Just need your expert inputs as my girlfriend is hesitating between these 2 versions to use on her Canon R5. The first version comes here in Europe at approx. 500eur and the second at around 1000eur.
This is a substantial difference in price so I was wondering if it is really worth spending the double. It would be to replace her 24-105 II. And is the first version sharp enough at 2.8?
Let me know what are your opinions and what you would do. PIctures are of course welcome
lists the supported lenses for H+ shooting and the version 1 is not part of this list. Version 2 is so if she is planning on shooting action or would just like to be able to utilize the full burst speed of the R5 then you should go with version 2.
Just need your expert inputs as my girlfriend is hesitating between these 2 versions to use on her Canon R5. The first version comes here in Europe at approx. 500eur and the second at around 1000eur.
This is a substantial difference in price so I was wondering if it is really worth spending the double. It would be to replace her 24-105 II. And is the first version sharp enough at 2.8?
Let me know what are your opinions and what you would do. PIctures are of course welcome
Thanks to all and stay safe!
Vo
Haven used but v2 is supposed to be much better. I tend to use the lenses I already have if I'm happy, might just use 24-105. But the 24-70 v2 is supposed to be excellent
Just need your expert inputs as my girlfriend is hesitating between these 2 versions to use on her Canon R5. The first version comes here in Europe at approx. 500eur and the second at around 1000eur.
This is a substantial difference in price so I was wondering if it is really worth spending the double. It would be to replace her 24-105 II. And is the first version sharp enough at 2.8?
Let me know what are your opinions and what you would do. PIctures are of course welcome
Thanks to all and stay safe!
Vo
I’ve used both lenses briefly. The 24-70I is an okay lens. It won’t resolve very well on the R5–I expect your girlfriend’s 24-105mm is a sharper lens! The 24-70mm II is an outstanding lens and it would actually feel like an upgrade. It’s more expensive, but it’s better in every way in meaningful areas as far as I’ve seen (sharpness, focus, frames per second, color output, flare resistance, sunstars, bokeh). The 24-70mm II is a much better optic, one of the most-praised zooms Canon has ever made. I’d recommend it over the earlier version if at all possible.
Just need your expert inputs as my girlfriend is hesitating between these 2 versions to use on her Canon R5. The first version comes here in Europe at approx. 500eur and the second at around 1000eur.
This is a substantial difference in price so I was wondering if it is really worth spending the double. It would be to replace her 24-105 II. And is the first version sharp enough at 2.8?
Let me know what are your opinions and what you would do. PIctures are of course welcome
Thanks to all and stay safe!
Vo
I have two of the 24-70/2.8 IS and one of the 24-70/2.8 IS II. The IS II is better, especially at the wider apertures. The original version has a high field curvature in the far corners at some focal lengths. Ultimately I used the 24-70/4 IS far more than the 24-70/2.8 IS II since I was using it mostly at f/8. I've also had two of the original 24-105/4, which are not good in the corners.
Since getting the R5 I've been using the RF 24-105/4. If you don't absolutely need f/2.8 then consider that lens as it is quite good. If f/2.8 is needed then get the IS II or pony up for the RF model.
I had the v1 version before getting the RF 24-70 f/2.8. The difference for me was night and day. I believe the v2 EF is much closer to the RF in image quality.
Main difference between the two is sharpness off center. If you search, there are some detailed photo comparisons using the 5DSR of both. Either is great; V2 is greater.
I've owned two of each, and the v2 is consistently so. much. better. In every regard, I liked the v2 better, maybe with the exception of the lens hood, where the v1 had the reverse zooming where it was longest at 24mm, meaning the hood was far more effective across the range. But I would not hesitate for a second to get the v2.
Not only is the v2 better optically despite a slightly inferior shade design, but has a far more robust internal construction than the first version of the lens. With v1, the focus and zoom guides *will* wear out and will require expensive repairs if you can even get the parts today. For that reason alone, get the v2.
Agree with the others MKII. When I upgraded to MKII I kept my MKI because as Stan mentioned the hood. I envisioned I would use the older one on snowy and rainy days. Two years later I had used it once. I sold it. The MKII is sharper.
It’s good to know that OP’s girlfriend is leaning towards the V2. To further strengthen their decision making;
I owned the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L (classic) for a month approx. It was sharp stopped-down to f/4 and lower. There are reported copy variations in this version, but I had a good copy (well centered). I still miss its unique colour rendition and efficient hood design.
I own the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II. It is sharp starting from f/2.8 itself, should be able to meet demand of high resolution sensor of the R5. I consider it as a ‘zoomable prime’, and don’t use my fast primes in this focal range unless very shallow depth of field is needed or keeping good shutter speed becomes a challenge in low light. Lack of IS should not be an issue, when combined with IBIS. Highly recommended.
Here's the opticallimits test of v1. It goes into detail on the potential issues but the results really not too bad. Read the article though he had sample variation:
Photonadave wrote:
Based on the recommendations thus far it's obvious to me that the OP will thoroughly enjoy borrowing girlfriend's new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens.
I currently have the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM and love its IQ & portability.
I think my 7D2 came with 24-70 F4 lens and I sold it to a friend. He loved it. There were days I wish I had kept it.
I don't know much about the EF 24-70 2.8 besides what I read. I know I debated a lot about it. It didn't take much to push me into getting version II and I really liked it. I did not regret that purchase.
I have owned the EF 24-70mm f2.8L (v1) since 2006. The first one I got was backfocused by a millimeter. The second one I kept. Like most v1's it is great at 70mm but a bit soft at 24mm.
While the helicoid runner collars are indeed a source of variation:
Roger does note "Finally, for those of you (and there are a couple of million of you) who own a Canon 24-70, please don’t go off the deep end because of this demonstration. Remember, these are rental lenses. They get used heavily an average of 90 days a year (and probably not as gently as you would use your own equipment). Plus they are shipped all over the country, an average of 20 round-trips a year. As I’ve always said, Lensrentals.com should be considered battle testing for photo equipment. Whatever can fail, will fail here. It doesn’t mean your copy is going to do this."
I wouldn't discount a v1 because of potentially being damaged any more than any other lens. Mine has been great for 15 years of travel, charity events, you name it I had them checked in 2013 and they were fine.
I would however discount a v1 because the EF 24-70mm f2.8L II (v2) is optically better. I just haven't felt it was worth the difference to upgrade, personally. If you have a v1, going to the v2 might not be that big of a deal, especially if you're mostly at the 70mm end. If you have neither, I'd go for the EF v2. The day my v1 dies though, I'll be getting that RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS. Side note, I was told in 2006 any day they'll be making an IS version. Took thirteen years!
Peter Figen wrote:
Not only is the v2 better optically despite a slightly inferior shade design but, has a far more robust internal construction than the first version of the lens. With v1, the focus and zoom guides *will* wear out and will require expensive repairs if you can even get the parts today. For that reason alone, get the v2.
I second what Peter says. I owned the original v.1 for a long time and used it primarily for events and a bit for city twilight. Optically it was pretty good but had to be repaired twice by CPS for the mechanical guides. The v.2 is quite a bit better optically as well as mechanically. I still use the v.2 on Canon R as well as on Sony a7R4 via adapters. Great lens!
The new RF 24-105/4L IS is also very good -- better than the EF version, but not as good optically as the EF 24-70/2.8 L II. I have both currently.
