Would you sell 24-70 2.8 & 24-105 IS to buy 24-70 2.8 II

Most definitely.

I'm waiting to see how the 24-70 f/4 IS shakes out. Have you considered waiting for that one?

convergent wrote in post #15268672
OK, so I did the deed. The 24-70 went to a fellow POTNer and a local buyer just picked up the 24-105. I have a 24-70 f/2.8 II in the mail that will be here tomorrow. So I don't currently have a lens shorter than 85mm... I hope the wife doesn't want a family picture tonight or I'll have to stand outside the window, OR, carefully hold my iPhone underneath the 5D when she isn't looking. Tomorrow will be fun. There will also be a 70-200 f/2.8 II on the truck. I'm hoping these two lenses with the 5D3 will handle the majority of my shooting, the very short and very long ends not withstanding. That will be another thread.

Congrats!

You will not regret your decision after you see the quality of the pics. I went the same way, 24-105 - gone, 24-70 Mk II gone, new 24-70 Mk II purchased. I use this with my 5D III 90% + of the time. The other lenses sit and collect dust. I would do it all over again if I had to do it again. Love this combination....

snowblower wrote in post #15270932
You will not regret your decision after you see the quality of the pics. I went the same way, 24-105 - gone, 24-70 Mk II gone, new 24-70 Mk II purchased. I use this with my 5D III 90% + of the time. The other lenses sit and collect dust. I would do it all over again if I had to do it again. Love this combination....

I'm actually trying to get to a similar kit to what you have... the 3 f/2.8 II zooms - 16-35, 24-70, 70-200.... something for the long end, a 100-400, or swapping out my 200 1.8 for a 300 2.8 maybe... and maybe a couple of primes in the mix... maybe the 135. With the 5D3, I'm hoping the three 2.8 zooms though will rule most situations.

Out for delivery now... my 3 favorite words!

LV Moose wrote in post #15269921
I'm waiting to see how the 24-70 f/4 IS shakes out. Have you considered waiting for that one?

I thought about it, but I shoot a lot of low light sports and had been using primes to cover the wide end. So an f/4 would not be nearly as useful to me as f/2.8.

Got the lens and love it. The form factor is more similar to the 24-105 than the old 24-70, which I like... but overall updated much more. My initial shots last night were quite good, and will post a few when I get time to go through them.

Here's one I took last night just fooling around with the new lens on a 5D3. This was at ISO12800, f/2.8, 1/30s.

Haven't read any of the thread but to answer the titular question: Yes. Yes I would.

ions wrote in post #15296349
Haven't read any of the thread but to answer the titular question: Yes. Yes I would.

Haha! Me too!

I'm happy with the switch.

If u own both the 24-70 and the 105 you should consider why u bought both to begin with. Maybe u prefer one length over the other, maybe u like IS and of course the aperture. But u may also want to slow down before u take the plunge and think about the advantages of the doubly expensive version two. What on earth has Canon done to make this thing so much more expensive? Is it advertising bills u have to pay for? Or have they gone and performed a miracle in the desert? Every time they come out with something some people jump on the magic carpet and ride over to "L" world. But in the end it's your decision. The new version may be better and that's all u need to know.

Frankenheimer wrote in post #15298960
If u own both the 24-70 and the 105 you should consider why u bought both to begin with. Maybe u prefer one length over the other, maybe u like IS and of course the aperture. But u may also want to slow down before u take the plunge and think about the advantages of the doubly expensive version two. What on earth has Canon done to make this thing so much more expensive? Is it advertising bills u have to pay for? Or have they gone and performed a miracle in the desert? Every time they come out with something some people jump on the magic carpet and ride over to "L" world. But in the end it's your decision. The new version may be better and that's all u need to know.

I guess you didn't read through the whole thread. I already made the switch and am happy with it. But you raise a good question... why did I have both to begin with. When I bought the 24-70 Mk 1, I actually bought 2 of them. I was doing commercial work and needed 2 bodies with 24-70 lenses that were weather sealed for the work I was doing. They were used on 1D2s and almost always on a tripod. After I stopped doing that work became more focussed on action sports, I got rid of one of them and always had hopes of shooting f/2.8 for indoor sports. I rarely was able to, due to bad lighting and gravitated towards shooting with primes instead... primarily the 50 f/1.4 instead of the Mk1. But I kept it and hoped for better lighting. I rarely ever used the Mk 1 as a "walk around" lens because I hated the hood, the ergonomics, weight, etc.. I ended up buying the 24-105 and loved it. It became my walk around lens, and yet I still had hope that at some point f/2.8 would be enough for sports. The big clunky Mk 1 stayed on the shelf or in my storage bag and rarely made it into the backpack for the day.... if ever.

So now what got this thought rolling was my move from a 1D3 to 5D3, giving me the ability to use a stop less light, and opening up the f/2.8 world for my indoor sports shooting. So if I'm going to be using the 24-70 more, I saw the Mk II and liked the design a lot better... its sharper... and its got better AF particularly with the 5D3.

So I don't think Canon created a miracle. They simply updated a 10 year old lens with the latest technology and optics, and produced a lens that seems tailor made for what I want. I won't lie, I do wish it had IS... not sure why they chose to not include it since they are coming with an f/4 IS so soon. Surely they had the tech available to do it. But for what I'm shooting, f/2.8 + 5D3 ISO capabilities will get me where I need to be in most cases.

From a pricing standpoint, which has been discussed to death, I think the Mk II is priced about where the Mk I was when it was first introduced. I don't look at the absolute cost of something like this, but think more of my use and depreciation. I don't believe it will drop in value quicker than the value of the use I get from it. And, my youngest of 4 will only be playing HS and club sports for another couple of years so I'd like to enjoy that time while I can.

ed rader wrote in post #15269428
on FF the 24-105L is horrible @ 24mm. even the brick is much better @ 24mm and the II is better yet plus sharper.

Ed.

You must of had a really bad copy. 24-105 is one of my sharpest and favorite lens to use. Ive got a excellent 24-105 and would never part with it. We also have an excellent copy of the brick so im staying put. Im using my primes more these days anyway so thats another reason im not upgrading. The 50 and 85L's are glued to cameras and the zooms are only being used at receptions and circumstances that i cant move about in. Lots of reasons to keep current versions, lots of reasons to change to the version II 24-70...I want great glass that can do F/2.0.....just my thoughts.

Congrats Mike, glad you went that way and seems like you're enjoying the combo. If you dont mind share a couple more images of the two?