24-70 MKI vs MKII

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.

While the new 24-70 mk2 is an improvement opver the mk 1, it is not as dramatic as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS upgrade. That was very dramatic and a real eye-opener.

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

In reality my 5+ year old 24-105L is still a great lens and I do not see myself replacing it anytime too soon with any of the current offerings of 24-70 f/2.8 lenses which is what I replaced with it in the first place. It has performed great all these years on a 5Dc, 5DmII and now on a 5DmIII I am even more impressed with it. The new 24-70L II my be slightly overall sharper and have better contrast but in reality the 24-70L II does not have IS nor can it go from 71-105mm both of which are more important to me. In reality most people are not going to be able to tell whether an image was shot with a 24-105L or a 24-70L II. In reality the lighter weight, larger focal range and image stabilization of the 24-105L will prove more useful, to more people on a daily basis, than the f/2.8, sharpness and contrast of the 24-70L II. In reality the vast majority of people will buy the 24-70L II simply because they want the best that Canon has to offer at this time and the vast majority of those individuals will still lack the ability and talent to create a better image with the 24-70L II than what they could have created with a comparable lens costing half as much. That's the reality of it!

Lowner wrote in post #15027876
While the new 24-70 mk2 is an improvement opver the mk 1, it is not as dramatic as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS upgrade. That was very dramatic and a real eye-opener.

All depends on your copy. My ver I and Ver II of 70-200mm f2.8 IS had very very small differences. I posted my test shots along with 135L here. maybe same is true of the 24-70 versions base don how good your ver I is.

bobbyz wrote in post #15029980
All depends on your copy. My ver I and Ver II of 70-200mm f2.8 IS had very very small differences. I posted my test shots along with 135L here. maybe same is true of the 24-70 versions base don how good your ver I is.

I'd agree if there were not the hundreds of squeals of delight when the mk 2 70-200 appeared. The response from the mk 2 24-70 introduction has been just a little more subdued and fits my own reaction.

Lowner wrote in post #15030536
I'd agree if there were not the hundreds of squeals of delight when the mk 2 70-200 appeared. The response from the mk 2 24-70 introduction has been just a little more subdued and fits my own reaction.

since you got both how about some side by side test shots from a real user?

bobbyz wrote in post #15031323
since you got both how about some side by side test shots from a real user?

I part exchanged my mk1 for the mk2, so cannot help here, I'm sorry.

agv8or wrote in post #15029843
In reality my 5+ year old 24-105L is still a great lens and I do not see myself replacing it anytime too soon with any of the current offerings of 24-70 f/2.8 lenses which is what I replaced with it in the first place. It has performed great all these years on a 5Dc, 5DmII and now on a 5DmIII I am even more impressed with it. The new 24-70L II my be slightly overall sharper and have better contrast but in reality the 24-70L II does not have IS nor can it go from 71-105mm both of which are more important to me. In reality most people are not going to be able to tell whether an image was shot with a 24-105L or a 24-70L II. In reality the lighter weight, larger focal range and image stabilization of the 24-105L will prove more useful, to more people on a daily basis, than the f/2.8, sharpness and contrast of the 24-70L II. In reality the vast majority of people will buy the 24-70L II simply because they want the best that Canon has to offer at this time and the vast majority of those individuals will still lack the ability and talent to create a better image with the 24-70L II than what they could have created with a comparable lens costing half as much. That's the reality of it!

That's exactly how I also think about it,
especially if a 24-105 is bought in a kit with a 5DII or 5DIII, the difference in price compared to a 5DIII + 24-70 II puts a 35L extra in your bag for example ...!

Lowner wrote in post #15027876
While the new 24-70 mk2 is an improvement opver the mk 1, it is not as dramatic as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS upgrade. That was very dramatic and a real eye-opener.

Really??? bummer.......

After reading this thread I tested my 24-70Lmk1 since its not longer my goto lens. I tested for sharpness and I was pleased with the useable sharpness especially when it comes to print. I still feel my 16-35L puts the 24-70L to shame for contrast and colour.

The 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 is certainly like owning a prime lens that so happens to be variable from 70mm to 200mm This is where I was blown away how well the mk2 performed.

I know i must step up to a newer 24-70L to gain some IQ. Even if its not dramatic I want a better performing zoom in that range.

why not rent the MK II, and do your own tests if you want to see them that much...
here's thedigitalpictures' ISO chart:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

agv8or wrote in post #15029843
In reality my 5+ year old 24-105L is still a great lens and I do not see myself replacing it anytime too soon with any of the current offerings of 24-70 f/2.8 lenses which is what I replaced with it in the first place. It has performed great all these years on a 5Dc, 5DmII and now on a 5DmIII I am even more impressed with it. The new 24-70L II my be slightly overall sharper and have better contrast but in reality the 24-70L II does not have IS nor can it go from 71-105mm both of which are more important to me. In reality most people are not going to be able to tell whether an image was shot with a 24-105L or a 24-70L II. In reality the lighter weight, larger focal range and image stabilization of the 24-105L will prove more useful, to more people on a daily basis, than the f/2.8, sharpness and contrast of the 24-70L II. In reality the vast majority of people will buy the 24-70L II simply because they want the best that Canon has to offer at this time and the vast majority of those individuals will still lack the ability and talent to create a better image with the 24-70L II than what they could have created with a comparable lens costing half as much. That's the reality of it!

This is pretty much my take but I do think there is more to it then what's on paper. Yes its just 1 stop faster but I feel the old 24-70 just produced slightly better photos. Maybe its the combination of better contrast, better bokeh etc. I only sold mine because I felt it was to bulky and I hated the reverse zoom, mine was a bit clunky and it would get tight at the wide end and loose at the long end. Just an awkward lens to use. The Mark II seemed to address this.

That being said I would think for many it would be hard to justify the cost difference between the 2. Even 2.8 will require flash at times and that further negates the difference IMO. 24-105 can be purchased for about 1/3 the price so why the 24-70 maybe better, the 105 is really an outstanding value but again its a subtle difference and in photography getting something slightly better can get very expensive.
(50 1.4 to 50L, 85 1.8 to 85L, 17-40 to 16-35 just to name a few)

No pics?

Well, I am glad I have no choice but to wait till Christmas time to get my 24-70 I or II.. So, for now Ill just sit back and wait to see which would be the better choice.

Although that Tamron is looking tempting..

agv8or wrote in post #15029843
In reality my 5+ year old 24-105L is still a great lens and I do not see myself replacing it anytime too soon with any of the current offerings of 24-70 f/2.8 lenses which is what I replaced with it in the first place. It has performed great all these years on a 5Dc, 5DmII and now on a 5DmIII I am even more impressed with it. The new 24-70L II my be slightly overall sharper and have better contrast but in reality the 24-70L II does not have IS nor can it go from 71-105mm both of which are more important to me. In reality most people are not going to be able to tell whether an image was shot with a 24-105L or a 24-70L II. In reality the lighter weight, larger focal range and image stabilization of the 24-105L will prove more useful, to more people on a daily basis, than the f/2.8, sharpness and contrast of the 24-70L II. In reality the vast majority of people will buy the 24-70L II simply because they want the best that Canon has to offer at this time and the vast majority of those individuals will still lack the ability and talent to create a better image with the 24-70L II than what they could have created with a comparable lens costing half as much. That's the reality of it!

Wow, do you realize how many times you used "in reality" in that paragraph?

In reality my 24-70 will be delivered tomorrow. I am going to hopefully replace my 35, 50 and 24-105 with the new 24-70 MKII. BUT in reality it has to feel right because I like all three of those lenses. I might really miss the 71-105 mm. I also might miss the creativity of the primes. in reality I might not. I will test it out and see, in reality it might be listed in the buy/sell forum by next weekend....

And in reality his post had nothing to do with the reason the OP started this thread....

jwp721 wrote in post #15036212
And in reality his post had nothing to do with the reason the OP started this thread....

Well, come to think of it, neither does mine really....

.....OP you can look at samples between the two versions HERE....As far as I know this is the only published comparison...