24-70 MKI vs MKII

There are SO MANY posts here and in many other forums about this lens, but not one that talks about WITH PICTURES the differences between the old one and the new one. Can someone please spend literally 15-20 minutes taking "low-light" pictures "wide-open" of random things at various focal lengths with both lenses? It would also help tremendously if there was ever a comparison of ISO chart pictures. It blows my mind how there are still no proper reviews of this lens.

The other thread "24-70 II arrived" is full of "I got my lens" posts, but no comparisons. I guess once people get their lens, they forget about the reality

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15024388
There are SO MANY posts here and in many other forums about this lens, but not one that talks about WITH PICTURES the differences between the old one and the new one. Can someone please spend literally 15-20 minutes taking "low-light" pictures "wide-open" of random things at various focal lengths with both lenses? It would also help tremendously if there was ever a comparison of ISO chart pictures. It blows my mind how there are still no proper reviews of this lens.

The other thread "24-70 II arrived" is full of "I got my lens" posts, but no comparisons. I guess once people get their lens, they forget about the reality

I can and will this weekend because I now have both as the Mark II arrived today. Look at the thread you list above on Sunday afternoon as I will have a link to pics up by then

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15024388
There are SO MANY posts here and in many other forums about this lens, but not one that talks about WITH PICTURES the differences between the old one and the new one. Can someone please spend literally 15-20 minutes taking "low-light" pictures "wide-open" of random things at various focal lengths with both lenses? It would also help tremendously if there was ever a comparison of ISO chart pictures. It blows my mind how there are still no proper reviews of this lens.

The other thread "24-70 II arrived" is full of "I got my lens" posts, but no comparisons. I guess once people get their lens, they forget about the reality

there are comparisons, but not sure why ISO chart is needed, this is a lens comparison not camera body.

anyhow, here's a start: http://www.flickr.com …8082/in/pool-1754255@N21/

How long has this lens been available? And how long has it been widely available? The "proper" reviews will come with time. If you want more in depth reviwes, then place your order and take the reigns for yourself.

Some of the more "in depth" reviews show the mk2 to be "the best". However, the mk 1 is really good too. Folks will need to question if it is worth the upgrade. That's a very simplistic answer.

mannetti21 wrote in post #15024968
How long has this lens been available? And how long has it been widely available? The "proper" reviews will come with time. If you want more in depth reviwes, then place your order and take the reigns for yourself.

The reviewer sites have had access to this lens long enough, about 10 days now. A test like this will take a few hours at max, and that's the the "pro" tests.

Anyways, no point of arguing, would be great if someone posted charts.

I think the 24-70Lmk1 being upgraded to mk2 is a much more substantial jump in IQ if you compare it to the revision of a 70-200 f/2.8is vs mk2 upgrade.

On print the 24-70L mk1 will produce fine photos. Small aperture studio work the "brick" performs well.

At this moment in time if you dont own a 24-70L I would without a doubt go with a mk2 for the superior overall performance both in ridiculously sharp photos wideopen using available light and easy small aperture photo work. If I had to use my 24-70L at 35mm I would rather use my 16-35 (using 24mm and 35mm) than my brick being used in the same range. Even my 16-35Lmk2 has much more micro contrast and crisp images than my excellent copy 24-70L.

What reality? we only buy expensive lens to shoot charts, bricks, and walls. That's our reality!

AlanU wrote in post #15025443
I think the 24-70Lmk1 being upgraded to mk2 is a much more substantial jump in IQ if you compare it to the revision of a 70-200 f/2.8is vs mk2 upgrade.

On print the 24-70L mk1 will produce fine photos. Small aperture studio work the "brick" performs well.

At this moment in time if you dont own a 24-70L I would without a doubt go with a mk2 for the superior overall performance both in ridiculously sharp photos wideopen using available light and easy small aperture photo work. If I had to use my 24-70L at 35mm I would rather use my 16-35 (using 24mm and 35mm) than my brick being used in the same range. Even my 16-35Lmk2 has much more micro contrast and crisp images than my excellent copy 24-70L.

how do you know you have an excellent copy of the 24-70? That's the problem, you only think you do. Lensrental has an article on the 24-70 mystery that's kind of disturbing. Essentially it softens over time.

Charlie wrote in post #15025473
how do you know you have an excellent copy of the 24-70? That's the problem, you only think you do. Lensrental has an article on the 24-70 mystery that's kind of disturbing. Essentially it softens over time.

I've used several copies and my copy is 9/10 IMO for that old tech lens. Its recently been to CPS for full calibration and cleaning.


I use this lens as a workhorse for flash photography since you can stop down the aperture aswell as getting the cleaner crisp effects of flash vs less contrasty available light shooting. I really feel this is one of my worst lenses I own for IQ using available light. I guess we are fortunate putting digital files into print hides alot due to lower res. Cant wait to buy a mk2 after I build my 600ex-rt flash kit.

mannetti21 wrote in post #15024968
How long has this lens been available? And how long has it been widely available? The "proper" reviews will come with time. If you want more in depth reviwes, then place your order and take the reigns for yourself.

yep. in about six months there will be more truth than fiction on these forums and then i'll decide whether to get the sonofabrick .

ed

Charlie wrote in post #15025473
... Lensrental has an article on the 24-70 mystery that's kind of disturbing. Essentially it softens over time.

That's the original 24-70... and it's due to wear in the focus mechanism or bumps knocking things out of adjustment. Just needs a tune up and a couple parts replaced every so often. I've had mine for 4 or 5 years now (at least) and no sign of problems yet.

Lensrentals.com couldn't help themselves but take apart one of their new 24-70IIs to see how it's assembled, wondering if it looked like it would be more durable and less prone to getting out of adjustment than the original version... Their report is very encouraging. It looks like Canon might have been taking this into conderation during their re-design. Of course, only time will tell, but this looks like a good start.

Lensrentals.com also has done some initial testing of the 24-70II, with some pretty impressive results. It's amazing to see a zoom out-resolving some excellent primes!

I dunno... I've been very happy with my original 24-70... Can't imagine dropping such a large chunk of change on an "upgrade" to an already very good lens... But even as good as the original is, the Mark II looks like Canon might have knocked the ball completely out of the park. I will wait for a while, though, to see what early adopters report.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15025176
The reviewer sites have had access to this lens long enough, about 10 days now. A test like this will take a few hours at max, and that's the the "pro" tests.

Anyways, no point of arguing, would be great if someone posted charts.

Well, I'm not an official reviewer with a rep to look after, but I would treat any review posted with a couple of days of release as premature and rushed. Any reviewer worth the title will want to spend quite a bit of time testing the product, and then carefully composing their views.

Of course, some reviewers will want to be 'first out of the blocks' and so will rush out a preliminary review, but other than repeated Canon's own press releases and giving initial impressions, that sort of review isn't much use for deciding whether or not to splash the cash.

I can't post comparison pics between the 24-70 F2.8L MKI and MKii anymore as I don't have the former anymore.Sold it the day after I got the MKII version.Anyway,I can say for sure that the MKII is sharper,especially at F2.8 and also at 70mm focal length.It has also better color rendering and contrast as compared to the MKI version.Aa far as build quality goes,the MKI version may only look or be better because of it's weight but I'm not too sure of this.If you scrutinize the MKII more carefully,it may feel lighter but feels very solid.To be honest,the only thing that I miss from the MKI as compared to the MKII is it's weight.I don't know but for some reason,I like my gears a bit heavy.Now,if you ask me if the MKII is worth $1,000.00 more than the MKI,maybe not but even then,I'm happy that I made the upgrade.

To be quite frank...

The mk2 isn't worth the extra money for the extra IQ, for me.

If it were my money I would get the Tamron 24-70 VC which is the price of the mk1, the IQ is between the mk1 and mk2, and has vibration control (image stabilization.