Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

Started Nov 13, 2012 | Discussions
Dave Seeley Senior Member • Posts: 1,051
Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

Looking at buying a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L...  new II for $2300, or a used mark I for about $1000....  Looks like reduced chromatic aberations are the main upgrade?  Was that really a big issue in the first version?

Thanks

dave

-- hide signature --

pro photo-illustration
http://www.DaveSeeley.com/
current kit: 5DmkIII, 5DmkII, 17-35/2.8L, 24-105is/4.0L, 28-70/2.8L, 70-200is/2.8L, 100 macro/2.8L, 50/1.2L, 2x II extender, 8x550ex Speedlites, Phottix Odin Flash Triggers

24Peter
24Peter Veteran Member • Posts: 3,121
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?
1

Dave Seeley wrote:

Looking at buying a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L... new II for $2300, or a used mark I for about $1000.... Looks like reduced chromatic aberations are the main upgrade? Was that really a big issue in the first version?

Thanks

dave

-- hide signature --

pro photo-illustration
http://www.DaveSeeley.com/
current kit: 5DmkIII, 5DmkII, 17-35/2.8L, 24-105is/4.0L, 28-70/2.8L, 70-200is/2.8L, 100 macro/2.8L, 50/1.2L, 2x II extender, 8x550ex Speedlites, Phottix Odin Flash Triggers

Dave _ I haven't tried the newest version of this lens, but IMO ver. 1 left a lot to be desired. But - have you considered renting both and trying them out for yourself? If you're in the US it is very easy to rent on-line for extended periods for pretty reasonable rates (as opposed to some local B&M shops that charge a lot more). FWIW - That's usually how I decide which lens to purchase for myself.

-- hide signature --

View my photo galleries here: http://imageevent.com/24peter
Model Mayhem: http://www.modelmayhem.com/93181

bhollis
bhollis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,424
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

Dave Seeley wrote:

Looking at buying a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L... new II for $2300, or a used mark I for about $1000.... Looks like reduced chromatic aberations are the main upgrade? Was that really a big issue in the first version?

Not just CA. The II is also significantly sharper. It's also a little smaller and lighter, and also supposedly has a more robust build.

Is the II worth $2,300? Only you can decide that, but lots of folks seem to think so. BTW, you might also want to consider the new Tamron. Appears to be optically superior to the Canon I, and also has "VC"--Tamron's version of IS.

If you haven't already done so, recommend you read the reviews on the II, including the blog posts at Lens Rentals.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-24-70-mk-ii-variation

darktiger Regular Member • Posts: 226
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

I currently have both the 24-70 I and II right now... I also have the 24-105L too...

It really depends on if you have the $$.  To me it is a worthy upgrade.  Yes all the charts show it's sharper, and that the sharpest 24-70 I is still not as sharp as the worse 24-70 II...

But to me you can see the sharpness in the images.  Not only in the center, but throughout the whole photo.  I love mine and would do it again

 darktiger's gear list:darktiger's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
lancespring Veteran Member • Posts: 3,974
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

Dave Seeley wrote:

Looking at buying a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L... new II for $2300, or a used mark I for about $1000.... Looks like reduced chromatic aberations are the main upgrade? Was that really a big issue in the first version?

Here is a real good video showing a shootout between the Canon 24-70 F2.8 II vs. Tamron's new 24-70 f/2.8 SP Di USD VC.

http://youtu.be/wcsnsJUKhAg

The Tamron costs basically half the price of the new Canon, yet also offers image stabilization. It also does just as great a job controlling chromatic aberrations as the new Mk II. Resolution is almost as good too. Center is super sharp at f/2.8, although border sharpness does not match the new Canon when wide open. Stop the Tamron down slightly, though, and it is about impossible to see any difference.

If you want another option to consider, do look at the Tamron. Only slightly more than an older Mk I, has many of the benefits offered by the Mk II, plus if you shoot any video, VC is a nice feature to have available.



 lancespring's gear list:lancespring's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D600 +1 more
MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

If you make money off your images, and need sharpness at 2.8, version II FOR SURE.  It was PAINFUL paying $2300 after selling my Mark I for $1150. But once I shot my 1st 3 weddings with it, I could never go back.. I had a decent Mark I, but at 2.8 and 24mm it was soft.. I had to use F4 most of the time.. The new len's 2.8 is more like F5 on the old lens in sharpness.

AF feels just as quick, it maybe a little better but I cant tell. It feels better in the hand.  BUT my only complaint besides the price, is the hood. I loved the reverse design of the Mark I 24-70 2.8. It protected the front of the lens and when zoomed in, in sunlight, gave you good protection.. That is the only thing I miss.. Oh yea, Canon did cut a few corners with the new lens. It does NOT have a rear element on the back, so dust can get in there if you take the lens off and it is zoomed at all. The version one had a non-moving rear element.

But the version II is DEADLY sharp.. even at 2.8. At 5.6 I think it maxes out the resolution of the 5D Mark III. I think you need a higher MP camera to get anymore real sharpness out of it.

Dave Seeley wrote:

Looking at buying a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L... new II for $2300, or a used mark I for about $1000.... Looks like reduced chromatic aberations are the main upgrade? Was that really a big issue in the first version?

Thanks

dave

-- hide signature --

pro photo-illustration
http://www.DaveSeeley.com/
current kit: 5DmkIII, 5DmkII, 17-35/2.8L, 24-105is/4.0L, 28-70/2.8L, 70-200is/2.8L, 100 macro/2.8L, 50/1.2L, 2x II extender, 8x550ex Speedlites, Phottix Odin Flash Triggers

John Vant Land Contributing Member • Posts: 531
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

Although I love sharpness and would appreciate having f/2.8, my trusty 24-105 is so sharp.  If you're on a budget, it has twice the range for half the cost.  I know, it's somewhat slow at f/4, but with my 5D Mk III, I can usually push the ISO up high enough for most situations.

Can you beat this sharpness?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22627716@N07/8180977063/in/photostream

I know, this image outside and stopped down, but for me, I can make due and save the $2300 it would cost to use the 24-70 and I believe in this type of setting, it would make little difference but would cost me the inconvenience of having to change lenses in a dirty environment when I wanted to zoom out.

John

-- hide signature --

Enjoying God and His Creation.

 John Vant Land's gear list:John Vant Land's gear list
Canon PowerShot G12 Canon G3 X Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +9 more
MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

yes, I have the 24-105 and it is very sharp.  But that extra stop COSTS a lot of money. Also, their is A LOT less distortion in the new 24-70.  esp over the 24-105.  BUT the IS on the 24-105 makes it a great, all purpose lens. If I could have ONLY one lens, it would be the 24-105, then the 24-70 V2.

My problem was this. F4 would not cut it for me.. The AF was slowing in the dark churches I shoot, and having to bounce the flash and fill, was killing me battery. I would have to shoot ISO 3200 at 2.8 to bonce the flash.. at F4 was 6400 which made some of the images nasty. And some places, I HAD to shoot at ISO 8000 at 2.8 which was VERY VERY hard..

I will say this. At F4 the new 24-70 is a little sharper then the 24-105.. NOT MUCH thought..

John Vant Land wrote:

Although I love sharpness and would appreciate having f/2.8, my trusty 24-105 is so sharp. If you're on a budget, it has twice the range for half the cost. I know, it's somewhat slow at f/4, but with my 5D Mk III, I can usually push the ISO up high enough for most situations.

Can you beat this sharpness?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22627716@N07/8180977063/in/photostream

I know, this image outside and stopped down, but for me, I can make due and save the $2300 it would cost to use the 24-70 and I believe in this type of setting, it would make little difference but would cost me the inconvenience of having to change lenses in a dirty environment when I wanted to zoom out.

John

-- hide signature --

Enjoying God and His Creation.

bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

MASTERPPA wrote:

yes, I have the 24-105 and it is very sharp. But that extra stop COSTS a lot of money. Also, their is A LOT less distortion in the new 24-70. esp over the 24-105. BUT the IS on the 24-105 makes it a great, all purpose lens. If I could have ONLY one lens, it would be the 24-105, then the 24-70 V2.

My problem was this. F4 would not cut it for me.. The AF was slowing in the dark churches I shoot, and having to bounce the flash and fill, was killing me battery. I would have to shoot ISO 3200 at 2.8 to bonce the flash.. at F4 was 6400 which made some of the images nasty. And some places, I HAD to shoot at ISO 8000 at 2.8 which was VERY VERY hard..

I will say this. At F4 the new 24-70 is a little sharper then the 24-105.. NOT MUCH thought..

John Vant Land wrote:

Although I love sharpness and would appreciate having f/2.8, my trusty 24-105 is so sharp. If you're on a budget, it has twice the range for half the cost. I know, it's somewhat slow at f/4, but with my 5D Mk III, I can usually push the ISO up high enough for most situations.

Can you beat this sharpness?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22627716@N07/8180977063/in/photostream

I know, this image outside and stopped down, but for me, I can make due and save the $2300 it would cost to use the 24-70 and I believe in this type of setting, it would make little difference but would cost me the inconvenience of having to change lenses in a dirty environment when I wanted to zoom out.

John

-- hide signature --

Enjoying God and His Creation.

I'd say the new one is a lot sharper than the 24-105, especially center frame 70mm and wider end corner to corner, even at f/8.

Fog Maker Senior Member • Posts: 2,511
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

Dave Seeley wrote:

Looking at buying a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L... new II for $2300, or a used mark I for about $1000.... Looks like reduced chromatic aberations are the main upgrade? Was that really a big issue in the first version?

Thanks

dave

-- hide signature --

pro photo-illustration
http://www.DaveSeeley.com/
current kit: 5DmkIII, 5DmkII, 17-35/2.8L, 24-105is/4.0L, 28-70/2.8L, 70-200is/2.8L, 100 macro/2.8L, 50/1.2L, 2x II extender, 8x550ex Speedlites, Phottix Odin Flash Triggers

Asking this forum for purchase advice is many times a bad idea.

The only thing to remember is that old version is a VERY good lens. And the preferred choice among professionals for years. That a new version just got released doesn't change that fact.

What is that worth to you?

And contrary to popular forum beliefs, it actually beats the new version in certain, at least to me, very important areas.

Personally I have more important things to invest in for the moment, so I'll skip the new version and will only buy it when and if my original breaks.

(but as usual a whloe lot of people jumps in talking about the 24-105 which is easily the worst performing L lens in the whole lineup - but its a kit lens so many people have it - the 17-40 may not be stellar either, but it is a speciality lens and really not comparable)

 Fog Maker's gear list:Fog Maker's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?
1

Asking this forum for purchase advice is many times a bad idea.

The only thing to remember is that old version is a VERY good lens. And the preferred choice among professionals for years. That a new version just got released doesn't change that fact.

Have you used the old and new next to each other? I have. 9 out of 10, it is far better.  You forget the original 24-70 came out just as digital cameras took off 2002. Film was still being used a lot.

Canon optimized this lens for digital camera resolution. There are a few BIG complaints I have about it. 1) no IS, 2) price with no IS, 3) I liked the old hood design..

But looking at the same shots, taken at the same place (weddings shot at the same venue under the same conditions) the V2 is much better on the sharpness and contrast. Final image is better.  Wide open it is amazing how much it vignette, but not as bad as the 1st.

I stand by one thing. If you make money shooting, and 90% of all your shots are with a 24-70 @ 2.8-4.0, this lens is worth it.. If this is a hobby, or you shoot more 4-5.6 and higher, NOT worth it,,,

What is that worth to you?

And contrary to popular forum beliefs, it actually beats the new version in certain, at least to me, very important areas.

Personally I have more important things to invest in for the moment, so I'll skip the new version and will only buy it when and if my original breaks.

(but as usual a whloe lot of people jumps in talking about the 24-105 which is easily the worst performing L lens in the whole lineup - but its a kit lens so many people have it - the 17-40 may not be stellar either, but it is a speciality lens and really not comparable)

XeroJay
XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 1,383
Yes, if you shoot wide-open

Also if you shoot with the 5D3 or 1DX, you will have a tighter threshold for AF accuracy/consistency.

-- hide signature --

If there's typos, you can be sure I used my iPhone.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS M Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM +6 more
Marek07
Marek07 Regular Member • Posts: 364
Re: Yes, if you shoot wide-open

I bought the 24-70mm USM2 a few weeks ago for a shoot, and have to say it is probably one of the sharpest and fastest zooms I have used, very happy with it, although the price took some getting used to!

 Marek07's gear list:Marek07's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM +1 more
rsn48 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,422
Don't forget new Tamron lens with OS (IS) (nt)
-- hide signature --

Hind sight is always better than foresight, except for lost opportunity costs.

bronxbombers4 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,387
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

Also, used with a 5D3/1DX the AF is insane. I've gotten like 100 shots in a row with perfect focus at f/2.8 with the 24-70 II and the new AF system in those bodies. Never had that with any other combo before at f/2.8.

Center frame, a better copy, is crazy sharp f/2.8 70mm (edges not so much in that case, but whatever).

24mm at f/8 is pretty much matches the 24 1.4 II for landscapes something the older zooms absolutely did not do and it even has even less LoCA than the 24 1.4 II at 24mm and vastly less than the 24-105.

MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: Don't forget new Tamron lens with OS (IS) (nt)

I tried the Tamron for a few days.. Sharper then the old Canon 24-70 2.8, JUST BARELY . The OS was good, but the AF was not as fast or accurate

rsn48 wrote:

-- hide signature --

Hind sight is always better than foresight, except for lost opportunity costs.

OP Dave Seeley Senior Member • Posts: 1,051
Re: Yes, if you shoot wide-open

XeroJay wrote:

Also if you shoot with the 5D3 or 1DX, you will have a tighter threshold for AF accuracy/consistency.

Is there info on enhanced accuracy and consistency on the web - didn't see it mentioned on the Canon site....

-- hide signature --

pro photo-illustration
http://www.DaveSeeley.com/
current kit: 5DmkIII, 5DmkII, 17-35/2.8L, 24-105is/4.0L, 28-70/2.8L, 70-200is/2.8L, 100 macro/2.8L, 50/1.2L, 2x II extender, 8x550ex Speedlites, Phottix Odin Flash Triggers

OP Dave Seeley Senior Member • Posts: 1,051
Re: Is the new Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II worth $1300 more than a good used mark I?

bhollis wrote:

Not just CA. The II is also significantly sharper. It's also a little smaller and lighter, and also supposedly has a more robust build.

If you haven't already done so, recommend you read the reviews on the II, including the blog posts at Lens Rentals.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-24-70-mk-ii-variation

Thanks bhollis - the review at lensrentals was enlightening!...  It does make me more likely to bite that $1300 bullet.  I'd rent one first, but it's $105 that could be spent on owning one....

-- hide signature --

pro photo-illustration
http://www.DaveSeeley.com/
current kit: 5DmkIII, 5DmkII, 17-35/2.8L, 24-105is/4.0L, 28-70/2.8L, 70-200is/2.8L, 100 macro/2.8L, 50/1.2L, 2x II extender, 8x550ex Speedlites, Phottix Odin Flash Triggers

gabiphoto Regular Member • Posts: 163
Re: Don't forget new Tamron lens with OS (IS) (nt)

24-70 f/2.8 L II is more than twice more expensive than the 24-70 Mk 1. You think that the IQ will be at least 50% greater ? I don't think so. Starting with 2012, Canon made a new strategy:to simply increase the price with at least 60% for all the new lenses that are being released from now on (look at 24-70 2.8 II, 35 2.0 is , 24-70 f/4 L , etc).

I'm telling you,guys: lenses like 35 1.4L, 135 2.0L -are a bargain now compared with how much will cost their succesors. SO, BUY IT NOW, GUYS !!! Who knows what Canon is up to in the near future.Next week I'm gonna buy 135L and in 2-3 months I'm gonna buy 35L.

 gabiphoto's gear list:gabiphoto's gear list
Canon EOS 30D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM +2 more
MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: Don't forget new Tamron lens with OS (IS) (nt)

When I bought my 24-70 Mark I it was 1400-1500 years ago. That would be about $1600-1700 today.. So the new lens is $700 more.

Here is the thing, I HATE THE HIGH PRICE.. But after using a 24-70 V1 for 8 years, it is A LOT better on my 5DIII..

On my 1DII and 1DIII, I did not notice how the 24-70 2.8 v1 was not that great,, Only 8-10mp on a crop camera and the center of the lens was pretty good.. ON my 5DII and 5DIII I hated the 24-70 2.8.  BUT if was very painful spending 2300 on a non IS lens!

gabiphoto wrote:

24-70 f/2.8 L II is more than twice more expensive than the 24-70 Mk 1. You think that the IQ will be at least 50% greater ? I don't think so. Starting with 2012, Canon made a new strategy:to simply increase the price with at least 60% for all the new lenses that are being released from now on (look at 24-70 2.8 II, 35 2.0 is , 24-70 f/4 L , etc).

I'm telling you,guys: lenses like 35 1.4L, 135 2.0L -are a bargain now compared with how much will cost their succesors. SO, BUY IT NOW, GUYS !!! Who knows what Canon is up to in the near future.Next week I'm gonna buy 135L and in 2-3 months I'm gonna buy 35L.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads