Replacing a 24-70 mk1 - what would you go for?

Having damaged my canon 24-70mm 2.8 mk1 lens I’m Looking to replace it. But what lens would you go for?

Another mk1?
A mk2 at over double the price?
Another brand maybe?
A different focal length?

Interested to hear your thoughts as I’m not up to speed with newer lens options.

Thanks
Phil

It depends on what type of photography you are interested in. If you want the f/2.8 aperture, I would get the Canon 24-70 II, as both the build quality and sharpness are improved over the Mark I. Maybe a refurbished model from the Canon store, a gray market model, or a used model you are looking to save money. Also consider the Tamron which has IS, unlike the Canon. I think Sigma might have a 24-70 Art lens too.

No idea. It is up to you. To me any L is L. Here is no any other brand to replace it. Marks are different story.
Willing to pay more? For what?

If you liked the 24-70 F2.8 L Mk1 and used it a fair bit then just go for the Mk2. It is a significantly better lens but not cheap - unfortunately!

johnf3f wrote in post #18817319
If you liked the 24-70 F2.8 L Mk1 and used it a fair bit then just go for the Mk2. It is a significantly better lens but not cheap - unfortunately!

not cheap but a lot less now than the 2400 I paid when the lens was first released

If you can wait then I would wait

R mounts will be released this year and You might want to jump to R technology

That said, the 24-70 V2 behaved perfectly on the EOS R with the adapter that I was using this week. So If you have to get it now, get the version 2. I have seen used ones for $1400.00 now

Thanks guys

Having looked at this a little myself I’m tempted with the 24-70 f4 lens. I like the fact it’s lighter and has the macro option, with a picture quality almost matching the 2.8 versions.

I never used my mk1 at f2.8 as the picture quality was poor, I guess mine was a bad one. So f4 doesn’t worry me.

I’m struggling to justify the price of the mk2 to be honest. That’s quite a hike and most people seem to think the difference is very marginal.

PGD wrote in post #18817763
Thanks guys

Having looked at this a little myself I’m tempted with the 24-70 f4 lens. I like the fact it’s lighter and has the macro option, with a picture quality almost matching the 2.8 versions.

I never used my mk1 at f2.8 as the picture quality was poor, I guess mine was a bad one. So f4 doesn’t worry me.

I’m struggling to justify the price of the mk2 to be honest. That’s quite a hike and most people seem to think the difference is very marginal.

anyone who says the difference between the two 24-70s is marginal probably hasn't used both lenses. where did you hear that? try reading reviews at the digital picture and lens rentals. at its release the 24-70L II was perhaps the finest zoom lens made by anyone and it still may be. a big reason to use canon is the glass and, imo, the 24-70L II is a must-own for FF shooters.

I don’t think I’ve ever read the mk2 is miles better to be honest. Just marginally better when peeping.

I have the 70-200 f2.8 mk1 and absolutely love it. I’d love to find a 24-70 which can get close to that.

I’ll pop to a camera shop tomorrow and see what they have and give some a try.

PGD wrote in post #18817804
I don’t think I’ve ever read the mk2 is miles better to be honest. Just marginally better when peeping.

I have the 70-200 f2.8 mk1 and absolutely love it. I’d love to find a 24-70 which can get close to that.

I’ll pop to a camera shop tomorrow and see what they have and give some a try.

"The Canon 24-70mm II is the best standard-range zoom ever made. By any manufacturer. Ever. It’s not close."

https://www.lensrental​s.com/rent/canon-24-70mm-f2.8l-ii

PGD wrote in post #18817763
Thanks guys

Having looked at this a little myself I’m tempted with the 24-70 f4 lens. I like the fact it’s lighter and has the macro option, with a picture quality almost matching the 2.8 versions.

I never used my mk1 at f2.8 as the picture quality was poor, I guess mine was a bad one. So f4 doesn’t worry me.

I’m struggling to justify the price of the mk2 to be honest. That’s quite a hike and most people seem to think the difference is very marginal.

I'm not pushing the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II, especially if you don't need f/2.8, but you can get a gray market one for $1381 through Canonpricewatch (eBay.) Wait for an eBay coupon and you can probably get another $100 off that.

umphotography wrote in post #18817632
If you can wait then I would wait

R mounts will be released this year and You might want to jump to R technology

That said, the 24-70 V2 behaved perfectly on the EOS R with the adapter that I was using this week. So If you have to get it now, get the version 2. I have seen used ones for $1400.00 now

This is really a bad post. The OP is asking about EF lenses, and you are recommending waiting for a RF lens (and require them to upgrade their camera to R as well).

As for the topic of this thread, I do love the 24-70 EF II for its sharpness, contrast, and lack of distortion. If you want to look for cheaper alternatives, I think the Tamron 24-70 VC G2 is the next popular.

I went from the Tamron 24-70-G1, to the 24-70mk2 and love it! The Tamron was great, but the canon is faster and sharper. I only upgraded because I scored on a deal at Adorama. I got my lens for $1400 with 4 year accidental care from canon during the holidays.

The typical "new gear immediately invalidates years old prior quality glass" syndrome!

Best replacement is the Sigma 35 Art, in the past I did the switch, f1.4 pics are way more sparkling isolated and the 24-70 range isn't that big (1 step backward = 24mm & 2 forward = 70mm)
As I bought the Sigma 50 Art I sold the 35mm, but possibly I'll buy the 35 again and sell my 24-70 2.8L I, even if it's close to my 50mm