Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??

  
 
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


My old 24-70mm f/2.8L is a lens I seldom start out on purpose to use. In sports I need longer and/or faster (really often both). In landscape it's TS and long teles on tripods. Still when doing reporting the lens I use the most is the 24-70. It's basic functional view (on a FF cam) covers so many of the situations a reporter ends up in: head shot of an interviewee, group shots of the check being passed, both close up and wider view of an accident scene, etc.

So my question to those of you who have owned the older 24-70 and moved to the new model - is there a $1K difference between the models? (This assumes selling the old one for ~$800 and buying new at <$1800.) I don't do studio work though I have been doing more "environmental" portraits of late. I don't do weddings but get talked into the occasion quincinera or similar family celebration. A lot of what I shoot with it ends up in a newspaper (and its online edition), so significant improvements in clarity will likely not be noticeable.

I've read some reviews and looked at the DXO mark which bluntly I take with a grain of salt. I don't need someone to make a decision for me, but would appreciate what changes or value the newer lens has brought to your work.

Thanks,

Robert



Jan 10, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Daan B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


The mkII is optically superior... you've read the reviews. Is it worth the extra cash? If you have to ask probably not. What do you miss in your current mkI?


Jan 10, 2014 at 10:47 AM
gwaww
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


I moved on to the Tamron. It's better than the original Canon and I really appreciate the vibration compensation. Because of that, I use it a lot more than I did the Canon.


Jan 10, 2014 at 10:53 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


I haven't "moved on", so I might be a little more objective than people telling you why it was a good idea that they did buy the new lens!

I used the new lens during at least one loaner period from CPS (on a loaner 5D3). It is a fantastic lens, and definitely superior to the first version in design and imaging.

But. . . like you, I have other prime lenses that can match or beat the new lens, and I have a very good (I feel it is outstanding) copy of the first version, model year UT (2005), which I bought new and has earned me more money than any other lens in doing events and a few twilight calendar shots.

Recently I picked up a used 24-105L (UY 2010), which is as good or better at imaging than my original 24-70L, with the addition of IS, and it is now my "go-to" lens for general photography. I'm happy with it through out its range -- kind of surprised, and sorry I waited so long to try it.

So, for me, with the multiple overlaps, including the 24TSE, 45TSE, 50/2.5 macro, 50/1.2L and Leica R 60 macro, I don't really feel that the new lens, at an additional $1k is worth it to me right now. Instead, I'd rather update my 24/2.8 and 35/2 to the new IS models for that money.

This is basically the same conclusion I came to about the 5D3 -- great camera, but a interim step for me and the type of shooting I do. I am still hunkered down with the 5D2 and 1Ds3 waiting for the next big thing to break. If I were starting out, I agree the 5D3 (or your new 1DX) and the new 24-70L II would be a great foundation. No qualms about saying that, having used all those gears.



Jan 10, 2014 at 11:03 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


Hi Robert,

The price is about right. Lens$db shows the 24-70/2.8 L goes for about $930 [E] to [E+] and $1200 [M-], on eBay.

I sold my Mark I a few years ago, and stuck with only the 24-105/4L IS for a while (for an AF zoom). I also use the Canon TS-E 17/4L and 24/3.5L II, and five or six Mamiya 645 on a Mirex M645 to EOS T-S adapter. When travelling light, the TS lenses stay at home, and I used a few Alt lenses alongside the 24-105/4L IS, when I wanted sharp corners (i.e. Contax Distagon 28/2.8 and Vario-Sonnar 35-70/3.4). Since getting the 24-70/2.8L II, I'll be selling these Alts, because the Mk II is better than the 28/2.8, and near-as-damn as good as the 35-70/3.4, which is actually a significant accomplishment. I'll still keep my TS lenses, and the 24-105L, but I actually use the 24-70/2.8L II more often than the 24-105/4L IS, which wasn't the case when I had the 24-70/2.8L (Mk I) and 24-105/4L IS.

I use the three f/2.8 Mk II zooms (16-35, 24-70, and 70-200), and they're all amazing on the 1DX. Pretty OK on the 6D, too.



Jan 10, 2014 at 01:28 PM
Greg M
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


From what you described you don't need to spend the money on the new version. You won't gain much at all for your use. Now a lens with IS or VC might be useful to you and you could add one of those to what you have instead of upgrading to the new 24-70.


Jan 10, 2014 at 02:08 PM
bin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


I would just use your original until it dies. The II is good but it's not that much better than the original. If I were to assign a value to it, I'd say the II is maybe $200-$300 better than the original.


Jan 10, 2014 at 07:10 PM
oldrattler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


Robert; We rented the 24-70 VII and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. After a week of testing Jean bought the Tamron. Not as good as the VII but better than the 24-70 VI. The cost is better also. Jim


Jan 10, 2014 at 08:06 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


Only you can really known what something is worth.

To me, for sure. It's almost totally free of purple-fringing/LoCA, it has more precise AF used with a 5D3 or 1DX, it pulls off the holy grail of being crisp edge to edge at and near 24mm on FF, it is very sharp anywhere near the center at f/2.8. The only weakness is the far edges on FF right at or near 70mm (center frame 70mm it's crazy sharp though, sharper at f/2.8 than the 70-200 f/4 IS or even the 70-300L with both of those at 70mm f/4). It's more compact and lighter.

I'll say this. I tried the 24-105L three times and not one stayed in my bag for even as long as a week. They just didn't do it for me on FF near the edge (even center frame my Tamron 28-75 2.8 had a bit more micro-contrast bite). So I got the 24 1.4 II. That did well, but it was limited to 24mm. The 24-70 II made me feel fine selling off the 24 1.4 II! It's every bit as sharp everywhere but the extreme corners in some situations and it has LESS LoCA/PF, although the prime has noticeably less distortion.

It's easily better than the 24-105L or 24 2.8 non-IS or 24-70 I at 24mm on FF, edge to edge (be it f/4 or f/8). It's even a bit better than the 24-70 f/4 IS at 24mm (although the f/4 IS has a bit less distortion, the least of any standard FF zoom). None of that old stuff cut it for me for the crispness I wanted to be able to get for landscape stuff at or near 24mm. The 24-70 II does almost exactly the same as the 24 1.4 II.

There is copy to copy variation, a bit much for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of it.



Jan 10, 2014 at 09:27 PM
maxx9photo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


You know you want it..


Jan 10, 2014 at 10:21 PM
halie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 24-70mm f/2.8L + $1000 >24-70mm f/2.8L II??


How large do you view your photos? That would have some bearing on whether it is worth the extra money. I've been perfectly happy with my 24-70L version one. I'm also very happy with my 70-200L Mk II, which is purported to match the 24-70L Mk II in sharpness. But for most of my uses, I don't see any big important difference between my 24-70 Mk I and the 70-200 Mk II, so I probably wouldn't get that much extra benefit from the 24-70 Mk II. That's the end of my story.


Jan 10, 2014 at 10:29 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.