difference between 1st version 24-70mm to 2nd version

iamsammy84 wrote in post #15261455
Do you think its worth the extra grand for the MKII? or is the MKI just as good?

im debating on the 24-70mm to the 24-105mm

I can tell you the 24-70 II is vastly superior to the 24-105 having compared the 2 quite closely recently. I haven't used the 24-70 (original) for quite a while, but the mk II is one incredible (dare I say it) flawless lens as far as image quality goes.

And now a 3rd version is also available, comes with IS....

ed rader wrote in post #15291210
no way is the mk I is "just as good". but whether the II is worth a grand more is your decision. to me it was worth it but i was never real happy with the brick and even less so with the 24-105L.

I never thought that the MkI was an ultra sharp lens either, the 24-105 is way sharper. So I imagine the MkII to be much better than both...

barryvj171 wrote in post #15292979
And now a 3rd version is also available, comes with IS....

it's f/4, so it's irrelevant to this discussion

sol95 wrote in post #15293124
it's f/4, so it's irrelevant to this discussion

Though it is another option for those not needing f/2.8 and it's both cheaper and has IS as well.

ed rader wrote in post #15291161
1) i don't notice any difference. there may be a difference but nothing that i have perceived.

2) the II does focus faster but the focus speed of the brick was not too slow.

3) yes! plus it's waaay more baggable because canon abandoned the stupid design which required the stupid bucket hood.

4) much sharper! very nicely complements the newer 70-200L zooms in resolution. an absolute joy to work with.

1) I was surprised at this as well. I switched between the two lenses on my mark IV ( I have only one 1D mark IV), pulled the focus ring to closest focus distance and then focussed on a low contrast object in low light. Obviously not a real life subject test but the 24-70 mark 1 would hunt a bit whereas the 24-70 mark 2 would go into focus and stay there. Don't ask me why. I did it as a little experiment playing around.

2) the brick is slower and it makes a difference for the subjects I follow. Basically,I'd given up using the 24-70 mark 1 for my badminton photos but the 24-70 mark 2 is a great lens and reliable worker. It depends on the subjects that you take photos of so what worked for me may not be the same for another person. In a studio, it may not make one iota of a difference. Another person borrowed my 24-70 mark 2 at the same badminton event to try out. That same evening, they went around the shops to replace their mark 1.....

4) sharper? I am not getting into that argument But the lens is a great performer.

Mk1's hood is v good at keeping water of the lens glass
If the Mk2 had IS then I would upgrade, but it doesn't so shalln't.

macaron95 wrote in post #15291594
profit from Canon is excessive for this update

QUICK!
Buy their stock before it shoots up to Apple heights...

mkII is lighter, but they used more plastic It is insanely sharp, but insanley expensive. Unless you are a pro I would buy mk1, but that is just me.

I have to be honest I keep wondering the same thing and in my search I come up with one thing all the time and that is it is not worth the extra 1000 $ .

What I mean is that the IQ benefit one gets from migrating from MK1 to MK2 is not worth 1000$.

And as I spend more time here I realize - think about it - before MK1 was announced - all the pros were haling MK1 as the "it" lens and all of a sudden when the new one came out everyone discovered the flaws of MK1.

I have MK1 and I am perfectly happy but I have also wondered the same thing.

inspectoring wrote in post #15294989
...all the pros were haling MK1 as the "it" lens and all of a sudden when the new one came out everyone discovered the flaws of MK1.

It's an artifact of being knocked off the top of the hill. The flaws have always been there from day 1. However, it was the king of the hill. There was nothing really to compare it too. The 24-105IS was a close competitor as there is a lot of overlap in functionality and the 17-55 took the crown for the crop arena, but for a FF body, the 24-70 was king.. that is until the MkII came out and smoked the 24-70 in many key areas.

So, the MkI is no better or worse than it was a few months ago but now there is a new king of the hill to compare it too and it just falls short in most of the key areas. Bottom line is that I don't think anyone is saying that it has become a bad lens, it's just that it's successor is that much better. The standard of measure has changed.

I've had the Mk II now for about a week and love it. I have mentioned in a few threads that I had the 24-105 and 24-70 the whole time I owned copies of the Mk I. About 95% of the time the 24-105 was the one I chose to use. The reason being that I hated the ergonomics, size, hood of the Mk I. I sold both to fund the Mk II and I now have the ergonomics that I like, and the faster lens and better sharpness. Its a lot of coin, but I was able to reduce the size of my kit while improving output. I don't think the Mk I is all of a sudden a terrible lens... and its a great value now. But I just hated it. No matter how great it is, if you don't use it because you don't like using it, then there is no point keeping it.