# Canon 24-70 2.8L MKI to tide me over



## Razor2012 (Jul 11, 2012)

I just picked up a used (I'm saying used because the guy that brought it in on consignment said new but I'm doubtful) 24-70 2.8L MKI. This will tide me over until the MKII comes out. I was also debating on whether to get the 16-35 II, but went the other route because I might get a UW prime once the 24-70II is in. I have 7 days to return it, so I have to make sure it's ok. Glass is pristine and body looks almost new. Tried the focusing and it was fast and snappy. Zoom seemed ok too. Anything else you guys would suggest other than taking a bunch of shots and checking them over?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 11, 2012)

check if the images are sharp if they are you probably got a good one


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 11, 2012)

Compare shots wide open from live view with traditional AF to see if they show comparable sharpness. If not, microadjust and repeat. Take shots of something flat and uniform in color/pattern to confirm that the elements aren't decentered (corners should show same relative sharpness and vignetting).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 11, 2012)

I've never found a used one to be what i'd call excellent. Sellers often don't understand why they did not like it, but there is a reason.
The biggest issue with the 24-70mm L is lens decentering, all of the internal lens elements centered properly. You can google on how to check for this, its obvious once you know what to look for.
Then I'd use FoCal Pro to run their battery of not only AFMA, but the other tests as well.
Some things you cannot fix, like the curvature of field that means the center and edges cannot be in focus at the same time. Stopping down will hide it in depth of field, but some buy a f/2.8 lens actually expecting to use it at f/2.8.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 11, 2012)

Thanks guys, looks good so far. The images aren't quite as sharp as my 70-200II (spoiled now) but nonetheless excellent. That 16-35II was nice though, as a person could get used to that 16 degree FOV.


----------



## Tcapp (Jul 11, 2012)

I had the 24-70. I wasn't crazy about it so i sold it. Too much distortion, vignetting, and not quite sharp enough. Oh, and 2.8 is too slow for me. I love my 1.4 lenses!


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 11, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> I had the 24-70. I wasn't crazy about it so i sold it. Too much distortion, vignetting, and not quite sharp enough. Oh, and 2.8 is too slow for me. I love my 1.4 lenses!



Fortunately I will be trading it back in when the 24-70II comes in. I'll have to try some of those 1.4 primes...I might get hooked though.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 11, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> I had the 24-70. I wasn't crazy about it so i sold it. Too much distortion, vignetting, and not quite sharp enough. Oh, and 2.8 is too slow for me. I love my 1.4 lenses!



I agree with you except the 35L. I had both and at 35mm, the 24-70L was slightly sharper than the 35L prime at f/2.8.


----------



## nebugeater (Jul 11, 2012)

I feel I did but the seller was selling all of his Canon equipment.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> *I've never found a used one to be what i'd call excellent.* Sellers often don't understand why they did not like it, but there is a reason.
> The biggest issue with the 24-70mm L is lens decentering, all of the internal lens elements centered properly. You can google on how to check for this, its obvious once you know what to look for.
> Then I'd use FoCal Pro to run their battery of not only AFMA, but the other tests as well.
> Some things you cannot fix, like the curvature of field that means the center and edges cannot be in focus at the same time. Stopping down will hide it in depth of field, but some buy a f/2.8 lens actually expecting to use it at f/2.8.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 11, 2012)

*UPDATE* 
Unfortunately I had to return the lens today, wasn't my decision though. To make a long story short there were complications from the original owner. So I might look at the 16-35II again, not sure. A person sure misses a wide when you don't have one, lol.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 12, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> *UPDATE*
> Unfortunately I had to return the lens today, wasn't my decision though. To make a long story short there were complications from the original owner. So I might look at the 16-35II again, not sure. A person sure misses a wide when you don't have one, lol.


the 16-35 f2.8L II is one of my favourite lenses i've always found it sharper with better colour and contrast than the 24-70 v1 i have tried so this lens plus the 50f1.4 have pretty much covered everything and more than the 24-70 could for me


----------



## Bosman (Jul 13, 2012)

My 24-70 is amazing and it focusses lightning fast. It has been my most used lens. I even use it for sports hence how i know it is very fast focussing. It is as fast as my 70-200LII without a doubt. You really can't go wrong, its epic!
I have been shooting more primes these days however so i don't know if i will keep it or not. It hasnt failed me other than it needed a new barrel a year ago and it has been rebuilt. It wasnt moving freely. I think a friend i lent it to may have dropped it since it had to be done after that.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 24, 2012)

Ok, I bit the bullet and picked up the 16-35II. I needed a wide for this weekend and couldn't find anything used (well there were some 16-35's but the asking price was too high). I wanted to buy the 24-70II first, but had to do it.


----------

