24-70 mk1

I am tempted to buy a second hand one of the above. Is there much of an advantage in saving up my pennies for the ruinously expensive mk2?

TBH I'm unlikely to do that and have seen a used one at a very good price from a reputable dealer unless you convince me this is a bad idea and the new one is hugely better.

The mkI is a great lens but does have some design flaws... I have had both and wouldn't go back to the mkI after using the mk2. It all comes down to the price. If your willing to pay for the latest and greatest. If not a good condition mkI will not disappoint.

I'm certainly tempted. But I'm tempted by a lot of stuff at the moment

I'd go for the Tamron 24-70 VC.

I had a very sharp copy of mk1, but sold it to get the mk2. Is it really that much better? the answer is no, which I already knew ahead of time, but I just want the latest and greatest It is up to you to willing to pay for it or not.

The only downside to the Tamron seems to be the bokeh which isn't great in the shots I've seen though otherwise looks great.

I'm not going to pay just to have the newest version. As long as the mk 1 does the job. Focusses well and gives good IQ I'd be happy

willie45 wrote in post #16110260
The only downside to the Tamron seems to be the bokeh which isn't great in the shots I've seen though otherwise looks great.

If you mean the "onion" bokeh, the Canon Mk II has it too. Just no one mentions it because it says "Canon" on it.

bizzle23 wrote in post #16110020
I had a very sharp copy of mk1, but sold it to get the mk2. Is it really that much better? the answer is no, which I already knew ahead of time, but I just want the latest and greatest It is up to you to willing to pay for it or not.

i disagree. i used 4-5 different copies of the mk1 previously and none of them compare in sharpness to my mk2, especially wide open.

that being said, the mk1 is a fantastic lens at $1100. however, if you want the best and can swing $2100, then the mk2 will knock your socks off.