Canon 24-70 2.8 L old version vs 2.8 L II new one
Oct 3, 2018 11:45:45 #
I've read a lot of reviews and watched a bunch of youtube videos regarding the differences between the two. Is the new one actually that much better? I'm trying to justify the price difference between the two. HELP!
Oct 3, 2018 11:55:58 #
Are you a pro? Does your livelihood depend on a lens?
If not, I would say no.
I have the original, its a great lens.
I will not replace it
If not, I would say no.
I have the original, its a great lens.
I will not replace it
Oct 3, 2018 12:25:30 #
zzzynick wrote:
Are you a pro? Does your livelihood depend on a lens?
If not, I would say no.
I have the original, its a great lens.
I will not replace it
If not, I would say no.
I have the original, its a great lens.
I will not replace it
Those are my exact thoughts. Thanks!
Oct 3, 2018 12:40:08 #
When the version II was released it was rumored many photographers began side lining their primes because of the sharpness throughout the focal length. The lens is versatile in dynamic situations like weddings and event shooting. Admittedly the F2.8 can't touch the 1.4's or the lightweight design of primes. However, the biggest issue with the version I's was copy variation. I have read a multitude of reports where photographers sent back their lenses because of softness several times. It was said you were VERY lucky to get a sharp 24-70 2.8L version one. The version II's are considerably more consistent. I can only speak for my version II and I have nothing but praise for the sharpness and color rendition. It's among my favorites to use.
Oct 4, 2018 07:34:39 #
rydabyk wrote:
I've read a lot of reviews and watched a bunch of youtube videos regarding the differences between the two. Is the new one actually that much better? I'm trying to justify the price difference between the two. HELP!
I have the original. Good lens. But there are some in this forum who commented on the new after they traded in the old. They said it was worth the difference.
Oct 4, 2018 07:51:30 #
Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn't the II have Image Stabilization (IS)? Did a version III come out?
Oct 4, 2018 08:41:34 #
ggenova64 wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn't the II have Image Stabilization (IS)? Did a version III come out?
It does not have IS.
Oct 4, 2018 08:42:12 #
Oct 4, 2018 08:45:31 #
Version I had IS and so does Version II.
Mark
Mark
rydabyk wrote:
It does not have IS.
Oct 4, 2018 08:48:34 #
ggenova64 wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn't the II have Image Stabilization (IS)? Did a version III come out?
No stabilazation. Not aware of a III being out yet. The II that I have is a very sharp lens. Can't speak to the 1st generation as I never used one. If I had a 1st generation I doubt I would be looking into a II.
The 70-200 III is out and I am not looking to upgrade my II. Just can't see that there is that much of an advantage.
Bill
Oct 4, 2018 08:59:29 #
ggenova64 wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn't the II have Image Stabilization (IS)? Did a version III come out?
Version III is f4 with IS
Oct 4, 2018 09:25:36 #
I have the first version and it is a great lens. I would buy it again. The two things it does not have are image stabilization and perhaps more importantly, a lock for the zoom feature. This lens telescopes when it zooms, and as soon as I got it I realized that it will telescope on its own when you carry it with lens pointing down. It is a heavier lens, so it will point down in a camera strap mode. I had to add a wide rubber band (trick I learned on this forum) which solves the problem. Good luck with your decision. JimR
Oct 4, 2018 09:28:57 #
markngolf wrote:
Version I had IS and so does Version II.
Mark
Mark
Incorrect, at least with regard to Version II. I just checked the Canon web site. The lens is called EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM and, thus, does not have IS.
Oct 4, 2018 09:39:16 #
Oct 4, 2018 09:41:08 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.