# 24 - 70mm f/2.8 L I or II



## Aperture (Mar 21, 2012)

I am an advance hobby photographer, mostly I shoot landscapes, family portraits and some macro

currently I own 16 - 35 f/2.8 II L, 70 - 200 f/2.8 II L and 100 mm f/2.8 L macro and a 5D Mark II

I have been thinking of adding 24 - 70 to my list for shooting both, family portraits and landscapes when I travel, 

My dilemma is should I get version I or II ?

I wonder if version II is worth the price $2300, also version I is a proven lens and is already perfect

Please help me understand why one should pay extra $1000 more for version II

Thank you


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 21, 2012)

I'd wait for the reviews to come out for version II before buying anything in that range, especially if you can afford version II. Version I is not perfect and can use some improvement. The MTF comparison suggests that the difference should be significant but we'll find out once it comes out.


----------



## birdman (Mar 21, 2012)

Such a large price difference. I would probably go with the older 28-70L, which is said to be super, super great.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 22, 2012)

Aperture said:


> I am an advance hobby photographer, mostly I shoot landscapes, family portraits and some macro
> 
> currently I own 16 - 35 f/2.8 II L, 70 - 200 f/2.8 II L and 100 mm f/2.8 L macro and a 5D Mark II
> 
> ...


If you have to have the best like me you get the new one. However, i have been using the version one since 2006 and i have to say it really is perfect. I am not upgrading to the new 24-70. Id rather get a 24 1.4. Ive checked my metadata and the most used focal lengths are 24, 50, 70, 135, 200. I could use the 24 on one 5d and the 50 on another for most shots and use the 70-200 for some portraits and wedding journalism. all with incredible bokeh.


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 22, 2012)

I have version I and a great copy of it. It's sharp, focuses fast, feels great. It's not a beast like a big tele-lens, but it is heavy and depending on how much you shoot even the slight weight reduction of the new version might be worth it in the long run not to mention what other benefits it might have to IQ. If you are not worried about the weight, a good copy of version 1 is an amazing lens so I would not worry. I've taken a lot of great shots with it and have seen the results of photographers much better than myself do simply amazing things with it.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=173736&page=615

I'd also give the 24-105 IS some serious consideration. Unless subject stopping + zooming in low light is required, it's also a top performer. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142974&page=347


----------



## roumin (Mar 23, 2012)

I had a similar dilemma, but since the 24-70 version 2 is still not out, I picked up a like new version one from craig's list for $1,100. Worst case scenario: if I don't like it and want to buy version 2, I could easily sell it for close to what I bought it for and buy the new one. 

On a side note, I am not a professional photographer and can't justify my obsession with high-end gear. I just tell myself that I am worth it - and that is why UPS is bringing me my 5D3 tomorrow (like i really need it)


----------



## fotoworx (Mar 23, 2012)

I love my 24-70mm V1......no way in the world would I fork out more $$$ just to own VII when V1 is for me perfect.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 23, 2012)

I would say neither get a good 50mm
the 16-35 owns the wide end and from 70 up you have the 70-200
a 50 fill the gap nicely


----------



## Bosman (Mar 24, 2012)

roumin said:


> I had a similar dilemma, but since the 24-70 version 2 is still not out, I picked up a like new version one from craig's list for $1,100. Worst case scenario: if I don't like it and want to buy version 2, I could easily sell it for close to what I bought it for and buy the new one.
> 
> On a side note, I am not a professional photographer and can't justify my obsession with high-end gear. I just tell myself that I am worth it - and that is why UPS is bringing me my 5D3 tomorrow (like i really need it)


HAHAAHHAHA! Send me some cash and have a new obsessions of helping people financially!


----------



## roumin (Mar 24, 2012)

Bosman, You got it. Would like some frensh fries with that too 

How about I send you a picture of the cash with my new 5D3 in stupid high ISO.


----------



## Trevor (Mar 24, 2012)

Get the version II

It's smaller and apparently amazing MTF results ... you'll keep it for 5 years - think of the cost per year of ownership.


----------



## Seamus (Mar 24, 2012)

Thanks guys, I was torn between getting version1 now or waiting for v2. I decided to wait and see the reactions when v2 is released. That will give me time to think about getting the 16-35 instead...


----------



## Kamera Obscura (Mar 24, 2012)

V 1 taken today.

dario.


----------



## Kamera Obscura (Mar 24, 2012)

V1 taken today 2.

dario.


----------



## dturano (Mar 25, 2012)

short answer, v1 is a great lens, get it used or new or white box and you'll enjoy it, no budget issues v2 all the way. 

long answer
Seems like you have a pretty good range of focal lengths with your current equipment. I have the V1 and love it, if i had the coin I would get V2 in a minute, the good thing my V1 has great value and when i have some extra coin i can sell and get a v2. Personally I would grab a V1 used if i was on a budget, if not V2. Im actually really interested in the new Tamron when more info comes out, i have never really liked tamron, i always had sigma, when i got extra money i got canon but recently borrowed a sigma 70-200mm 2.8 and fell in love. reminding me you can find great value in 3rd party vendors. I have the 7d, i went from the old sigma 24-70 which was great, to the 24-70mm v1 but it sits off my camera because i got the canon 17-55mm f/2.8 and love it. With my 5dmk3 on the way the 24-70mm will be back off my shelf and in action. Selling the 7d, 17-55mm but still have some simgas that will work great on the new camera.

I have no clue when this is set to launch but seems promising. 
Tamron develops full-size, high-speed standard zoom with built-in image stabilization – SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD (Model A007)

Either way you'll be happy, i always find pros and cons in a new lens. I love places like this to post and ask other users, but unfortunately i find reviews online are very strict, copies vary, and people expect to much from different products. I find always better to take all infer and reviews with a grain of salt, if possible go to a good local store, and ask if you can use a 24-70mm v1 and v2 bring your camera and take sample shots in the store. I actually bring a friend, niece, nephew, wife, etc to have some subjects. Good thing about that is you can ask the salesperson to not sell the copy they let you try incase you love it you know you can get that copy. Or if you don't have access rent one and see what you think.


----------



## JR (Mar 25, 2012)

get the mark II if you have the budget...it will last a long time...I am waiting to try it myself and maybe replace a couple of prime by it!


----------



## vuilang (Mar 25, 2012)

Kamera Obscura said:


> V 1 taken today.
> 
> dario.



WAAAWWWW..... Cant believe you post such a poorly processed photo as an example and be proud of it.. the photo itself is not bad, just the Post.


----------



## Kamera Obscura (Mar 25, 2012)

Well, we all look at art differently. I like it on my screen.

Am I proud of it? as you say I am?

dario.


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 25, 2012)

Aperture said:


> I am an advance hobby photographer, mostly I shoot landscapes, family portraits and some macro
> 
> currently I own 16 - 35 f/2.8 II L, 70 - 200 f/2.8 II L and 100 mm f/2.8 L macro and a 5D Mark II
> 
> ...



Good question. Looks as if Canon tried to make an excellent lens even better optically. Given that it is lighter I'd be concerned that the new version doesn't have the build quality any longer like the version I. Yes, I know even that one had issues on occasion. Making things more plasticky seems to be the way these days.

The lenses are good optically but I'm still underwhelmed with the feel and some details of my EF lenses - including L lenses. The original 24-70 seems to be on the better side with this.


----------



## psycho5 (Mar 25, 2012)

I sold both a 28-135 IS/USM and 70-200 F4L IS/USM to help fund the new lens. I used to have v1 and sold it a year ago since the 28-135 seemed to have the equivalent sharpness, but missed f/2.8.

that being said, the MTF charts look amazing and i'm sure the price justifies it. the focus lock is welcomed. Something I hated with the 28-135 is the lens creep is downright disgusting. it wasn't that bad with the old 24-70, but still happened.

if you compare the MTF charts between the old version and the new from canon's website, there is a strong contrast between the two and IMHO, the new one is silly sharp. The MTF even outshines the MTF of the new 70-200 2.8 is II.

I'm confident once people start using the new version once its out, any other lenses they have between 24 and 70mm will end up on ebay.


----------



## psycho5 (Mar 25, 2012)

compare MTF:

if you don't know anything about MTF, read it here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml


----------



## papa-razzi (Mar 25, 2012)

Neither.

version 1 doesn't have IS, is heavy, has a narrow focal length range, and is overly expensive.
version 2 doesn't have IS, has a narrow focal length range, _and is ridiculously expensive_.

24-105 f/4L IS is a much better value for money. Lighter, less expensive, better range, just as sharp.
If you need to shoot low light, use a prime lens. You could probably buy an "L" prime and the 24-105 for close to what the 24-70 v2 costs.

As you can tell, I am not a fan of these lenses, especially how Canon has priced them. If the version 2 had IS and was priced the same as version 1, I would would say it was a good lens for full frame. (I would still go for EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS for crop)

Some people love the current version of this lens, and can't wait for the new one to ship. I just think they are a terrible value for money.


----------



## NutsAndBolts (Mar 25, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> Neither.
> ...
> 
> 24-105 f/4L IS is a much better value for money. Lighter, less expensive, better range, just as sharp.
> ...



I vote for 24-105 also. Look at the MTF for 24-105:


----------



## pwp (Mar 25, 2012)

Aperture said:


> I have been thinking of adding 24 - 70 to my list for shooting both family portraits and landscapes when I travel.
> My dilemma is should I get version I or II ?



The 24-70 f/2.8 MkI is one of those highly divisive lenses. Plenty of lucky photographers have lucked out and got a good one. The later builds may be better. But anecdotally among serious photographers I've been in communication with over many years report experiences in line with my own re the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI...most of them are disappointed in the extreme. I've recently bought my third 24-70 f/2.8 and while it's a little better than my last two I'm far from impressed. Lots of photographers who have this lens leave them in the studio gathering dust. That's why there was such excitement and when the MkII was announced after what has been a very long wait.

Just to get me by until the MkII was released, in desperation I bought a pre-owned 24-105 f/4is. To my surprise it is superior in every way to any of my 24-70 lenses except for being a stop slower. It's inherent vignetting and distortion is fully corrected automatically on Import into Lightroom. It has IS. It has just that little bit more reach. In short, I trust it.

Early reports suggest the MkII lens is a cracker. Wait a little while for meaningful independent reviews to come through, but it already looks like it will be worth the $1000 premium if you require A1 quality. 

Paul Wright


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Mar 25, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> Neither.
> 
> version 1 doesn't have IS, is heavy, has a narrow focal length range, and is overly expensive.
> version 2 doesn't have IS, has a narrow focal length range, _and is ridiculously expensive_.
> ...



Pictures Ive seen of the II definitely show a IS button. Besides, I always follow the principle for shooting speed close to equivalent focal length with or without IS if the shot really matters especially with a heavy lens. With the 1.4 50 the lens is so light you can get sharp shots easier


----------



## pwp (Mar 25, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> Pictures I've seen of the II definitely show a IS button. Besides, I always follow the principle for shooting speed close to equivalent focal length with or without IS if the shot really matters especially with a heavy lens. With the 1.4 50 the lens is so light you can get sharp shots easier


There's no IS on the new lens. It would have been nice but would have ramped up price & weight even more. If there was a tradeoff to keep the price somewhat reasonable, I'm glad that image IQ was not compromised just to include IS. 

Look here for comparo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_24%E2%80%9370mm_lens

Paul Wright


----------



## Aperture (Mar 27, 2012)

Thank you guys, that was really helpful..

I ordered the Version I as it seems to be fine for what I shoot, also I don't want to be part of beta testing of Version II, which might take at least about a year after the release to fix any issues and to stabilize

In that year I think I have lots of photos to shoot 

May be I'll replace the V-I with V-II after a year or two

thank you all for your reply, really appreciate it


----------



## Bosman (Apr 5, 2012)

roumin said:


> Bosman, You got it. Would like some frensh fries with that too
> 
> How about I send you a picture of the cash with my new 5D3 in stupid high ISO.


Please SEND! LOL PLEASE! That would be awesome!


----------



## Bosman (Apr 5, 2012)

Kamera Obscura said:


> V1 taken today 2.
> 
> dario.


colorful images but they dont show what the lens can do since you blurred her skin.


----------



## avangardphoto (Apr 5, 2012)

I would hot with the 24-70. It's a great lens.

Mario
avangardphoto.com


----------



## Bosman (Apr 6, 2012)

24-70 @ 70mm F4


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 7, 2012)

Kamera Obscura,

She's kinda old looking, I'd trade her in for a new version 

ET


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 7, 2012)

I sold my 24-105 tonight for $900 cash.
Yeah, I made a profit for once.

It was however, short lived, because I spent it on a 35mm F/1.4 and 135mm F/2 in preference to the new 24-70mm 

ET


----------

