I rebought the old 24-70 2.8L MK I, any other owners here that still work with this old boy? :-)

I had this lens a long time ago, I forgot how 'unsharp' it would be at f2.8, it can vary from copy to copy, just saw a youtube video but it isn't so bad at all, with a bit of extra sharpening in pp.
For this lens I sold my Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC as I didn't like the backward zoom.

I doubted till the last minute to rebuy the 35 Art, but as I had the 50 Art allready I opted for the zoom.
We'll see if I like it again, if not I sell it and go back to the 35 Art...

Just noticed Tokina made (again) perfect optics with their 24-70 2.8, a pity their AF motor is still not excellent fast next to their perfect glass...
http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tokina/24-70mm-f28.htm

"any other owners here that still work with this old boy"

All the time. I MFA my lens with FoCal software to dial it in on both ends.

I miss having this lenses sometimes, the close focusing ability was nice and the IQ was always good enough. I never used it as much as my wides or teles though.

I'm still very happy with mine...

Mine has always worked very well for me.

Its a great lens and I dont think the upgrade was worth the extra $$

personally, i prefer the 24-105 so I sold the Brick. I shoot fast primes. But the Brick was, and still is a GREAT lens. Most of the fan boys have not put the new version against the old version on a side by side shoot.....New 24-70 is better.....but not $1000.00 better and it does not do F/2.0

I will probably get killed for this remark. But most of these people that scream how great it is are fan boys and have never put these side by side to make conclusions......I have.....and I kept the brick.

eventually it was sold in favor of an all prime workflow

umphotography wrote in post #18054126
... and it does not do F/2.0

I don't understand this part of your post. How does an f/2.8 lens do f/2.0?

f8andBeThere wrote in post #18054275

umphotography wrote in post #18054126
... and it does not do F/2.0

I don't understand this part of your post. How does an f/2.8 lens do f/2.0?

It doesnt...

Im another satisfied customer of the brick

f8andBeThere wrote in post #18054275
I don't understand this part of your post. How does an f/2.8 lens do f/2.0?

Its limited to F/2.8

Most wedding and portrait photographers that I know buy lens that shoot at F2.o and below. F/2.8 isnt fast enough for most of our needs anyway. that was the point. so the 24-105 even at F/4 is a better lens for my needs. Your going to be at F/3.5 to keep two people in focus anyway. My opinion is the advantage shifts to the 24-105 With IS capabilities

I sold it a while ago as I didn't use it very often. Then I realized I need this focal length when doing family formal for weddings so I got the Tamron 24-70 VC for much less. The Tamron works out good and the IQ is very similar to the Canon, plus a much smaller hood. Still a good lens though!

I also use mine all the time and really love it. No complaints whatsoever, and I've discovered that not only does it weigh as much as a brick, it's built like one too - handles lots of abuse. It is one super-solid lens!

It's my main lens. It goes everywhere with me.

I use mine quite a lot when shooting sports in dark venues - the f/2.8 allows faster and more accurate AF in low light if your camera supports the high precision mode with its focus points. It's quite sharp at any reasonable aperture on both my 5D3 and 7D2. The internal focus/zoom hardware is not as well designed as the mk ii, so eventually mine will wear out and I'll replace it - assuming Canon stops repairing them.

umphotography wrote in post #18054295
Its limited to F/2.8

Most wedding and portrait photographers that I know buy lens that shoot at F2.o and below. F/2.8 isnt fast enough for most of our needs anyway. that was the point. so the 24-105 even at F/4 is a better lens for my needs. Your going to be at F/3.5 to keep two people in focus anyway. My opinion is the advantage shifts to the 24-105 With IS capabilities

If you are going to be at 3.5 to get more than one person in focus, then why bother with faster primes and not just get the one 2.8 zoom.

I get what you mean to say, you just didn't say it well there.