opposed the ineffectual MkII hood at anything over min focal length.


----------



## pwp (Mar 30, 2015)

Absolutely no contest. While decent copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI do exist, and you may have one of the rare ones, most copies are expensive disappointments. In the years they were available, I had five copies, each one was could be described as mediocre at best. But I wanted/required a 24-70 zoom!

By contrast, the MkII seems to be universally regarded as stunning. In my case, so much so that it comfortably outperforms primes in the 24-70 range. My 24, 35 and 50mm primes quickly went off to eBay. If you read up on threads on this subject you'll see this story repeated over and over. 

You won't be disappointed. If you use protective UV filters and CPL's, be aware that you'll have an extra spend on filters as the MkII is 82mm filter size, not the previously almost ubiquitous 77mm.

-pw


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 30, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> That's funny, I really like the hood design and the 'reverse' zoom on the MkI, it means the hood does it's job at the appropriate focal length as opposed the ineffectual MkII hood at anything over min focal length.



Why does a 70mm/2.8 lens need a deeper hood than a 24mm/2.8 lens?
I've always wondered if the deeper hoods of telephoto lenses is there because you can design them without vignetting or because there is a greater need for the additional depth. I'd be very interested in a scientific explanation if the latter is the case.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 30, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> That's funny, I really like the hood design and the 'reverse' zoom on the MkI, it means the hood does it's job at the appropriate focal length as opposed the ineffectual MkII hood at anything over min focal length.



Yeah, me too! Not because of flare, as I'm really happy with the mk2 in that regard, but the large hood that covers the fully extended barrel has saved the lens on more occasions than I care to admit.


----------



## pwp (Mar 30, 2015)

Viggo said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That's funny, I really like the hood design and the 'reverse' zoom on the MkI...
> ...


In spite of five IQ disappointing MkI 24-70's, the one thing I did prefer was that hood design. Brilliant.

FWIW I've lost two hoods from my MkII at highly crowded events, it bumps off too easily when pushing through crowds. I now use cheapie eBay hoods in expectation of losing more. 

-pw


----------



## wyldeguy (Mar 30, 2015)

This is my favorite reviewer for cameras and lenses.

http://youtu.be/4OvtAAs6MVg


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 30, 2015)

I wonder how much difference there would be on a mk1 that has been serviced and optically tuned by a decent, conscientious Canon service center. My understanding is that the mk1 really suffers from being knocked out of tune. Looking at the design I would imagine that the mk2 is cheaper to produce; the way in which the mk1 was at its physical longest at its shortest focal length is real neat. Firstly, as has been pointed out, the hood actually works at all focal lengths. Would you put a 24mm hood on your 85mm prime ? ( OK, don't answer that, there seem to be a load of people that don't use hoods at all !). But real reason this question interests me is that on the mki the nodal point is further back on the shorter focal lengths making pano stitching much easier at those focal lengths unlike all other standard zooms, including the mk2, where the nodal point is a long way forward at the shorter lengths, giving rise to more parallax issues. 

So I quite fancy the ideal of a well tuned mk1, but I'd have too be careful how I handled it.


----------



## pwp (Mar 30, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder how much difference there would be on a mk1 that has been serviced and optically tuned by a decent, conscientious Canon service center.
> 
> So I quite fancy the ideal of a well tuned mk1, but I'd have too be careful how I handled it.


Well yes, if only MkI's were fix-up-able. I would have saved myself time and money visiting CPS having a succession of MkI lenses "fixed" over many years, and I'd still likely be using a MkI on a daily basis. Maybe I have been spectacularly unfortunate, but no CPS "fix" ever turned a sows ear into a silk purse. 

My only fix during the wait for the MkII was to spend a couple of years happily in the company of a 24-105 f/4is. Occasionally the lack of f/2.8 was aggravating, but it was a lens I could trust on commercial projects...something I couldn't ever rely on with the flawed MkI.

-pw


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 30, 2015)

pwp said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how much difference there would be on a mk1 that has been serviced and optically tuned by a decent, conscientious Canon service center.
> ...



Looks like I'll be staying with my 24-105 then. I love the cheapest option


----------



## JonAustin (Mar 30, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > My only fix during the wait for the MkII was to spend a couple of years happily in the company of a 24-105 f/4is. Occasionally the lack of f/2.8 was aggravating, but it was a lens I could trust on commercial projects...something I couldn't ever rely on with the flawed MkI.
> ...



Ditto. No disrespect for the 24-70 II, but I'm waiting for the IS version.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 30, 2015)

```

```
I still shoot with the old 28-70 f/2.8. On landscapes at f 8 it still works great.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 30, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I wonder how much difference there would be on a mk1 that has been serviced and optically tuned by a decent, conscientious Canon service center. My understanding is that the mk1 really suffers from being knocked out of tune. Looking at the design I would imagine that the mk2 is cheaper to produce; the way in which the mk1 was at its physical longest at its shortest focal length is real neat. Firstly, as has been pointed out, the hood actually works at all focal lengths. Would you put a 24mm hood on your 85mm prime ? ( OK, don't answer that, there seem to be a load of people that don't use hoods at all !). But real reason this question interests me is that on the mki the nodal point is further back on the shorter focal lengths making pano stitching much easier at those focal lengths unlike all other standard zooms, including the mk2, where the nodal point is a long way forward at the shorter lengths, giving rise to more parallax issues.
> 
> So I quite fancy the ideal of a well tuned mk1, but I'd have too be careful how I handled it.



I think that the review by Photozone addresses that, they tried five lenses, and I seem to recall that at least some went in for service. I believe they found one that was close to the Canon MTF specs. The basic design of the lens insures curvature of field, nothing can reduce that. You might also look at Roger's test results on many lenses at Lens Rentals, the entire group of MK I's falls below the worst of the MK II's. 

That does not mean it was a horrible lens, but after having five of them, I gave up.


----------



## Pookie (Mar 30, 2015)

I own both mark I and mark II versions... I loved the mark I and never had any "issues" with it, 2011 to now and it still performs flawlessly. That said. I'll take the mark II every time if given the choice. It is the only lens that made the 24L and 35L completely neglected, so much so that I sold them within a year of getting the mark II. That was never the case with the mark I.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Apr 1, 2015)

Both are nice lenses, but the Mk II is superior. Whether it's worth the upgrade depends on what you're shooting and whether the cost differential might be invested in another lens, like a fast prime like an 85mm II, a backup body, etc. to round out the kit.


----------



## Memdroid (Apr 1, 2015)

I replaced mine with the mk II version as soon as it was available in Europe and sold the mk I when I saw that the sharpness and contrast were drastically different in a direct comparison.
With that said, I really liked the hood/zoom design and the solid feel of the mk I
One thing that nobody mentions is the wide open bokeh. At 70mm the mk I was clearly the superior lens in that regard, with a prime like quality to it. It was creamy and beautiful. Something the Mk II version lacks but compensates with extreme sharpness and contrast.


----------



## Vern (Apr 1, 2015)

I don't have side-by-side comparisons since I sold the MKI before getting the MKII, but I have used the MKII for lots of landscape and family photos, and the difference in IQ is very noticeable. Also, my landscape combo is often the 70-200II + a 24-70 and the MKI always stood out as a weak link when I was working up photos as compared to the 70-200II. Now that I'm shooting the 24-70II and the 70-200II together, the IQ's are comparable and I'm happy with either one for a 70mm shot.

Agree with others that the hood/zoom design in the MKI was brilliant, but I don't think you'd compromise IQ for the 'reverse zoom' design of the MKI, just to have a more efficient hood.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 1, 2015)

The Mk I is an excellent lens and I have many excellent photos from it. I had a love/hate relationship with the hood in that I hated the bulk but loved the protection. It also came off my lens a lot with minor bumps, whereas the new hood has a lock. In terms of IQ, I was always impressed with the Mk I, but it didn't have the pop of other lenses, particularly the primes. I had similar feelings about the 16-35 f/2.8 II as well. It might not show up on test charts, but the Mk II has that quality, and IMHO is similar to the difference between the 16-35 f/2.8 and f/4 IS.

I also find the Mk II's ergonomics to be an improvement. It's smaller, lighter, and the new hood protects from flare just as well in my use. I have now sold my 24 f/1.4 II, 35 f/1.4, and 50 f/1.2 lenses as I find the Mk II equals their IQ in all ways but distortion and aperture. I also find f/2.8 fast enough for the work I do these days, particularly with the 5DIII and 1D X high ISO quality.

I would try to borrow one from a friend, get a loaner from CPS, or rent one if you're on the fence. I think you'll find it a significant improvement over the Mk I and worth the investment.


----------



## vjlex (Apr 2, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> I still shoot with the old 28-70 f/2.8. On landscapes at f 8 it still works great.



Cool! Nice to find a fellow 28-70 f/2.8 holdover. Mine is still my go-to, walk-around lens, and the one I use most when I shoot the odd wedding.

I'm glad for this thread because I've been wondering the same thing about the Mark I versus II. Originally I was thinking of getting the 5DS as my big purchase this year, but I was a little unimpressed and figured maybe it's time to upgrade my lens instead. Honestly, I haven't felt the limitations of the 28-70 which is why I've been really slow to look into the 24-70 Mark II. But from anecdotes I hear around the net, it seems like it will be a significant jump compared to what I currently have.

Really, I'm still looking for galleries or images from the Mark II to kind of give me the sense "I can't do that with what I have," but so far haven't really come across anything like that. Not saying I'm so good I can do anything they can do better, just saying, the limitation is in me more than my equipment at the moment.

I've looked around on flickr and seen some nice shots here and there. I think I'm about 70% convinced that I'm going to get this lens sometime this summer, but would still love to see more galleries. If anyone has any good links, please share. Thanks.


----------



## Ekychoi (Apr 3, 2015)

When I moved from 28-70mm 2.8 to 24-70 Mk I, I actually noticed a drop in quality in my pictures. I was never really happy with the image from Mk I. I have upgraded to Mk II, the pictures are constrasty, good dimension, and sharp. No need to sit on the fence....


----------



## Brand B (Apr 5, 2015)

shunsai said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > I still shoot with the old 28-70 f/2.8. On landscapes at f 8 it still works great.
> ...



Makes three of us. Never been disappointed in mine. Only issue is occasionally camera comes on and does not recognize the lens (dirty contacts maybe). Came close to replacing it with the kII with the recent rebate, but just missing the nagging need to do so.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 5, 2015)

Viggo said:


> It's a world of difference in every way. AF, weight, IQ. Absolutely worth an upgrade !


I was very hesitant because of the price difference and I actually had a good & sharp copy of the Mark 1. However, one day a person approached me to purchase my copy and then I decided that it was time to upgrade. NO REGRETS, Mark 2 is way better and damn sharp.
Pull the trigger.... and get it.


----------



## Robert Welch (Apr 5, 2015)

I had the mkI for about 10 years, a good copy apparently because I never felt the need to upgrade or swap it out. A friend of mine had the mkII (traded up from mkI) and convinced me it was a worthwhile upgrade. I was also feeling like my mkI was getting long in the tooth, and I'd rather upgrade before it needed any kind of repair, and while I could still sell it a full market value. So when there was a sale on the mkII with rebates, I picked up one.

I tested the two side by side a bit before selling the mkI. My test indicate at f/2.8 in particular, the mkII is significantly sharper, which is what my friend told me to expect. From f/4 and higher, not as much of a difference, but the mkII is slightly sharper. As for the lens hood issue, the mkII has better contrast and flare resistance without any hood than the mkI does with a hood, so the 'superior' hood design of the mkI is completely invalid when comparing the two. The build quality is good in both, but knowing the inherent issues that many have had over time with the mkI (where it easily goes out of 'tune' from heavy handling or even normal usage), there is at least a psychological feeling of confidence in the sturdiness of the mkII that I had lingering doubts about in the mkI, even though my personal experience never validated the concerns for the mkI. One other noticeable improvement with the mkII was the autofocus performance, especially with current camera bodies like the 5DmkIII. Simply put, I get more keepers with the mkII, it seems to get good focus closer to 100% of the time, much more than the mkI ever seemed to. I'm also comfortable shooting at f/2.8 with mkII, while with the mkI I always felt the need to stop down at least 2/3rd stop whenever I could. What good is a 2.8 lens if you never feel comfortable with results at 2.8?

Bottom line, the mkI was a good lens for me, and I was happy with it until I got the mkII. I wasn't happy about spending the money, which is why it took me so long to switch. But after the discounted pricing which I was able to get the mkII for on sale at the time, and what I was able to sell the mkI for--pretty close to full market value since it was an excellent copy of the lens--my cost to upgrade was about $800. I feel that it was worth $800 to upgrade, might have even been worth more, but glad that was all I had to pay.


----------



## Berty Rampkin (Apr 7, 2015)

If you make money from your photography upgrade, if you dont, i dont think its worth the £££'s for an upgrade and wont dramatically change your photography . I would just invest in another lens.. 100mm 2.8L IS Macro maybe, a different perspective when needed???? :-\


----------



## Mika (Apr 10, 2015)

Regarding 24-70s, I own the Mk I, and have not tried the Mk. II - yet. The reason? I'm happy with my Mark I. My decision to stay was also based on the _better specs of Mark I_. 

How you ask? I can get closer with Mark I, which tends to suit the majority of situations I use the objective. The out-of-focus rendering seems to be better too, I tend to think Canon intentionally made the objective behave this way to smoothen the background. I do occasionally use flare as a compositional element, so it has not been bugging me. 

Then there is the subjective read-my-mind type property of Mark I. I don't know how, but with Sigma's 50A, these objectives not only seem to fulfill the vision I had, but can even up it a bit (or occasionally a lot!) 

I have never had problems with field curvature of Mark I, that is probably again because of how I use the objective: I don't typically use it for landscapes, but for situationals.

But then again, I'm a hobbyist, and not a professional.


----------

