# Are you going to "upgrade" your 24-70 2.8 I



## PhilDrinkwater (May 29, 2012)

With the 24-70 II on the horizon, will you be upgrading your 24-70 I, given the *rumoured* significant increase in optical quality?

Personally I'm going to. I've never been completely happy with the version I of this lens. It's fine at f5.6, but at 2.8 I've never loved the quality. Also, I like to use the outside of a lens and I find the quality is questionable.

I'm really hoping this will give me the extra quality that I'd like


----------



## Tcapp (May 29, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> With the 24-70 II on the horizon, will you be upgrading your 24-70 I, given the *rumoured* significant increase in optical quality?
> 
> Personally I'm going to. I've never been completely happy with the version I of this lens. It's fine at f5.6, but at 2.8 I've never loved the quality. Also, I like to use the outside of a lens and I find the quality is questionable.
> 
> I'm really hoping this will give me the extra quality that I'd like



I sold my 24-70 cause i wasn't super excited about the quality. It's (almost) all primes for me now!! Plus, im a sucker for super wide apertures.  It doesn't matter how sharp the new lens is, I doubt it will be as good as a good prime.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 29, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> I sold my 24-70 cause i wasn't super excited about the quality. It's (almost) all primes for me now!! Plus, im a sucker for super wide apertures.  It doesn't matter how sharp the new lens is, I doubt it will be as good as a good prime.



I have a lot of primes too.. I use them for large parts of a wedding day. However, in the ceremony I just need something that will get the job done and allow me to be wide or long as needed.


----------



## Tcapp (May 29, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > I sold my 24-70 cause i wasn't super excited about the quality. It's (almost) all primes for me now!! Plus, im a sucker for super wide apertures.  It doesn't matter how sharp the new lens is, I doubt it will be as good as a good prime.
> ...



I do agree with that. I use my 70-200 2.8 is for most of the wedding, with my 24 1.4 L on my second body for the wides.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 29, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> I do agree with that. I use my 70-200 2.8 is for most of the wedding, with my 24 1.4 L on my second body for the wides.



Have you a 135f2? I'm finding it's very much like a 70-200 but without the horrendous WEIGHT! lol! Have to watch the shutter speed though - you need 1/125th at the VERY least to get a sharp shot. In low light I'll use the 70-200 because of IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2012)

No original 24-70mm to upgrade, but I'll be getting the MkII.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> No original 24-70mm to upgrade, but I'll be getting the MkII.



Sorry I should have included that


----------



## squarebox (May 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> No original 24-70mm to upgrade, but I'll be getting the MkII.



I'm in the same boat here. Don't own the MK1, but will pick up the mk2.

I really wanted to get the 24-70 for awhile, but all the problems i heard about the mk1 made me hestitant to pick it up.

This lens is going to be totally more lens than my 550D can handle... but I wanted a midrange zoom as my 35L is too wide sometimes and not long enough others.


----------



## winoheel (May 29, 2012)

I for one think the Mark I is terrific! The II will really have to show me something with the significant increase in price. $$ might be better spent adding primes. I suspect that the secondary market for the I will be hot.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 29, 2012)

I bought 3 different copies of v1(1 used, 2 new), none of them gave the sharpness I'm looking for.

I have v2 on pre-order. The MTF looks very amazing, so will see.


----------



## rj79in (May 29, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> With the 24-70 II on the horizon, will you be upgrading your 24-70 I, given the *rumoured* significant increase in optical quality?
> 
> Personally I'm going to. I've never been completely happy with the version I of this lens. It's fine at f5.6, but at 2.8 I've never loved the quality. Also, I like to use the outside of a lens and I find the quality is questionable.
> 
> I'm really hoping this will give me the extra quality that I'd like



No ... but I'm planning to ditch my V1 for the 24-105


----------



## kwwalla (May 29, 2012)

The mark II will have to be a technically significant upgrade for me to replace my mark I. I will certainly give it consideration once the technical reviews have been released, but my guess is I will use the $$ for other gear. I use the mark I for 90% of my wedding (event) work, and I'm very happy with the results.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 29, 2012)

kwwalla said:


> The mark II will have to be a technically significant upgrade for me to replace my mark I. I will certainly give it consideration once the technical reviews have been released, but my guess is I will use the $$ for other gear. I use the mark I for 90% of my wedding (event) work, and I'm very happy with the results.



Interestingly I think there are good copies and bad copies of that V1 lens. I don't feel mine is one of the good ones.. and maybe that's one of the problems. It seems to be one of those lenses like the 50mm 1.2 - if you're lucky, you're lucky. If not ...  I think I'm hoping, as much as sharpness, that the lens will be more consistent.


----------



## Razor2012 (May 29, 2012)

No Mk I here either. I probably would of bought one if the II wasn't in the horizon If it lives up to the specs, it will be a perfect match for the 70-200 2.8II. Now if we can just get that 14-24...


----------



## picturesbyme (May 29, 2012)

My V1 is pretty sharp but since the Tamron (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data) came out I really would like to see and compare the two...
At the price of the V2 I'd rather buy a good prime for about 1G + the Tamron if it's at least as good as my V1..


----------



## photophreek (May 29, 2012)

I have a very sharp and relatively new v1(UZ), so I haven't made up my mind. If v2 had IS, there would be no deciding. I'm going to wait and see the reviews and real world results before deciding.


----------



## cliffwang (May 29, 2012)

Honestly, I am very interested in the MK2. However, I have to wait for the review before I make the decision because of the bad experience of my MK1. Hopefully the 24-70 MK2 version will be as good as 70-200 MK2.


----------



## VanWeddings (May 29, 2012)

i have to say that i'm very happy with the tamron vc 24-70 i recently picked up. wide open, it is as sharp as my 70-200 2.8 which should say it all. it's the first time i've bought tamron and i can't see canon 24-70 mkii being that much better, especially without IS (great for video).


----------



## cliffwang (May 29, 2012)

VanWeddings said:


> i have to say that i'm very happy with the tamron vc 24-70 i recently picked up. wide open, it is as sharp as my 70-200 2.8 which should say it all. it's the first time i've bought tamron and i can't see canon 24-70 mkii being that much better, especially without IS (great for video).


I am considering the Tamron 24-70 VC. I know it's overall better than Canon 24-70 MK1. However, I still want to see few things before I make a decision.

- Canon 24-70 MK2 vs Tamron 24-70 VC reviews
- Finial price for Canon 24-70 MK2
- If Tamron will drop its price when MK2 out
- Improved QC from Tamron(about 20% of bad copies from many reviews)


----------



## Chris Burch (May 29, 2012)

I couldn't put my pre-order in fast enough. The promise of having quality as high as has been reported across that zoom range will be truly invaluable. As an event and wedding shooter, I use the 24-70 far more than any other lens and it's not even close to the sharpness of any of my other lenses (zooms and primes). Every time I end up shooting portraits with it, I am terribly disappointed -- wedding portraits can get rather wide and negate the use of my 70-200. The only prime I really use is the 85 f/12.L (also not wide enough) and I was thinking about getting either a 35 or 24mm L prime but am now hoping the new version of the 24-70 is good enough that I won't need them. I may still get the 24mm TS, but that' more for the TS function and not as a portrait lens (yes, I know it's the sharpest of the 24mm's, so it will likely get double duty).


----------



## stochasticmotions (May 29, 2012)

I probably would have seriously considered spending new money on a replacement if it had IS. The price for the enhancements this one has is just not enough for me (I really like the v1 lens, it was very good quality and I thought a reasonable price).

I will probably be spending my money short term on the new "equivalent" panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 for my GX1. Hopefully I will be as happy with that as I am with the canon


----------



## crasher8 (May 29, 2012)

My Mk1 is great no lens envy here.


----------



## Beautor (May 29, 2012)

Personally I'm not in the market for the vII. The Upgraded price puts it way out of our league at the moment. I bought my wife a 24-70 vI in January at the end of the rebates for just under $1200. Its our 2nd "L" lens after our 70-200 F4L. The 24-70 was a huge step up from all our previous lenses, but it also was a significant chunk of change for a pair of casual photographers. If I could ever convince my wife to continue with portrait photography (and earn a little income with it) we might have the money to invest in more/better lenses, but for the moment the original 24-70 works fantastic for us. 

Personally I'm certain that I would be a fast prime addict if I could afford anything more than my 50 F1.8. I love low light and shallow DOF, but that little plastic 50 just looks so funny on my old 40D.


----------



## JEAraman (May 29, 2012)

Sold my MK1 in March and discovered that the April launch was postponed.!!!


----------



## Mencho(22) (May 29, 2012)

YES! I preordered mine on Feb/20th hoping I will have it on April... well... July is just around the corner :S


----------



## Tayvin (May 29, 2012)

I found that if you shoot with the 24-105L and THEN shoot with 24-70L it looks much better to you


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> No original 24-70mm to upgrade, but I'll be getting the MkII.


same but i want to see the quality first if its as good as the mtf suggests then i would probably be pretty keen if at 50mm and 2.8 and narrower its sharper than the 50 f1.4 i might grab the 50 f1.2L too


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2012)

I won't be buying the 24-70L II at all. I already have the 16-35L II, 35L, and 50 primes, plus the 24-105L, so really it is not necessary for me. I think instead I'll save $670 ($1629 vs. $2299) and pick up a 24L prime.


----------



## Tcapp (May 30, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree with that. I use my 70-200 2.8 is for most of the wedding, with my 24 1.4 L on my second body for the wides.
> ...



I don't have the 135, but I would love to own it some day! Sounds like an amazing portrait lens when you want a little more compression than the 85 can give you.


----------



## Tcapp (May 30, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I won't be buying the 24-70L II at all. I already have the 16-35L II, 35L, and 50 primes, plus the 24-105L, so really it is not necessary for me. I think instead I'll save $670 ($1629 vs. $2299) and pick up a 24L prime.



you will love it. the 24L is nice.  It's almost weird being able to get such a shallow DoF with such a wide lens.


----------



## houston1852 (May 30, 2012)

I've been back and forth on this for months....buy V1 or spend a little more and get V2. Now I have a new dilemma. I use a Canon T2i. Do I really want to spend that much on this lens when I could upgrade my camera to something like the 5D mrk ii? Maybe I should buy a used V1 and save a little more and buy the camera too.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 30, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I won't be buying the 24-70L II at all. I already have the 16-35L II, 35L, and 50 primes, plus the 24-105L, so really it is not necessary for me. I think instead I'll save $670 ($1629 vs. $2299) and pick up a 24L prime.
> ...



I'm sold!


----------



## Random Orbits (May 30, 2012)

houston1852 said:


> I've been back and forth on this for months....buy V1 or spend a little more and get V2. Now I have a new dilemma. I use a Canon T2i. Do I really want to spend that much on this lens when I could upgrade my camera to something like the 5D mrk ii? Maybe I should buy a used V1 and save a little more and buy the camera too.



Depends on what you shoot. If it's NOT sports-centric, then I suggest the 5DII. IQ is better and you'd gain a stop or two at higher ISOs for the same level of noise. You might not need a midrange zoom, especially if you have a telezoom and/or a wide-angle zoom. Instead, you could get a fast prime, which comes in handy in low light situations.

I moved from a crop body to a 5DII earlier this year and sold my 17-55. I did not replace it with a FF mid-range zoom but use a 50mm prime instead. For anything longer, I'm using the 70-200.


----------



## roumin (May 30, 2012)

I am pretty happy with V1, but if MKII had IS, it would have made it irresistible specially for video.


----------



## Tcapp (May 30, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Yeah buddy! 8)


----------



## Chris Geiger (Aug 16, 2012)

I am new to Canon and was shooting with Nikon till this year (full time wedding shooter). When I purchased two 5D3's I got one of them with the 24-105 kit lens. I also bought a 70-700 2.8 and a 50 1.2. Both the 24-105 and the 70-200 have been very sharp. I've been waiting for the 24-70 II and have one on order. The 24-105 will make a good backup and vacation lens. 

What I really want is a 35-85mm 1.4 zoom but that's not to happen.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 16, 2012)

Chris Geiger said:


> What I really want is a 35-85mm 1.4 zoom but that's not to happen.


hell yeah even if it was f1.8 or even f2 with the hybrid IS of the 100L if it was sharp wide open it would never leave my camera
ahhh to dream


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 16, 2012)

If it's as sharp as the 70-200 II then absolutely. The idea of not being able to carry around a bunch of primes is too appealing to me.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 16, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> If it's as sharp as the 70-200 II then absolutely. The idea of not being able to carry around a bunch of primes is too appealing to me.



+1....on pre-order


----------



## motorhead (Aug 16, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > If it's as sharp as the 70-200 II then absolutely. The idea of not being able to carry around a bunch of primes is too appealing to me.
> ...



+2..... ditto


----------



## Hugo Fisher (Aug 16, 2012)

I would like to move from mk I to mk II version. But I can't still reconcile with lens hood moving when zooming. That lens look so cheap. And it is so impractical (rain, dust). I would love mk II with big hood attached to main "tube" like mk I has.


----------



## bkorcel (Aug 16, 2012)

Nope. I don't have any issues with the IQ after AFMA calibration. Any imperfections near the periphery are cleared up pretty good in Photoshop. I'm happy with the Mk1.


----------



## Jamesy (Aug 16, 2012)

With the recent post here referencing the article by Roger Cicala at LensRentals (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8510.msg154847#msg154847) about the newer glass being the bomb on 5D3 and 1DX, I will strongly consider the 24-70 Mk.II. I am not all that happy with my 24-105, it is OK but not as good as I would have thought therefore I may step up and get rid of the 24-105.


----------



## 1nsanity (Aug 16, 2012)

photophreek said:


> I have a very sharp and relatively new v1(UZ), so I haven't made up my mind. If v2 had IS, there would be no deciding. I'm going to wait and see the reviews and real world results before deciding.



+1


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 16, 2012)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8719.0


----------

