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

Sold my version 1 to a member of my photography group, and immediately I realized it as a BIG mistake! Just purchased the version 2, and I'm a lot lighter in the wallet.

Have the II version of this lens. Guess all I am is a 'fanboy'.

I posted a cry and sad emoticons because i couldn't bring mine from service since almost 4 years, the cost is too high, and i really don't know if it is still with them or lost or i can bring back even if i have that repairing money, but i am really planning to sell it immediately once i can bring it from service and go for mk2 or Tamron 24-70 or Tokina or Sony.

FEChariot wrote in post #18056508
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.

This tends to Be a zoom problem with focus and not a concern for a fast prime. I can easily be at F/2.5 and keep 2 in focus on a different plane. F/2.0 easily f they are on the same.....No so with a zoom on a different plane......F/2.8 and it falls off focal point very quickly with a zoom. 2nd person is often noticeably out.....not so with a prime

umphotography wrote in post #18057048
This tends to Be a zoom problem with focus and not a concern for a fast prime. I can easily be at F/2.5 and keep 2 in focus on a different plane. F/2.0 easily f they are on the same.....No so with a zoom on a different plane......F/2.8 and it falls off focal point very quickly with a zoom. 2nd person is often noticeably out.....not so with a prime

So you are claiming you get less DOF with a zoom at a smaller aperture than a prime using a larger aperture? Sorry the logic there fails me.

I have owned this lens for almost 7 years, have purchased it new in 2009.
I just can't find a good reason to upgrade to the new version II because my lens is sharp across it's entire focal range, maybe more between 50-70mm.
Maybe I was lucky because I haven't experienced the flaws that I have read so much about in this forum.

FEChariot wrote in post #18057165
So you are claiming you get less DOF with a zoom at a smaller aperture than a prime using a larger aperture? Sorry the logic there fails me.

Could be trying to say the zooms suffer from field curvature more than a prime which will typically be flatter. I think this is what he is talking about.

the brick was a lens that I used for years simply because there were no better options. I remember how the parrots used to claim the design which required massive bucket hood was superior. good riddance. the II is the best zoom on the planet and I love it. my second choice would be the 24-70L f4. third would be tamron. brick and 24-105L = never again.