Will I see a big difference between I and II L-series lenses?

[Rocketman1978]

Looking at a 24-70 f/2.8L in the near future and I see that I can save a significant amount of money by purchasing the I over the II. Granted I would need to buy used but we're talking $1000 savings with a I over the II. I always thought I would go II since this would be a walking around lens but given the price difference I am now debating. I'm no professional by any means and with that I'm wondering if 'my eye' would tell a difference. Would I even care or find value in the II? Looking for anyone that has shot with both and did a comparison.

As an aside, my 70-200L is a "I" and I love it, have no issues whatsoever with it (then again I've never shot with a II). I shoot scenic on vacations, family and some entertainment venues I attend (for memories, not professional).

 

[KmH]

[h=2]Will I see a big difference between I and II L-series lenses?[/h]

No. Not a big difference, if any.

 

[Derrel]

The main area where the difference will be obvious will be in your bank or credit card balance. I base that on your self-described "I'm no professional" statement; the earlier version of the 24-70 Canon is pretty decent...same with their 70-200 2.8 models...under "normal-person usage" scenarios, I do not think the Mark II models are worth the extra cash outlay.

 

[Big Mike]

As far as I've seen, there is a difference...but it's typically something that you'd have to be specifically looking for, to see the difference. So that likely means that the average person wouldn't see the difference in the photos....so you'd have to ask yourself, who are you trying to impress?

Just about everyone says the new versions are better, but as mentioned, the cost factor is huge....and only you can answer the 'is it worth it?" question.

 

[Rocketman1978]

Good to know, I appreciate the comments guys, exactly what I was looking for! I'm pretty certain I would be perfectly happy with the "I" version, I suppose the wife would be happier too that I didn't spend the extra $1000.

 

[Rocketman1978]

Super excited, found a NIB 24-70 2.8L USM, should be on its way soon! Can't wait!

 

[TCampbell]

I own the original (the II didn't exist when I bought mine) and am _very_ pleased with it.

Keep in mind that to notice the difference on most lenses would require that you inspect the image at a very large size. Unless you're making really big prints, you're unlikely to notice that there is a difference.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Will I see a big difference between I and II L-series lenses?

No. Not a big difference, if any.

You have owned both of these to make this claim?


Yes, it is a big difference. I sold my mk1 long ago because was not happy with the sharpness. The mk 2 is so sharp even at wide open. It is by far my favorite lens unless I am shooting portraits. The bad thing about mk1 is the sharpness on the edges. I personally rather have the new tamron 24-70 vs mk1.

I think the mk 2 is sharper than the 35L and 24L. It just cant go to f/1.4.. that's about it.

Review ? Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II « Canon Rumors
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L Mark 1 VS Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L Mark 2 - Portraiture Comparison