# Buy a used 24-70 now or wait for new version?



## Pixyl (Dec 11, 2011)

I'm seriously considering a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L as a "general use" lens (I've been using a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 with a Rebel XT but recently upgraded the body to a 50D. In time I plan on upgrading to a full frame body such as the 5D Mk.II or Mk.III, or in addition to the 50D, keeping the latter as a back-up body) but have followed the rumors of a new 24-70 possibly arriving at some stage.

However, I've also read speculations about it becoming a lot more expensive than the current model, and there's also a lot of discussions if an upgraded version is worth the wait or not, with or without IS. So how wise would it be to buy a second hand 24-70 right now? Is it likely the prices for second 24-70 hand lenses would drop considerably if/when a newer 24-70 pops up? I don't have much experience with the second hand lens market.


----------



## michael6liu (Dec 11, 2011)

My experience with EF 70-200 f2.8L is that the price of 2nd hand lens didn't drop immediately after the new version became available. This is very likely due to higher MSRP of the new lens, which in this case is $500. It took several months for a good copy of 2nd hand MKI to drop $200.

Again, like many others have said before, if you really need that lens now, buy it now. If not, what's the hurry? If you have the budge and the patience, you can even wait until next Christmas to get really good deal on the MKII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

michael6liu said:


> My experience with EF 70-200 f2.8L is that the price of 2nd hand lens didn't drop immediately after the new version became available.



With the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, the prices of used copies went sharply *up* when the new version came out. I had been looking at the MkI, which was selling new for ~$1700 and used for ~$1350. When the MkII came out at $2500, dealers with new stock of the MkI raised it to the full MSRP of $1900, and that stock soon ran out. Used prices went up to ~$1600, apparently because that seemed like a great deal compared to the MkII lens. It's only within the las couple of months - 1.5 years after the release of the MkII and after the price of the new MkII has dropped closer to $2000, that I'm seeing used prices for the MkI back to their former level of $1300-1400.

So, the point is, don't count on a MkII version (if it comes) resulting in a price drop for used MkI copies - the price might just go up - and stay up for some time to come.

My feeling is as the previous poster stated - if you need/want it now, get it now.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 12, 2011)

YEAP...totally agreed with neuroanatomist. If you NEED IT NOW- BUY IT NOW

*Little story:*I bought a used 70-200mm f2.8 IS mrk I in 2004, $1475 on ebay (this is when I was single ). 

I got married on Dec 2nd 2006 and decided to sell my SUPER LENS to fund a trip to Hawaii - the lens is sold $1525. 

Early this year 2011 - I decided to buy this lens again - I paid $1515 on Ebay.

Due to recent price drop on version II ($300 instant rebate from Canon plus $100 from B&H) I bought version II for $1974. 

Well...guess what next? Since I have version II, I sold version I for $1575 on craigslist.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 12, 2011)

Dylan777 said:


> YEAP...totally agreed with neuroanatomist. If you NEED IT NOW- BUY IT NOW



+1


----------



## MartinvH (Dec 12, 2011)

Pixyl said:


> I'm seriously considering a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L as a "general use" lens (I've been using a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 with a Rebel XT but recently upgraded the body to a 50D. In time I plan on upgrading to a full frame body such as the 5D Mk.II or Mk.III, or in addition to the 50D, keeping the latter as a back-up body) but have followed the rumors of a new 24-70 possibly arriving at some stage.



Don't buy a 24-70 while right now you have a 50D with a Sigma 17-70.

You are seemingly still in doubt about buying a 5D MKII or MKIII , so why hurry to get a 24-70 MKI right now...
Dont bother about prices might raising on the 24-70 MKI , when the new 24-70 MKII hits the market , there will be many owners selling the 'old' version in order to get the new version.
Since so many 24-70 MKI were sold I dont see the problem to hurry and buy a lens now for a camera you will own later.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 12, 2011)

I would usually say buy it now, but, after owning five of the 24-70mm lenses, I will not buy another. In fact, I've been hooked on prime lenses, so I may not even buy a new version if it comes out.

If you buy one, test it carefully for decentering, which has often been seen, and be prepared to exchange it until you get a good one, or you get tired of returning them.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 12, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I would usually say buy it now, but, after owning five of the 24-70mm lenses, I will not buy another. In fact, I've been hooked on prime lenses, so I may not even buy a new version if it comes out.
> 
> If you buy one, test it carefully for decentering, which has often been seen, and be prepared to exchange it until you get a good one, or you get tired of returning them.



I definately hear you there, there are so many super fast primes in that range that just blow it away, i also find that the 16-35 + the 50mm f1.4 pretty much covers that and then some with much better IQ and the 70-200 takes care of the top end. I have never had a big desire for the 24-70 i just dont see why its so popular.
if i really want zoom in that range i always have my 24-105


----------



## Pixyl (Dec 14, 2011)

MartinvH said:


> Don't buy a 24-70 while right now you have a 50D with a Sigma 17-70.
> 
> You are seemingly still in doubt about buying a 5D MKII or MKIII , so why hurry to get a 24-70 MKI right now...



I will at some stage buy a full-frame body, but at the moment I need better glass. I'm not happy with my Sigma 17-70. I know lots of other people are, but to me it doesn't give me the sharpness I'm looking for and it feels "cheap" and "toy-like" because of its mechanical build. I have one L-lens already (Canon 70-200 f/4L) and it's an entirely different experience shooting with it. I guess it's partly due to the superior build quality, image quality but probably also because it doesn't frustrate me like with the Sigma I take better shots. So with a better body (I've used a Rebel XT/350D until I got the 50D) I feel that I need a better replacement for the 17-70 as an everyday lens, also a lens that I can continue to use as an everyday lens for the full-frame body I will some time buy.




> Dont bother about prices might raising on the 24-70 MKI , when the new 24-70 MKII hits the market , there will be many owners selling the 'old' version in order to get the new version.
> Since so many 24-70 MKI were sold I dont see the problem to hurry and buy a lens now for a camera you will own later.



Good advice. And for the moment I don't "have to" get a new lens as I'm still an amateur, but aiming to go pro sooner or later I do need a better lens. I guess the conclusion is to wait a little longer (at least till over New Year when the new lens is predicted to be announced).


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 14, 2011)

24-105 not a viable alternative for you.

IQ is excellent - just a f/4 rather than a f/2.8


----------



## DCMoney (Dec 14, 2011)

I had the same question last month but decided to buy it and use it till the new one gets released, reviewed and the price drops from the initial MRSP price.

But once I received the lens and now have first hand experience I cant say I will sell the MK 1 at all. Its a great lens and since I got it brand new for $1199 I don't think I will loose more than 5% if I decide to sell.


----------



## pwp (Dec 14, 2011)

Pixyl said:


> I'm seriously considering a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L as a "general use" lens. I don't have much experience with the second hand lens market....



The 24-70 f/2.8 is one of Canon's more contentious lenses. People like myself have had a appalling experience with them...three copies and all dogs. I can't tell you how many photographers I know personally who have a 24-70 f/2.8 and been shocked with the poor quality of the output. This position is repeated on the CR list time and time again. Others have been lucky enough to score a 10/10 copy. 

But having said that, the later builds of this lens seem to have addressed the negative issues. If you want one of these lenses, buy a new one. A good number of the second hand 24-70 f/2.8 lenses are probably being sold because of quality issues. Some may have been bought and sold a dozen times.

Buy new, and be sure to have a clear exchange agreement if the IQ on your copy is anything less than stellar.

Paul Wright


----------



## traveller (Dec 14, 2011)

Canon Rumors should have a 'sticky' rumour that states "The 24-70 f/2.8L replacement will be announced tomorrow". As tomorrow is always another day away, this rumour would never be wrong. All Craig would have to remember to do would be to remove it on the actual announcement day (which I assume will come someday!).


----------



## Halfrack (Dec 14, 2011)

Start with reading this: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

Love Roger, he's an addicts addict..

They're clearing their used items, but I've also seen the 24-70 new for $1,200 - mixed as to what you'd want to do. Just remember that you'll want to do the microfocus tuning with your 50d. 

Good glass never goes down in price, and it will outlast any body you currently have.


----------



## pipinu (Dec 15, 2011)

I have been waiting for MKII for over 12 months. Now I opt for buying the I probably within 15 days. Could anyone explain the major enhancement of II? 

Any advise?


----------



## Pixyl (Dec 15, 2011)

Image stabilization (IS) is one of the rumored features.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 15, 2011)

24-70 as it is, is a really nice lens. I've heard some complaints, and I've some really loud complaints from a few people who claim repeated problems, but overall it's a well regarded lens. Maybe my copy is just good, but I like the pictures that come out of it. I personally would not expect much out of a Mark II copy. I've looked at the differences between the 16-35 L and L II for example and to be honest, if I had to do it all over again, I would have bought a good used copy of the Mark I version for the price discount and also because it takes cheaper filters of a smaller diameter. The shots that you can get out of either lens come out to about the same thing, and that is to say pretty awesome.

One of my favorite ways to see what a lens can do is to head over to a place like this http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=173736&page=9 where there are a large sample of images to look at. Look through all 558 pages worth of shots there if you have time (you might want to start from the back though, as the lens has been out a long time and the later pages will show shots of the lens on newer bodies). 24-70 obviously a high performing lens in the right hands, however outside of looking at things under a microscope almost every lens now-a days is a high performance lens in the right hands.

My guess is that the same people who take crappy pictures with the 24-70 L lens that is available today, are the same exact people that will take awful photo's with the version II lens whenever it comes out. I'm sure there are some people out there with legitimate gripes or who got bad copies, but there are too many amazing photographs taken with this lens to write it off. If I have any complaint, it's that its not the lightest thing in the world to lug around all day but it's built like a tank and I'm pretty sure I could hurt somebody with it. 

My copy focuses fast and accurately even in crappy indoor lighting. The only thing I could really see asking for in a upgrade would be a much, much lighter/compact design. Otherwise, image quality wise, I don't see what they could improve that is going to make any realistic difference in the end result but I'm sure there are folks out there who will be very quick and very adamant to disagree.

p.s. someone one here quoted a Canon rep as explaining that to put IS in the lens would make it way too heavy and offers not enough practical benefit and would not see the light of day on this lens.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Dec 15, 2011)

im the only one that is stressed out by such question? 

_should i buy xy or wait for new version? .. blah blah_

a billion questions like this. :

i mean what do they expect.. did i know the topic starter, do i know his needs? NO!

best is you wait.. there will always be something new, more shiny and maybe even better.
so the longer you wait the better. wait 4 more years... :


----------



## willrobb (Dec 15, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> 24-70 as it is, is a really nice lens.....My guess is that the same people who take crappy pictures with the 24-70 L lens that is available today, are the same exact people that will take awful photo's with the version II lens whenever it comes out.



Pardon the liberal cutting of the quote from Jettatore above, but I agree here completely with what was said.

The 24-70mm is a great lens, my copy focuses fast, gives great images time after time and is my go to lens above all my other lenses. I honestly think it's the best all round L series zoom for a lot of photographers. I go into detail about it here a bit and have some images to back up my claims:

http://www.willrobbphotography.com/2011/08/canon-24-70mm-f2-8l-the-best-all-round-canon-lens/

For me it's the one lens I would get again immediately if it got smashed. Often for work it's the only lens I use as it's so versatile.


----------



## Raddy (Dec 15, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> im the only one that is stressed out by such question?
> 
> _should i buy xy or wait for new version? .. blah blah_
> 
> ...



What keeps me wondering is the different price range people need to think of.
You might get used 24-70L for like 750 Euros whereas you could expect to pay like 1500+ Euros for the 24-70L II. What's the intention then? Save $$ or get the latest stuff available. Not even speaking of the needs. Would be hard to give some advise. Besides that nobody even knows how the new lens performs compared to the old one.


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 15, 2011)

I like that shot of the lady in red, especially when my eye goes back and forth between the left background and then back to her. It's a really cool effect, quality is superb.


----------



## shermanstank (Dec 15, 2011)

Do you really need this lens? --- I have also thought of purchasing this lens but the deciding factor for me was that @ f/2.8, it would fall short in LOW LIGHT situations (IS or not) . IMHO if you are just waiting to buy an IS version which would definitely cost more, the fact of the matter is that it is STILL a f/2.8. You would need a very high ISO to freeze the action.---- This is the reason why I didn't buy it and decided to go with very fast primes (f/1.4, f/1.2). Primes though they are limited in their focal range, they are certainly more capable/flexible than zooms when it comes to poor lighting situations.---- the f/2.8 zooms are fine with sufficient lighting but then they would have to be put down when it gets dark. My 2 cents...

Cheers!
Sherwin


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 15, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> I like that shot of the lady in red, especially when my eye goes back and forth between the left background and then back to her. It's a really cool effect, quality is superb.



+1, nice shot.

It's a great lens btw, if you need it now, don't hesitate


----------



## Pixyl (Dec 15, 2011)

shermanstank said:


> IMHO if you are just waiting to buy an IS version which would definitely cost more, the fact of the matter is that it is STILL a f/2.8. You would need a very high ISO to freeze the action.



IS would be useful for shooting static scenes hand-held while being dimly lit. 
I'm not particularly concerned about the lens having IS or not, but rather expecting improvements in general over the previous version. A new version of something usually means improvements along with previous issues adressed and hopefully fixed.

I wasn't aware this lens had so many issues and that a good copy is hard to find (particularly older issues). In photography forums such as this one I frequently read about people exchanging "bad copies" of a particular lens until they finally receive a "good copy" they're happy with. I wish we could do that here in Norway, however it's up to the service center which checks out a returned lens to determine if it's faulty or not. If they find it _not_ to be faulty the customer still has to pay for their time used to examine it and you get the same lens back 
Naturally, if the lens actually has a problem you're entitled to a free replacement or repair, but my understanding is that "a bad copy" is sometimes hard to prove, and having various threads and articles (among them, "Variation Facts and Fallacies" by Roger at lensrentals.com) there seems to be a lot of different views on the subject of "good" vs. "bad" copies. 

I guess the only way I could sure I'd be getting a "good copy" here is to check it out in the store before parting with my money, but I assume we're talking about extensive, complicated and time-consuming testing methods way beyond what most photographers (including myself) has the knowledge of performing or can actually be done while hanging around in a camera store. Hopefully I'm wrong about this and someone can set me straight about the details.

While the Canon 24-70 is US$ 1200 in the U.S. that's what a _used_ copy costs here! 
A new one costs around US$ 1670


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 15, 2011)

shermanstank said:


> Do you really need this lens? --- I have also thought of purchasing this lens but the deciding factor for me was that @ f/2.8, it would fall short in LOW LIGHT situations (IS or not) . IMHO if you are just waiting to buy an IS version which would definitely cost more, the fact of the matter is that it is STILL a f/2.8. You would need a very high ISO to freeze the action.---- This is the reason why I didn't buy it and decided to go with very fast primes (f/1.4, f/1.2). Primes though they are limited in their focal range, they are certainly more capable/flexible than zooms when it comes to poor lighting situations.---- the f/2.8 zooms are fine with sufficient lighting but then they would have to be put down when it gets dark. My 2 cents...
> 
> Cheers!
> Sherwin



Go Points, and that would be more important thing to consider than what a MKII might bring. But there is more to the trade-off. The DOF gets really shallow/narrow as you step to the max aperture of the awesome prime lenses. I would rather have it then not, and the effect is often welcome, but it can be limiting to a lot of compositions, and at times when you wouldn't use that effect or could get around low-light issues in other ways effectively, well then you might as well have a handful of lenses in one to capture moving action effectively. I think if you are capturing event photography where you can't effectively run around like a mad man with a prime lens, that you at least have two cameras at the ready to make up for the loss of zoom, one of those cameras might even have a zoom attached, and if it doesn't you probably also have a bag with more primes in it. So you really have to also ask how important that shallow DOF effect is, because if it's not going to be that useful, the ability to switch focal length by turning a wheel and figuring out the low-light problem with other solutions is worth considering. Obviously the ultimate solution is having access to everything and knowing ahead of time what you want and then bring just what you need.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 16, 2011)

shermanstank said:


> Do you really need this lens? --- I have also thought of purchasing this lens but the deciding factor for me was that @ f/2.8, it would fall short in LOW LIGHT situations (IS or not) . IMHO if you are just waiting to buy an IS version which would definitely cost more, the fact of the matter is that it is STILL a f/2.8. You would need a very high ISO to freeze the action.---- This is the reason why I didn't buy it and decided to go with very fast primes (f/1.4, f/1.2). Primes though they are limited in their focal range, they are certainly more capable/flexible than zooms when it comes to poor lighting situations.---- the f/2.8 zooms are fine with sufficient lighting but then they would have to be put down when it gets dark. My 2 cents...
> 
> Cheers!
> Sherwin



I'm of the same opinion here, the 50mm prime covers a significant chunk of the range of theis zoom if you move around a bit. the wider end i prefer the 16-35 anyway, I have been considering a wide prime but the choices are so hard i've just decided to wait and keep looking at what is around


----------



## pwp (Dec 16, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> 24-70 as it is, is a really nice lens. Maybe my copy is just good, but I like the pictures that come out of it.
> My guess is that the same people who take crappy pictures with the 24-70 L lens that is available today, are the same exact people that will take awful photo's with the version II lens whenever it comes out.



That's great that you have scored one of the many great copies of the 24-70 f/2.8. Brilliant.

With respect, most photographers who have rejected multiple copies of this lens are more likely to be extremely practical professionals who need to deliver image files to clients at a very high commercial standard. 

When the 24-70 f/2.8 works well there is no doubting this is a cracker of a lens, but the reality is that there are a highly disproportionate percentage of these lenses that simply don't cut it. There is also plenty of evidence that the later builds of the 24-70 f/2.8 may have dealt successfully with the problems. 

This is probably a great time to buy a NEW 24-70 f/2.8 for run-out pricing. 

Paul Wright


----------



## JR (Dec 16, 2011)

Like others who commented here I had issues with two copies of the current version of the 24-70L. I know good copies are out there but bad ones too! In my case I ended up going prime all the way (for other reasons as well not related to your question)...

Sooo, if you need it now and can try the used copy before buying, then go for it, however if you can wait, I hope the new version will be worth the wait and price difference - especially for this one...


----------



## Jettatore (Dec 16, 2011)

Yeah but JR, there are also folks out there complaining (both legitimately and inanely) about their copies of the prime lenses that the 24-70 range covers as well. And PWP, if it's at all useful, my copy is definitely from a newer production run.


----------



## Meh (Dec 16, 2011)

Canon-F1 said:


> im the only one that is stressed out by such question?
> 
> _should i buy xy or wait for new version? .. blah blah_
> 
> ...



The standard answer "if you need it, buy it" is even more predictable. That answer is probably correct but only because it's just stating the obvious. Better to say "if you think you want it just buy it and charge it to your wife's credit card".

edit: or husband's credit card


----------



## JR (Dec 16, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Yeah but JR, there are also folks out there complaining (both legitimately and inanely) about their copies of the prime lenses that the 24-70 range covers as well. And PWP, if it's at all useful, my copy is definitely from a newer production run.



Good point, however I would think the % of bad prime copies within the 24-70mm range in the L series at least is less then the % of bad copies for the 24-70L zoom!?! Of course I have no data to support my intuition here! With the exception of the 50mm f1.2L which some folks find challenging (I have no problem with mine) I think the other primes in the L series like the 24, 35 or even the 85 are fantastic no?

But in any case trying before buying when we can (especially used) is always a plus if we can.


----------

