# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Version 1 vs Version 2



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 7, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8797"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8797" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=8797"></a></div>
<strong>A quick comparison

</strong>Below is a quick spec and MTF comparison between the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L Version 1 & Version 2.</p>
<p>We’re still waiting for an official price on the lens. I do expect a big bump in price.</p>
<p><strong>Version 1</strong></p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Focal Length & Maximum Aperture</td>
<td>24-70mm 1:2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lens Construction</td>
<td>16 elements in 13 groups</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Diagonal Angle of View</td>
<td>84° – 34°</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Focus Adjustment</td>
<td>Front-focusing method</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Closest Focusing Distance</td>
<td>0.38m/1.25 ft.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Zoom System</td>
<td>Rotating Type</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Filter Size</td>
<td>77mm</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Max. Diameter x Length, Weight</td>
<td>3.3″ x 4.9″, 2.1 lbs. / 83.2mm x 123.5mm, 950g</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div id="attachment_8805" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 485px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ef_24-70_28umtf1.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-8805" title="ef_24-70_28umtf1" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ef_24-70_28umtf1.gif" alt="" width="475" height="237" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L MTF</p></div>
<p><strong>Version 2

</strong></p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Focal Length & Maximum Aperture</td>
<td>24-70mm, 1:2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Lens Construction</td>
<td>18 elements in 13 groups</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Diagonal Angle of View</td>
<td>84° – 34°</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Focus Adjustment</td>
<td>Inner-focusing with USM</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Closest Focusing Distance</td>
<td>0.38m/1.25 ft.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Zoom System</td>
<td>Rotating Type</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Filter Size</td>
<td>82mm</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Max. Diameter x Length, Weight</td>
<td>3.5 x 4.4 in., 28.4 oz. / 88.5 x 113mm, 805g</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div id="attachment_8804" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 485px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/24-70IImtf1.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-8804" title="24-70IImtf" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/24-70IImtf1.gif" alt="" width="475" height="237" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II MTF Chart</p></div>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 7, 2012)

Judging by the MTF figures that's one hell of an improvement on an already great lens.


----------



## PaperTiger (Feb 7, 2012)

Wow, that looks huge! I own version 1, and it's fine, but it's not really as sharp as I'd like at 2.8. Looks like they bumped the sharpness a fair bit!


----------



## Britman (Feb 7, 2012)

No I.S is a little surprising. With any luck there will be a glut on used mkI on sale soon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2012)

Britman said:


> No I.S is a little surprising. With any luck there will be a glut on used mkI on sale soon.



Don't count on that. Price differential is greater than for the 70-200 II, and when that came out, used prices on the MkI went *UP* by several hundred dollars. Only now - 2 years later - are used MkI prices down in the range they were before the MkII. 

Bottom line, if you want a 24-70 MkI - used or new - buy it NOW!


----------



## traveller (Feb 7, 2012)

Shorter, fatter and lighter; that's the positives out of the way! No IS, 82mm filter thread and the price? I believe the phrase rhymes with "clucking bell"! That's a big increase without IS as justification...


----------



## Stuart (Feb 7, 2012)

The fall off at the edges looks to be improved by the larger front element - good for FF users - though new 82mm filters need buying.


----------



## vbi (Feb 7, 2012)

If it is a big an improvement as the 70-200 was then I am interested. My 24-70 Mk1 is only really useable from F4 and up.

But then again...why pay the earth for an effective 1 stop improvement?


----------



## AJ (Feb 7, 2012)

Has Tamron published MTF curves for their new 24-70 VC ?


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 7, 2012)

Cooollll... with that kind of improvement (as well as the improvement to the 70-200 2.8 II) I'm looking forward to the improved 16-35 viii and 17-40 v2 whenever they pump those bad boys out


----------



## iaind (Feb 7, 2012)

Amazon has mkI for £935 against £2299 for pre-order MkII

Difficult choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Z (Feb 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Britman said:
> 
> 
> > No I.S is a little surprising. With any luck there will be a glut on used mkI on sale soon.
> ...



Buy it now indeed... I never saw myself doing this, but I am going to buy a second hand mark I as soon as possible. I am truly terrified of the £2300 price tag that UK retailers are slapping on the mark II pre-order. Even if they come down to meet the officially announced German prices, that's still £1900. The mark I can do everything the mark II can do, just a bit heavier and a bit softer (according to MTF)...

I never thought I'd wait all of this time just to buy a used mark I.


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Feb 8, 2012)

i dont know if the said added sharpness around the corner is a huge must with only 2 more elements. i mean, V1 is $1300 and the new revised one is $2300. is it really worth it?! if it had an amazing improvement like the 70-200 then maybe, but with the lack of such jump.. i duno.


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 8, 2012)

The tech geek in me wants a new toy, but there's no way in hell I can justify this one. I'm sure the images will show a great deal of improvement when they come out, but I'm more than happy with my version I even at 2.8. That being said, if Canon set the MSRP under $2000 for the version II, Id be itching to sell right now.


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Feb 8, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> The tech geek in me wants a new toy, but there's no way in hell I can justify this one. I'm sure the images will show a great deal of improvement when they come out, but I'm more than happy with my version I even at 2.8. That being said, if Canon set the MSRP under $2000 for the version II, Id be itching to sell right now.



i agree with you. nothing better than having the lasted toys but when its 2300 bucks, for such a small jump imo, sometimes its just not worth it. i have shot pictures and videos with version one, and its pretty damn good.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 8, 2012)

CatfishSoupFTW said:


> i dont know if the said added sharpness around the corner is a huge must with only 2 more elements. i mean, V1 is $1300 and the new revised one is $2300. is it really worth it?! if it had an amazing improvement like the 70-200 then maybe, but with the lack of such jump.. i duno.



It not only has an improvement like 70-200 2.8 IS I to II but a much, MUCH larger one than that, judging by the MTF charts.


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Feb 8, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> CatfishSoupFTW said:
> 
> 
> > i dont know if the said added sharpness around the corner is a huge must with only 2 more elements. i mean, V1 is $1300 and the new revised one is $2300. is it really worth it?! if it had an amazing improvement like the 70-200 then maybe, but with the lack of such jump.. i duno.
> ...



oh wow. did not notice that giant improvement. but i mean, i want to see sample images or try them out side by side before I would consider it. it doesnt fall apart like v1, actually on paper, it seems pretty amazing. but how noticeable will it be? and couldnt post correct it?


----------



## ruffrider (Feb 8, 2012)

PaperTiger said:


> Wow, that looks huge! I own version 1, and it's fine, but it's not really as sharp as I'd like at 2.8. Looks like they bumped the sharpness a fair bit!



bumped the sharpness where? 
just in the center of the frame as far as i can see,and that area aint even covering the crop sensor fine enough ,wide open it´s ok till 4mm (8mm on a 24mm sensor). and the F8 measurment done at 10Lpmm is a joke when they make sensors with resolution with 100Lpmm and above.
i bet it´s just the same old crap (unless u get a good copy), sharp in the middle and blur like hell all around.
i think i´ll just wait for the tamron, if it´s anything like the 17-50 then it´ll be the best choice for both canon and nikon shooters.

by the way, the bokeh seems not that good as the old one. 

by the way anyone who dont know how to read `Canon´s ´ MTF . here it is.
Thick black is 10 lp/mm @ maximum aperture (wide open)
Thick blue is 10 lp/mm @ f/8
Thin black is 30 lp/mm @ maximum aperture
Thin blue is 30 lp/mm @ f/8 

see, they dont even show you atleast a 50 Lpmm chart, why? it´ll show you how sharp it really is in real world shooting.


----------



## ruffrider (Feb 8, 2012)

CatfishSoupFTW said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > CatfishSoupFTW said:
> ...


the giant improvement you noticed is unfortunately only in the center of the frame which aint even enough to cover 70% of the crop sensor, let alone the FF.
the bad news is the sharpness fall off is too steep that it will be even more annoying to see a sharper center and mushy borders compared to the older version ,which i got one acceptably sharp after trying 3 of them.

incase you dont know how to interpret canons chart 

Thick black is 10 lp/mm @ maximum aperture (wide open)
Thick blue is 10 lp/mm @ f/8
Thin black is 30 lp/mm @ maximum aperture
Thin blue is 30 lp/mm @ f/8


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Feb 9, 2012)

So, between the two lenses, they are still a good set of lenses but not good enough for many? i mean, so many people have used V1 so many times and its such a well known lens with good images. I mean, its still a great lens. both of em. are we all just being too picky with JUST the charts?


----------



## kubelik (Feb 9, 2012)

I've posted this elsewhere, but looking at the MTF charts, and knowing a ton of people will now be seeking used Mark I's out there, I may very well trade up for the Mark II. I especially think that if this is your bread-and-butter lens, it's definitely worth having the newer version. the old one is great but I wouldn't say prime-rivaling, but the new certainly looks like it could really negate the need for f/2.8 primes in that focal range, like ... ever.


----------



## D_Rochat (Feb 9, 2012)

kubelik said:


> I've posted this elsewhere, but looking at the MTF charts, and knowing a ton of people will now be seeking used Mark I's out there, I may very well trade up for the Mark II. *I especially think that if this is your bread-and-butter lens, it's definitely worth having the newer version*. the old one is great but I wouldn't say prime-rivaling, but the new certainly looks like it could really negate the need for f/2.8 primes in that focal range, like ... ever.



Agreed. If the 24-70L is your main lens and it pays the bills, it's worth it to shell out $2300. I still think it's a tad high. I think they put it just out of reach for anyone who's not shooting weddings and events or even PJ's. $2000 would have been more reasonable and I don't think it will be long before you see it come down. 

This could be a good thing though. For those of us who have the version I, it will be a matter of time for the used prices to go up and get you closer to an upgrade itf you feel it's necessary.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 9, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > I've posted this elsewhere, but looking at the MTF charts, and knowing a ton of people will now be seeking used Mark I's out there, I may very well trade up for the Mark II. *I especially think that if this is your bread-and-butter lens, it's definitely worth having the newer version*. the old one is great but I wouldn't say prime-rivaling, but the new certainly looks like it could really negate the need for f/2.8 primes in that focal range, like ... ever.
> ...



yep. that, and that fact that it will probably carry rebates on it when Canon drops more bodies later this year, means it's actually not too far off the mark.

still can't tell you how much I hate the new IS prime pricing, though.


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Feb 9, 2012)

you think the price will drop if they make it a kit set up? with maybe the 5DmrkIII/X ? the kit before was with the 16-35 wasnt it?


----------



## Dianoda (Feb 9, 2012)

kubelik said:


> I've posted this elsewhere, but looking at the MTF charts, and knowing a ton of people will now be seeking used Mark I's out there, I may very well trade up for the Mark II. I especially think that if this is your bread-and-butter lens, it's definitely worth having the newer version. the old one is great but I wouldn't say prime-rivaling, but the new certainly looks like it could really negate the need for f/2.8 primes in that focal range, like ... ever.



Yeah, except there will probably still be plenty of distortion at either end of the zoom, and primes tend to have more appealing bokeh. I expect the use of Canon's most recent coatings to minimize flare.

Probably the biggest unknown is something I haven't read anything about yet: has there been any discussion regarding the II fixing the field curvature present in ver. 1?


----------



## KyleSTL (Feb 9, 2012)

I have resized the four MTF graphs onto a single picture. Much easier to read this way. Looks like the new one is definitely sharper.


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Feb 10, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> I have resized the four MTF graphs onto a single picture. Much easier to read this way. Looks like the new one is definitely sharper.



but how noticeable would you say these would look like side by side? when it would come to sharpness? just by reading these charts? i guess we may just have to wait for hands on reviews.:S


----------

