pulling the trigger on an EF 24-70mm F2.8 L Mark I

Hey fellow POTNers! So after several days of reading and researching and hard thinking, I`ve decided I`ll get the above mentioned lens on Monday. I sold my 24-105 to help with the funding since the 105 FL is not very useful for me and i switch to my 70-200mm if I need extra reach.
The 24-70 will be used as my all-purpose lens and the wide side seems approriate for landscapes though I also have 17-40 if i need to go wider.
Any last thoughts before I make the purchase? Should i save more and get the mark II instead?

randalcandari wrote in post #16157529
Hey fellow POTNers! So after several days of reading and researching and hard thinking, I`ve decided I`ll get the above mentioned lens on Monday. I sold my 24-105 to help with the funding since the 105 FL is not very useful for me and i switch to my 70-200mm if I need extra reach.
The 24-70 will be used as my all-purpose lens and the wide side seems approriate for landscapes though I also have 17-40 if i need to go wider.
Any last thoughts before I make the purchase? Should i save more and get the mark II instead?

If you absolutely NEED maximal sharpness in that range, you should get the Mk II.
If you mainly look at the composition, the bokeh, etc... The Mk 1 is more then enough.

Its like, you need "absolute great", or "freaking awesome".

The 24-70 was a great workhorse of a lens before the II version was released. The fact that a newer version exists doesn't make the older version any worse, although there is now the option to drop insane coin for better sharpness.

I love the reverse extending lens with the fixed length lens hood on the original. I miss that in the new version, although the newer version is better in most (all?) other ways.

I don't make prints larger than an A4 so the extreme sharpness of the Mk II is not really an advantage for me. Is the difference in sharpness really that significant in real world applications? My biggest concern is it's performance wide open as I'll be using it at F2.8 quite a lot.
I don't mind waiting a few more weeks to save for the Mk II if the cost really justifies it .

If you're happy with the sharpness of the 24-105 then I don't think you need the mk2... if you were left disappointed with the 24-105 then the 24-70 mk1 isn't going to blow you away imho.

chrismarriott66 wrote in post #16162971
If you're happy with the sharpness of the 24-105 then I don't think you need the mk2... if you were left disappointed with the 24-105 then the 24-70 mk1 isn't going to blow you away imho.

Exactly my thoughts!!

Go for the Tamron VC version. Optically better than the Mk I Canon.

Although my mk2 version is slightly sharper than the mk1 was, it does not compete with my 70-200, which is razor sharp.

Whether that's because of sample variation and in general it is a good lens, I don't know.

geez, everyone's fixated on sharpness. Of course the newer mark II has improved optics but the original's still in the game. OP, the 24-70L Mark 1 is a superb lens, for years it has been the staple of photogs all over the world. If you got coin and you really need prime like sharpness in your application then save up for the Mark II.

My only concern with the mk I is the potential for slightly higher problems occurring time per lensrental's blog article:

http://www.lensrentals​.com …ir-data-january-july-2012

http://www.lensrentals​.com …0/the-limits-of-variation


In the first article, it was mentioned that personally owned lens will probably last longer because they won't be as mistreated as rented copies. But, that design flaw of the 24-70 makes me wonder if you'll be taking your 24-70 mk I to the shop for repairs over it, especially if you buy a used copy and can't verify how much use it had.

Personally I'd go for the Tamron and its longer warranty over the mk I. The annoyance for me would be dealing with 82mm diameter filters instead of 77mm.

It's a great standard lens to have in your bag when you need light, control, and flexibility. I would say it really shines on full-frame cameras thought, but it still good on crop. I have not personally tested the MK II of this lens, but I've been plenty satisfied with the MK I.

marcosv wrote in post #16163611
My only concern with the mk I is the potential for slightly higher problems occurring time per lensrental's blog article:

http://www.lensrentals​.com …ir-data-january-july-2012

http://www.lensrentals​.com …0/the-limits-of-variation


In the first article, it was mentioned that personally owned lens will probably last longer because they won't be as mistreated as rented copies. But, that design flaw of the 24-70 makes me wonder if you'll be taking your 24-70 mk I to the shop for repairs over it, especially if you buy a used copy and can't verify how much use it had.

Personally I'd go for the Tamron and its longer warranty over the mk I. The annoyance for me would be dealing with 82mm diameter filters instead of 77mm.

I'de also skip the mk1 for these reasons.

tamron's service has been superb from my experience. TAT about the same as canon's or possibly faster.

The VC has made me a sloppy shooter though. One handed shots... no problems. try the same thing on my 50, and motion blur I've done A4 shots with the 24-70 mk1 with really excellent sharpness wide open. I'm sure the tamron and canon mk2 are sharper, but good luck seeing it at A4 sizes, it's not happening.

it's a very very good lens, but it has some issues that make it not the best buy or even the best at the moment. if you must have the red ring, then it's your only option in this price range.

Thanks all for the replies and suggestions.
Other features I were considering are the weather sealing and the filter size. I did look at the Tamron 24-70 with VC because I was attracted by its lower price and optical capabilities but the filter size held me back as purchasing new filters would make it more expensive than getting the Canon.
The lensrental articles were really great reads. But I won't worry about them as I don't plan to abuse my equipment that much . I did say that personal lenses may have different results.
With that, I'll be picking up the canon mark I on Saturday. Took me a while to look for a new one since most stores no longer have them in stock.

randalcandari wrote in post #16157529
Hey fellow POTNers! So after several days of reading and researching and hard thinking, I`ve decided I`ll get the above mentioned lens on Monday. I sold my 24-105 to help with the funding since the 105 FL is not very useful for me and i switch to my 70-200mm if I need extra reach.
The 24-70 will be used as my all-purpose lens and the wide side seems approriate for landscapes though I also have 17-40 if i need to go wider.
Any last thoughts before I make the purchase? Should i save more and get the mark II instead?

Mark II since it has much better 24mm edges/corners for landscapes and it fights off LoCA/PF soo much better than the older lenses which is great for landscapes since you can often hit upon branches against sky and clouds and such

24-70 f/4 IS is probably better at f/8 than the one you are looking into too, tamron 24-70 VC might well too

or 24 2.8 IS

IMO only those (And 24 T&S II and 24 1.4 II) can really handle 24mm truly well for landscapes on FF, the old 24-105 forget it and the 24-70 I was supposed to have lots of copy variation with most by far not fully cutting it either.

the 24-70 I is also reported to have internal pins break over time and wack out 70mm performance after time

randalcandari wrote in post #16157670
I don't make prints larger than an A4 so the extreme sharpness of the Mk II is not really an advantage for me. Is the difference in sharpness really that significant in real world applications? My biggest concern is it's performance wide open as I'll be using it at F2.8 quite a lot.
I don't mind waiting a few more weeks to save for the Mk II if the cost really justifies it .

Well the f/2.8 II not only radically improved edge and corner sharpness on the wide end (not as much on the long) stopped down or wide open, but it also gave f/2.8 center frame performance a nice solid boost. The new one also fights off LoCA/PF amazingly well too. The new one also uses the new ultra-precision AF engine so when paired with a 5D3 or 1DX it also focuses noticeably more precisely.

These are (processed in aCR and sharpened) all f/2.8 from 24-70 II (on 5D3) and all 100% crops: