# EF 24-70 F2.8 Mk I



## wsmith96 (Mar 9, 2016)

I've been looking at a used 24-70, but wanted to ask the forum if there is enough significant difference between them to pursue the Mk ii. I would mainly use this lens for general and low light general photography- no weddings. For those who have used both, how would you compare the two beyond technical tests?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2016)

I much prefer the MkI, especially the hood design.


----------



## Pookie (Mar 9, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> I've been looking at a used 24-70, but wanted to ask the forum if there is enough significant difference between them to pursue the Mk ii. I would mainly use this lens for general and low light general photography- no weddings. For those who have used both, how would you compare the two beyond technical tests?



Not much besides the weight... I own 2 24-70I and one II. Many have complained about the original "brick" but I love it and neither of my mark I's suffered from the "issues" some complained about. I do use the II almost exclusively now though. The mark II does seem to be a little more snappy with the AF on both the 5D3 and 1DX, it never seems to miss. Never liked the reverse zoom of the original though. The hood for the mark II is just about worthless as worthless gets. I do love the new body of the markII, the textured finished is much nicer. I do many weddings a year and never, NEVER use it for low light... that's always the 50L or the 85L, sometimes the 24L or 35L.

5D3+ 24-70II


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 10, 2016)

Thank you for your replies!


----------



## Pookie (Mar 10, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> Thank you for your replies!



No problem... so what are you going with? I'd check is for decentering on an older mark I and general wear but my second mark I was purchased for 550 used... just as good as my original new purchased one. It was too good a deal to pass up.


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 10, 2016)

I'm watching a Mk I on ebay right now. It's at $640. If it goes over $700 I'll probably pass. On this particular lens I can be patient and wait for a deal. My end game is to have all of my lenses be f2.8 or larger. I'm a hobby shooter so I have no timeline, but if there is a good deal, I'll pursue it.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2016)

I owned the Mk I for years and finally solid it in the favor of the 24-70 f/4L IS. Understand that I am in a very small minority in having made that move -- if you _need_ f/2.8 (if the lens has any sports or portraiture needs), get f/2.8.

In favor of the Mk I:


The lens hood (and reverse movement for zooming, i.e. the barrel sticks out the furthest at 24mm and not 70mm) optimally shades throughout the entire focal length range. Some outdoor daylight shooters swear by that.
Build quality like a fine Swiss... lead weight. It's a tank. It is built for war.
All the normal L lens goodies -- sealed, FTM focusing, USM, etc.
I love 77mm filter size lenses as many of my other lenses use that as well.

In opposition of the Mk I:


The lens is 14 years old and has been optically outclassed by the 24-70 F/4L IS, the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and _especially_ the 24-70 f/2.8L II (which mops the floor with it when comparing wide open shooting between the two)
It's extremely heavy for it's FL range.
To get that optimally shaded goodness, the hood is cartoonishly massive for standard zoom, on par with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II hood, and slightly bulkier at that. Some camera bags will not allow you to store the hood conveniently as even though it attaches in the reverse position, its diameter is quite large.
Again, a hood related beef I have is that working a CPL is a handful with the hood on. If you are only leaving the CPL in one position for a day of shooting, no worries. But if you are constantly tinkering with it, it can be annoying.

As far as shooting in low light, I think that's more a matter of the rig you are putting on and what ISO levels you can live with. If you are shooting lowlight + handheld + without flash, you have the painful choice of stratospheric ISO levels, having to shoot with this lens wide open (clearly it's weakest point compared to other options), or both.

- A


----------



## Pookie (Mar 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I owned the Mk I for years and finally solid it in the favor of the 24-70 f/4L IS. Understand that I am in a very small minority in having made that move -- if you _need_ f/2.8 (if the lens has any sports or portraiture needs), get f/2.8.
> 
> In favor of the Mk I:
> 
> ...



I agree with most except the mopping the floor... I know the technical specs of both and on paper, yes. In reality with my mark I's and the mark II. Not so much, maybe I have exceptional outliers as both versions are wicked sharp wide open. I have been thinking about the f/4 IS for studio or strobe work though.

Definitely never thought of either the mark I or II as low light lens though... never.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> The lens is 14 years old and has been optically outclassed by the 24-70 F/4L IS, the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and _especially_ the 24-70 f/2.8L II (which mops the floor with it when comparing wide open shooting between the two)



I disagree, I tested two copies of the MkII against my MkI and saw, essentially, no difference in normal sized prints (16" x 24").

I also disagree that they are tanks, well maybe they are, but they'd be Russian, mine has broken three times since 2004.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2016)

Pookie said:


> Definitely never thought of either the mark I or II as low light lens though... never.



Depends on your expectations for IQ in low light. A lot of folks say handheld low light shooting is a job for f/1.4 primes and that's that. If you're shooting concerts in a dark cave or something, I get that argument. You can do a job with a 50 f/1.4 with two stops better ISO than a 24-70 f/2.8. Great. But if you don't mind pushing ISO to higher levels, a 24-70 f/2.8 will absolutely work.

And will the 24-70 I _focus_ in low light? Sure, but that's more to do with the camera's AF system I'd expect. I never had problems with it on my 5D3, but I certainly didn't get fancy with off-center AF points with it. In really dark environments, I lean heavily on center point AF. Your needs may significantly vary.

- A


----------



## Pookie (Mar 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely never thought of either the mark I or II as low light lens though... never.
> ...



Well, true it can work in low light as with any lens if you're willing to pay the consequences. My biggest LL uses are in churches for weddings or low light event work. Would I consider it a low light lens, nope... there are far better tools for those situ IMO.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely never thought of either the mark I or II as low light lens though... never.
> ...



The problem with faster than f2.8 lenses for 'event' style work is that less dof than f2.8 is too limiting much of the time. In any given shooting situation there is a limit for the actual required dof, too often this is completely ignored in these threads.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The problem with faster than f2.8 lenses for 'event' style work is that less dof than f2.8 is too limiting much of the time. In any given shooting situation there is a limit for the actual required dof, too often this is completely ignored in these threads.



Agreed - I use my 24-70/2.8 II at 'low light' events frequently (ISO 3200-12800). I have used the 35L and 85L in those situations, but I generally need to stop them down to _at least_ f/2.8 for sufficient DoF.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The problem with faster than f2.8 lenses for 'event' style work is that less dof than f2.8 is too limiting much of the time. In any given shooting situation there is a limit for the actual required dof, too often this is completely ignored in these threads.



Agree 100%. In simplest terms -- though an f/1.4 lens lets you get that shot, you often are handcuffed compositionally and *must* use f/1.4 to net that shot at (say) your highest acceptable ISO level. Good luck with that for anything other than shooting individuals.

So this is a less a need for an f/2.8 zoom as it is for an _IS prime_. I've said this many times: providing your subject isn't moving, IS is *latitude* for compositions in low light -- latitude to stop down if the composition demands it, and latitude to walk the ISO back down to earth when you don't. 

The problem is, Canon has only put IS on the following 'more common FL' primes:

24 f/2.8
28 f/2.8
35 f/2
100 f/2.8L

We haven't seen a super sexy indoor event [Fast] + [IS] tool like a 50 f/1.4 IS, 85 f/1.8 IS, or 135 f/2L IS, but imagine what you could do with those in those tough circumstances.

But I'm OT. Apologies.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with faster than f2.8 lenses for 'event' style work is that less dof than f2.8 is too limiting much of the time. In any given shooting situation there is a limit for the actual required dof, too often this is completely ignored in these threads.
> ...



Except that most 'event' style work involves people, usually moving at least somewhat. Just sayin'.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with faster than f2.8 lenses for 'event' style work is that less dof than f2.8 is too limiting much of the time. In any given shooting situation there is a limit for the actual required dof, too often this is completely ignored in these threads.
> ...



OT is the way to have a conversation 

I have used the 24-70 f2.8 for years as a walk around do everything go to lens, for the last eight months I have been using the 35 f2 IS instead, for me it is a dream lens and has effectively replaced much of the use of my 24-70 f2.8. For me and my approach it is the quintessential "super sexy indoor event tool".


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Except that most 'event' style work involves people, usually moving at least somewhat. Just sayin'.



Which is why we need fast primes with IS, then I can drop that caveat.  

I've been a carnival barker screaming for one for years. Speed if you need it, IS if you need latitude - win win. 

I'll carry the extra few ounces gladly in that case. It'll be nothing like the weight bump you take from (say) going a full stop faster.

- A


----------



## Pookie (Mar 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Except that most 'event' style work involves people, usually moving at least somewhat. Just sayin'.
> ...



It's all a balance... IS isn't going to help with moving people in LL. And fast primes will ruin a good shot with to thin a DOF so pick your tools and go for it. I use the 24-70 II for event work often, just never considered it a LL lens was all I was saying.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 10, 2016)

I owned five of the MK I lenses, and sold them all in favor of my 24-105mm L. The lens was not bad, but no better than the 24-105, and a lot more expensive. It has two known defects that a unwary buyer might not be aware of. When I bought the 24-70mm MK II, the 24-105 was never used again. Its a noticeable difference, and its not so front heavy as the old version, so its easier to use.

1. There are small nylon helicoid collars that wear out and cause image sharpness issues. Users often do not know that one or more of the collars has broken, just that they do not like the lens, so they sell it. When the lens is checked at Canon, they know to look for this, and charge to fix it. A link to a comparison of the two as far as build quality is in the first link below. 
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/a-peak-inside-the-canon-24-70-f2-8-mk-ii

2. The Design of the optics results in a curvature of field which cannot be fixed, its just part of the design. This means that the edges of the image will be out of focus when the center is focused. 


http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 11, 2016)

The lens went for $865, so no lens for me this round. Thanks to all for your feedback!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2016)

wsmith96 said:


> The lens went for $865, so no lens for me this round. Thanks to all for your feedback!



Not surprised. I sold mine for about $950 two years ago. 

I think some types of lenses get refreshed possibly a shade too _often_ as they are perceived as absolute professional staples. The UWA and standard f/2.8L zooms immediately come to mind. I think the 24-70 f/2.8L I is a fine, fine lens that didn't *need* to be replaced so quickly.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 11, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > The lens went for $865, so no lens for me this round. Thanks to all for your feedback!
> ...



I think the real reason is they offer different characteristics, just like the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI and MkII do, personally I prefer both the MkI's over the MkII's, to me 'sharpness' is an entirely over rated characteristic for the majority of shooting situations.

I paid $1,250 for my 24-70 f2.8 in 2004, I could get close to $900 for it now, there is a very good reason for that, people like the images they take.


----------



## pwp (Mar 11, 2016)

This question seems to come up every couple of months and Mt Spokane and I always seem to post an almost identical reply. Over the years I had five MkI 24-70 f/2.8 lenses and none of them were up to full professional requirements. Just about every other pro photographer I know had a negative experience with the MkI. 

It's undeniable that there are a good copies of this lens around, but the owners of the bad ones may be more likely to sell. Thankfully the MkII is so good I've sold primes in the focal length range 24, 35 & 50. The MkII has been almost universally received with rave reviews and user feedback.

OP, you might get lucky and pick up one of the rare good MkI's but be clear that it's a gamble. 

-pw


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 11, 2016)

pwp said:


> This question seems to come up every couple of months and Mt Spokane and I always seem to post an almost identical reply. Over the years I had five MkI 24-70 f/2.8 lenses and none of them were up to full professional requirements. Just about every other pro photographer I know had a negative experience with the MkI.
> 
> It's undeniable that there are a good copies of this lens around, but the owners of the bad ones may be more likely to sell. Thankfully the MkII is so good I've sold primes in the focal length range 24, 35 & 50. The MkII has been almost universally received with rave reviews and user feedback.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the heads up!


----------



## J.R. (Mar 11, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I think the real reason is they offer different characteristics, just like the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI and MkII do, personally I prefer both the MkI's over the MkII's, to me 'sharpness' is an entirely over rated characteristic for the majority of shooting situations.



Yep. I sold the 70-200 f/2.8 IS I and got the mark II. somehow I didn't like it. The rendering of the OOF areas was not as pleasing with the mark II. Probably Canon focused excessively on sharpness in the mark II. It was sold last year. 

Eventually, I've ended up with the 200 f/2.8L II, a lens I've appreciated more and more over the past year - useful little lens, low profile, excellent IQ and ... Dirt cheap.


----------

