Canon 24-70 2.8 1 vs canon 24-70 2.8 11
Oct 20, 2015 15:46:30 #
LFingar wrote:
The reference is to the 24-70 L II, not the 70-200 L II. Two entirely different lens families.
Oh my, how did I confuse 24-70 L with the 70-200 L? Sorry about that. And thanks for helping!
I do own the 24-70 L also and love it. I have the older edition.
Oct 20, 2015 15:55:27 #
toast wrote:
Oh my, how did I confuse 24-70 L with the 70-200 L? Sorry about that. And thanks for helping!
I do own the 24-70 L also and love it. I have the older edition.
I do own the 24-70 L also and love it. I have the older edition.
You probably just haven't had enough coffee today! :-D
Oct 20, 2015 16:02:53 #
The series II doesn't really have any optical advantage over the series I. The electronics in the series II are more advanced than the series I. Neither have IS but if you need IS you probably shouldn't be using that lens anyway. Personally, I own the original version, a pristine EF 28-70 f/2.8, it's a really nice lens and although it may not be as fast as the newer ones, it's optical quality is second to none. I picked up a good used one several years ago for a few hundred dollars, had it professionally cleaned for $55 and its good as new and worth twice what I paid.
Oct 20, 2015 17:12:05 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Lensrentals.com has some interesting reviews in their forum, discussing the older Canon EF 24-70/2.8L and the newer Mark II version.
Both are really excellent lenses.
Lensrentals handles dozens of copies of any particular lens, professionally tests them after each rental, maintains repair histories on their lenses, and their stuff probably sees fairly rough handling, between spending a lot of time being shipped to and from renters, and being used by people on a short-term basis. They also like to tear apart and look inside lenses, just to see what makes them tick.
Lensrentals conclusions are basically:
The original 24-70/2.8L is very, very good. It uses a huge lens hood (makes sense when you see how it zooms)... And they noted that it may need occasional focus calibration (my 12-14 year old copy has never needed it... and it's been chewed on by horses, hauled around a lot and seen plenty of use). They attribute this to the internal design, some of the materials (nylon instead of brass, etc.) and wear & tear.
Lensrentals calls the 24-70/2.8L Mk II "one of the sharpest zooms ever made by anyone... rivaling even some of the best prime lenses"... based upon their own resolution tests of a number of copies. They also noted that Canon has changed the internal mechanisms, which allows a somewhat smaller lens hood to be used and that the internals are a bit beefier, which should hold calibration better (but it's still a bit early to really say for certain if this will be the case).
So, I'd say if you want a really excellent lens, feel free to get the original version and save a few bucks. If you can't accept anything less than the very best, save up some more and get the Mark II.
Personally I don't think a 24-70/2.8 really needs IS. Sure, it wouldn't hurt, but would add cost to an already expensive lens, as well as increase complexity and possibly even effect the uncompromising IQ to some extent. To me it makes more sense to put IS on the f4 version, as Canon did. I wasn't one of the people griping because Canon didn't add IS to the Mark II, yet I'm one of the biggest fans of IS on telephotos longer than 70mm (kinda wish the 135/2L had it, but still use one because it's another great lens... they also need to add IS to the 400/5.6L).
Both are really excellent lenses.
Lensrentals handles dozens of copies of any particular lens, professionally tests them after each rental, maintains repair histories on their lenses, and their stuff probably sees fairly rough handling, between spending a lot of time being shipped to and from renters, and being used by people on a short-term basis. They also like to tear apart and look inside lenses, just to see what makes them tick.
Lensrentals conclusions are basically:
The original 24-70/2.8L is very, very good. It uses a huge lens hood (makes sense when you see how it zooms)... And they noted that it may need occasional focus calibration (my 12-14 year old copy has never needed it... and it's been chewed on by horses, hauled around a lot and seen plenty of use). They attribute this to the internal design, some of the materials (nylon instead of brass, etc.) and wear & tear.
Lensrentals calls the 24-70/2.8L Mk II "one of the sharpest zooms ever made by anyone... rivaling even some of the best prime lenses"... based upon their own resolution tests of a number of copies. They also noted that Canon has changed the internal mechanisms, which allows a somewhat smaller lens hood to be used and that the internals are a bit beefier, which should hold calibration better (but it's still a bit early to really say for certain if this will be the case).
So, I'd say if you want a really excellent lens, feel free to get the original version and save a few bucks. If you can't accept anything less than the very best, save up some more and get the Mark II.
Personally I don't think a 24-70/2.8 really needs IS. Sure, it wouldn't hurt, but would add cost to an already expensive lens, as well as increase complexity and possibly even effect the uncompromising IQ to some extent. To me it makes more sense to put IS on the f4 version, as Canon did. I wasn't one of the people griping because Canon didn't add IS to the Mark II, yet I'm one of the biggest fans of IS on telephotos longer than 70mm (kinda wish the 135/2L had it, but still use one because it's another great lens... they also need to add IS to the 400/5.6L).
Oct 20, 2015 19:22:52 #
amfoto1 wrote:
br Personally I don't think a 24-70/2.8 really ne... (show quote)
Yes, IS should be seen as an expensive compromise of image quality for a convenience factor. The Canon 300mm f4 L non IS vs IS version is a good example.
Oct 21, 2015 20:46:09 #
Rambun79
Loc: Southern California
Hi LFingar,
These pictures look really good. May I ask you what shutter speed did you use? Thanks.
These pictures look really good. May I ask you what shutter speed did you use? Thanks.
Oct 21, 2015 21:07:16 #
Rambun79 wrote:
Hi LFingar,
These pictures look really good. May I ask you what shutter speed did you use? Thanks.
These pictures look really good. May I ask you what shutter speed did you use? Thanks.
Thank You!
Shutter speed varied from about 1/2 sec to 10 seconds or so. Using live view I just dialed the exposure up or down till I got the look I wanted on the view screen. I just left the ISO at 100, aperture at f/10, and then exposed it till it looked right.
Oct 22, 2015 01:43:05 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.